On Air: Is the international approach in Afghanistan all wrong?

Two stories have got you talking today and they are inextricably linked. President Bush is set to announce he’s to send more troops to Afghanistan. He will say that the improving security situation in Iraq will allow a “quiet surge” of troops in Afghanistan in coming months.

It comes on the same day that Asif Ali Zardari the widower of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, has been sworn in as Pakistan’s president. After the inauguration, Mr Zardari said Pakistan would work together with its neighbours, including Afghanistan, to deal with the region’s challenges.

Will a troop surge work in Afghanistan? Is Zardari the man to tackle extremism in the the North West Frontier Province?

Nato and the US have been criticised heavily in recent days by human rights watch over the deaths of civilians in Afghanistan. US and Nato forces are increasingly stretched against the resurgent Taleban and al-Qaeda, but is theirs and Pakistan’s approach the right one?

118 Responses to “On Air: Is the international approach in Afghanistan all wrong?”

  1. 1 Brett
    September 9, 2008 at 14:04

    Why bother with a surge? We could just bomb them, fly ole Dubya onto an aircraft carrier then declare a “Mission Accomplished” and hang out for another decade or so… Thats all thats really needed, isnt it?

    and on US human rights offense criticism:
    Good, I hope those in charge of the attack are reprimanded (like that will ever happen) for the innocent civilian (the majority of whom were children) deaths.

  2. 2 steve
    September 9, 2008 at 14:07

    @ Brett

    Just so you know, Obama, the Messiah, is in favor of increasing troops in Aghanistan. He isn’t the “peaceful savior” as claimed, he’s talked about attackinG pakistan as well, and Biden has used words of war against Russia.

    I’m curious, how many civilians have the taliban killed vs. NATO in Afghanistan and does The Taliban get so much attention when it DILEBERATELY targets civilians?

    I know, I know. Get with the program Steve, we have to bash the west and the US and ignore the far worse things going on.

  3. 3 Brett
    September 9, 2008 at 14:12

    Just so you know, Obama, the Messiah, is in favor of increasing troops in Aghanistan. He isn’t the “peaceful savior” as claimed, he’s talked about attackinG pakistan as well, and Biden has used words of war against Russia.

    Well aware of that… He’s still the lesser of two evils though lol.

    Maybe he can one up ole Dubya and fly onto a nuclear sub deck on a hot air balloon for his “Mission Accomplished” speech… What with the going green and all it would be a two fold message.

  4. 4 steve
    September 9, 2008 at 14:14

    Brett, my point was you just criticized Bush for doing something Obama said he’s going to be doing.

  5. 5 Brett
    September 9, 2008 at 14:16

    Brett, my point was you just criticized Bush for doing something Obama said he’s going to be doing

    Obama’s flying onto an aircraft carrier too?!

    Pssshh, thats soooo 2003.

  6. September 9, 2008 at 14:17

    Taleban and al-Qaeda are the ones who are killing the civilians indiscremently. They are killing them on purpose to plant fear in their hearts. The NATO forces who are after these terrorists are trying hard not to kill civilians but there would be some civilian casualtied in war. A word for Brett, you do not know what are you talking about, go do your homework to know what is going in the world.

  7. 7 Ogola Benard
    September 9, 2008 at 14:19

    Quiet interesting after decades of debate about pulling out, peace talks and many other unknown.
    Those Guyz chose to leave in the mountains and
    therefore they should remain there and infact should be pushed deep inside the rocks. Why sympathise with
    people who endanger others lives?

  8. 8 Brett
    September 9, 2008 at 14:19

    A word for Brett, you do not know what are you talking about, go do your homework to know what is going in the world.

    Inform me then Hiam,
    Tell me how the US and Nato are not killing civilians… Please, I beg of you, tell me how they aren’t. (Unless you were referring to my sarcasm about the poorly lead invasion of Iraq?)

    I have done my homework. Perhaps the facts are wrong?

    Just because one side does it, does not excuse the other side of doing the same… Even if it’s under the guise of “helping” the population.

  9. 9 Kelsie in Houston
    September 9, 2008 at 14:25

    The killing of innocent civilians cannot be excused for either case on the pretext that “we should expect this because it’s a war.” Regardless of how the Taliban and their al-Qaida cohorts choose to prosecute their end of the conflict, NATO and the U.S. should 1) seek to minimize civilian casualties as much as is absolutely humanly possible, and 2) when those casualties are incurred, the coalition should be very scrupulous in investigating such incidents and–if necessary–holding to account soldiers and leaders whose actions lead to otherwise preventable deaths.

    It’s not an issue, really, of no civilian casualties–that would be impossible. However, I think we should be careful to remember that war is as much a duel for hearts and minds as it is for battlespace. Excusing the deaths of civilians as a “technical accident” or “regrettable event” has a severe negative impact on public perception–the coalition needs to be more thorough and self-examining when these events occur.

  10. 10 Ogola Benard
    September 9, 2008 at 14:32

    These are people who hold meetings in the guise of prayer and agree on the same mind,infuenced by a lunatic fringe whose aims are not known but reveals murder. Hey did you know that even a soldier is a civilian?
    Just break the law once for lasting peace and set that
    area disaster!!!!!!

  11. 11 Brett
    September 9, 2008 at 14:36

    Well perhaps it makes it all better if the civilians killed are marked up as insurgents or assisting insurgents. Of if they are ignored altogether… Even more brownie points if the media doesn’t cover it or skips over it.
    Oh wait, didn’t mean to be the party-pooper… Sorry… GO NATO AND THE US! DOWN WITH TURRISTS!!!

  12. September 9, 2008 at 14:37

    Yes. They got it all wrong. After years in Afghanistan, they are no closer to accomplishing their mission since day 1. Bin laden is still no where to be found, the taleban they claimed to dislodge are still very much around, not to mention the rising number of civilian casualities.

  13. 13 Robert
    September 9, 2008 at 14:37

    I fear that Afghanistan will be a war of attrition. The only way to solve it is that every year NATO has to make it harder for the Taliban to function and make the life of peaceful civilians easier. But this effort needs to be sustained and surges although perhaps useful as a starting point are not the final solution.

  14. 14 Kelsie in Houston
    September 9, 2008 at 14:40

    I think too often that’s what happens: if an Afghani civilian is killed, he/she is automatically assumed to have been an “insurgent.” And the American MSM, among others, notoriously underreports such occurrences.

  15. 15 Vijay Srao in Chattarnagar India
    September 9, 2008 at 14:53

    Colin Powell always favoured overwhelming force a 5:1 superiority,and finally the Bush administration has come round to his way of thinking.
    The internal problems of Uzbekistan and Pakistan need addressing because poverty is PUSHING people towards the Taliban and AlQueada.
    The PULL of the drug money in Afghanistan can be controlled by spraying the land with herbcide which will allow only the cultivation of wheat (for example),such as Sulfosulfuron(Leader) .

  16. 16 Dinka Alpayo Aliap, Kampala
    September 9, 2008 at 14:54

    NO.When there is a fire, there will be smoke too. I think the way Alqaeda/Taliban(Islamists), conducted themselves at the first place have led to that aproach you thought( like attacking the sleeping tiger in its bushes in which they themselves would not managed).

  17. September 9, 2008 at 15:12

    None should talk impulsively to bomb on the soil of any country. If anyone does so he or she seems thinks nothing on humanitarian ground because that causes a massive massacre…

  18. 18 Kaidala Danappiah
    September 9, 2008 at 15:14

    Mr Karzai has not stood up to his promise. Mr 10% has taken over Pakistan.
    General Election has never been meaningful in India. The situation in the subcontinent looks very grim. If you include China, then the scene becomes even more complicated.

    We have failed to address any international crisis that involves border dispute, infilteration, foreign peacekeeping forces, and illegal trade. I don’t know why so many of them always question the existing strategies and demand change. No change makes any difference. Because, there is no strategy.

    The problem is within them not without. All of the above stated problems are so rampant within each of the participant countries that international intervention hardly makes any impact. Border dispute is a state problem. Infilteration has become a state problem (within a single nation!!). Illegal trade of any sort goes unchecked at every level within a country. The same extends itself to a higher level. How can you control this by foreign intervention?

  19. 19 Brian Larson
    September 9, 2008 at 15:22

    In my humble opinion, Vijay is correct. It takes an overwhelming military presence to calm the situation in either a guerilla or civil war of which Afghanistan is both. The British in Malaysia did the first study on force requirements in the 1960’s. Iraq will stabilize. Forces will then transfer to Afghanistan flooding the country with security so political reconciliation can occur. The problem will be the Pakistani tribal areas but it is in the interest of the Pakistani nation to bring the rule of law and state authority to these tribal border areas.

  20. September 9, 2008 at 15:28

    NEUTRAL.I think these approaches are neither good nor bad, but i think to SHIFT U.S army from Iraq to Afganistan is a bad ideas and is a bad approach because its will fuel the insurgency as most of the Islamics militians/terrorists will also be shifting from iraq to Afganistan, so other measures should be taken to curve these like talking to the Taliban who are interesting in peaces, because Talibans are not terrorist but Liberators which needs to be dealt with politically rather than military engagement with them and you will see how they will change and fight war against terror . That approach is just killing civilians and is wrong deal but Bin Ladin is not in Afganistan but you monitor it closely within Nothern Sudan( Bashir Government).

  21. 21 Bob in Queensland
    September 9, 2008 at 15:30

    I’m not against the “surge” but fear it might prove to be too little too late. The job in Afghanistan should have been finished off years ago when NATO had the momentum but instead the USA and Britain got involved in the Iraqi mistake.

    However, NATO troops have to remember that they must win two battles. First, they have to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda but they also have to win the hearts and minds of the Afghan people. A cliche I know, but without this, winning the military battle is pointless. Frustratingly, several years back they were close to a “hearts and minds victory” but, half quitting before the job was done plus all the subsequent “collateral damage” due to over-zealous troops and rubbish intelligence is not the way to make friends.

  22. September 9, 2008 at 15:31

    They got it all wrong, how many years has Bush been sending in more and more troops. Everything about his decision and judgment are wrong and the civilians are suffering it. Talking about Osama he is still out there what happened to the search?
    I think we should all give Asif Ali Zardari a chance and see what happens.

  23. 23 Jennifer
    September 9, 2008 at 15:38

    Just bring all the troops back and let them deal with their own problems. It’d be one thing if there had been progress but I don’t see it happening if the people there do not step up and make the changes they need for themselves. Also, we have our own problems here.

    @ Civilian deaths

    I have friends who are in the army and have told me insurgents strap bombs to regular people, women and children, and send them to where they are. I think that is HORRIBLE, but I don’t think a soldier should risk it if it puts them in danger. The insurgents do it because they know that most would not want to harm any civilian person and it’s a play on their feelings.

  24. September 9, 2008 at 15:43

    Afghanistan will remain a hot spot as long as the Taliban still have spiritual influence coupled with their ability to fight the Afghan government despite the protection of the international forces.
    Since the Soviet Union intervention, Afghanistan has never been a stable country. It is likely to be so as long as the Afghans are at war with each other, getting support from outside forces. The Taliban are getting support from factions in Pakistan and the Iranian government. The Afghan government is getting support from the West, which has no choice but to continue its presence there not to let Afghanistan a breeding ground of terrorism.

    The international community should work out an approach to help the Afghans unite instead of letting them warring against each other. The military operations will do little to eradicate the tensions if it isn’t coupled with development projects, to make the angry Afghans consider peace as the best means for stability and well-being.

    The current government should prove its efficacy by dealing with the corruption in its ranks, one of the justifications used by the Taliban to get support among the Afghan population, especially in inaccessible areas.

  25. September 9, 2008 at 15:51

    YES.Proverbs “when two elephant fights the grass is a one to suffer”. i was a civilian in the first place but they way our enemies like Arabs immigrants in sudan conducted their policies have influence me to takes up arms for my safy and the country and i was not trained ,if someone killed me by that time would i be counted on which groups(civilian/militians>?.

  26. 26 steve
    September 9, 2008 at 15:57

    Test. Is something wrong with the blog? Moderators, can you see the view/approve page?

  27. September 9, 2008 at 15:59

    @ Steve Obama according to only you ” The Messiah” has nothing to do with this debate and when did he say that he will be flying in troops every two weeks lol.

  28. 28 gary
    September 9, 2008 at 16:00

    Just one more time: As falling from a tree is a consequence of the unwise action of climbing the tree, so war is the consequence of unwise intercourse between nations. Both consequences are bad. The circumstance of having many people climbing trees does not mitigate the consequenses of falling, instead, it increases the number of falling people. Having many participants in war does not mitigate war, it merely increases the number of casualties. As with falling from trees, the goal must ever be to select against, or cease, the unwise action.

  29. 29 Bob in Queensland
    September 9, 2008 at 16:01

    @ Steve

    All working normally for me.

  30. 30 Roberto
    September 9, 2008 at 16:03

    RE: The job in Afghanistan should have been finished off years ago when NATO had the momentum but instead the USA and Britain got involved in the Iraqi mistake.

    ——– Out of the horrific global mess created by GDub, you’d find quite broad consensus that the above is probably the most egregious error from this Mission Accomplished president.

    The failure to secure the peace in Afghanistan, and later Iraq is abjectly damning.
    They’ve allowed a resurgence of newly adaptable Taliban motivated by the rigid incompetence of western military planning and the schoolboy naivity of the US administration.

    Recreating a new, more internationally credible Afghanistan was always going to be a challenge. Alas, this administration has failed every challenge at every junction, so it’s up to future generations to solve what has been historically unsolvable patchworks of feuding tribes in harse geographies.

  31. 31 Count Iblis
    September 9, 2008 at 16:04

    I agree that an overwhelming military force is needed. Perhaps a million soldiers. Then you can control every village and there won’t be much violence at all.

    But this occupation must be very short, and the focus must be on rebuilding the country and not on trying to hunt down (former) taliban members. When the forces leave, Afghanistan will be a secure peaceful country, not because there won’t be any Taliban left (that’s an unrealistic scenario), but because most Afghans are able to resist the Taliban, using a strong police force a good communications infrastructure (people in remote villages can pick up a phone and call the police).

    The international forces must not try to eradicate the poppy fields, because that alianetes the farmers. Afghans will stip producing heroin themselves if things improve there. Also, by destroying poppy fields in Afghanistan we ar fighting the drugs problem at the wrong end.

    The problem is caused by the fact that we have a lot of heroin addicts in the West and we insist on solving the problem by criminalizing heroin use. Instead, we should simply give heroin addicts the heroin they need, we could legally import the herpoin from Afghanistan, the revenues would then go the the Afghan government, not the Taliban.

  32. September 9, 2008 at 16:09

    Hi Chloe
    I am shattered by the death toll of NATO troops and civilians in Afghanistan.
    There is linkage between Pakistan, Afghanistan and Iran which you don’t mention.
    Latest figures put Afghan Opium production at 10,000 Tons per annum, half of it consumed in Iran. some 2 million Afghan refugees are currently living in Iran, what is to become of them?
    Howl long is the world going to ignore Iran in relation to the Afghan, Pakistan cum Taliban issue?

  33. 33 steve
    September 9, 2008 at 16:13

    @ Bob

    It’s not working for me.

  34. 34 Anthony
    September 9, 2008 at 16:23

    I don’t get it, if the FBI says their’s not enough proof to charge Osama with 9/11, then why are we in there trying to snub him out???

    Out of the whole world, Afgan is the place we need to worry most about terrorists forming???

    -Anthony, LA, CA

  35. 35 Bob in Queensland
    September 9, 2008 at 16:24

    @ Steve

    Just rechecked and all the Dashboard pages are still fine at my end….maybe time to reboot and login again or something.

  36. September 9, 2008 at 16:29

    We need to supersaturate the boarders of Afghanistan with several million troops.

    We need to convert all our state and federal prisons into a couple million man and woman cordon force and attack force.

    Then tell our illegal alians to leave, one month time period to flat leave, then draft them all into those empty prisons along with those who hire illegals and let them all be used as a resource to kill bad jihadists. Then after 3 years we can either throw up our hands and surrender, and leave or win by wiping out all enemy warriors and educating all the kids into the idea that we were right and they should works on rebuilding their society to be noncombatants and friends of allah rather than embarrassing allah.

    Our professional military can be used for special ops, security and rebuilding schools, roads, hospitals and good farming crops and methods, poppy seed irradication.

    It is going to take a major amount of leadership and doing in order to do this.

    If a strange culture goes into a strange land they either do it in overwhelming force and numbers or they get picked off one by one for several decades and destroy the culture from which they came.

    The great conquerors did so because they were bad and had enough numbers and ruthless tactics to destroy the lightweight that needed to be wiped out.

    They started this war, and they need to be ransacked to the point they will understand that there are consequences to attacking our homeland.

    We were willing to fire bomb the European and Asian enemies of the past who actually were no where near as bad as the crazies we have to fight now. We nuked the Japanese for the destruction of our military base in Hawaii. If we are serious we need to attack the enemies of allah till they just want to have us stop.

    The concept of unconditional surrender needs to become popular again.


    an old marine company commander now old, but still dangerous!!

  37. September 9, 2008 at 16:40

    troop surge wont work so much when you are fighting an ideology a crazed millitant is willing to die for. To get 72 virgins wherever, the surge might slow them mullahs down but it wont stop them from their so called “holy war” its time all of us admitted the reason why the Islamic terrorists cant be won its because its a fight for a religious ideology they are willing to die for/

  38. 38 Robert
    September 9, 2008 at 16:46


    The FBI might need proof to trail Osama, but the military just need a credible threat to justify their actions. Osama provides this through his twice annual videos condemning the west. Different organizations with different motifs need different standards of proof.

    Secondly it would be an embarrassment for Bush not to be putting even a token effort into finding Osama. It either suggests that the CIA etc were wrong to point the finger at Bin Laden to start with or that he is now so powerful that he could take on the US and win. Either way the US is undermined if they were to give up the chase.

  39. 39 selena in Canada
    September 9, 2008 at 16:50

    What is the international approach to Afghanistan?

    Aren’t we talking about George Bush’s approach?

    Does the International community have any say in the matter?

  40. 40 Anthony
    September 9, 2008 at 16:50

    What I don’t get, is why we (the US) can overthrow a country that is MUCH richer, the people are MUCH richer, and the people are MUCH MORE educated, yet a group of extremists are like a family of Sasquatches in the forest???

    -Anthony, LA, CA

  41. 41 Marie-Helene
    September 9, 2008 at 16:52

    I have strong opinions about Afghanistan and think the Western approach is not only wrong but also completely counter-productive as the war cannot and shouldn’t be won. In my view bullying small countries into democracy won’t stop terrorism. Only a different approach to the situation in the Middle-East, dialogue and diplomacy will put an end to it.

  42. 42 Vijay Srao in Chattarnagar India
    September 9, 2008 at 17:01

    cookies or cache problem?
    for a few days I didn’t get the your comment is awaiting moderation remark.

  43. 43 selena in Canada
    September 9, 2008 at 17:02

    @ Marie-Helene

    Do you have any ideas as to what that approach could be?

  44. 44 steve
    September 9, 2008 at 17:03

    @ Vijay

    It’s fixed now, but wasn’t immediately fixed my clearing my cache and cookies..

  45. September 9, 2008 at 17:05

    @ Marie-Helene you are very right, i dont think the Bush approach is doing any good. And the Man does not care about what others think of feel he is ready to send in more troops, all we need is CHANGE in government and Change in decisions and method of Approach.

  46. 46 Jennifer
    September 9, 2008 at 17:13

    @ James

    I agree. That’s why it’s not really rational to be there. Even if there was “success” the terrorists would always come back. The best we could do is try to secure our own country for our safety. That would be easier said than done because we allow people from other countries to come here for education and to live; it’s easy for them to blend in. We need some super strict guidelines for those people.

  47. 47 Pangolin- California
    September 9, 2008 at 17:18

    There is only one way to “fix” Afghanistan; leave.

    All this talk of flooding the country with enough troops to control the situation and win over Afghans is pure bollocks. With no manufacturing economy the only way to keep the excessively large Afghan population alive is for them to engage in drugs trade. Even buying all the opium they could produce wouldn’t work because then the Afghans would fight among themselves for the limited water.

    The place is a disaster in every sense. It’s a religious nightmare. It’s a trade nightmare, It’s an ecological and humanitarian nightmare and it’s a military nightmare.

    There is no “win” possible in Afghanistan.

  48. 48 Suresh in Chennai
    September 9, 2008 at 17:22

    There’s no way we can solve Afghanistan without also solving the Pakistan problem. The ISI and other jihadi groups that train in places like Karachi, Rawalpindi and Muzaffarabad need to be crushed. The Islamic seminaries that indoctrinate youngsters in Pakistan in the poison of jihad must be shut down. These are things that precede all else. More troops on the ground is also a highly needed step.

  49. 49 Anthony
    September 9, 2008 at 17:22

    I agree with Pangolin

    Duck out and tell the governemt to handle there country, and if not, we can and will pull an Iraq. The way were doing it, it seems like we’re wasting our time, money, and lives.

    -Anthony, LA, CA

  50. 50 roebert
    September 9, 2008 at 17:23

    Will the Afghan-Pakistani-Iraqi-Iranian dilemma be resolved by any military strategy at all? This looks like another Vietnam to me: plenty plans, plenty troops, final withdrawal with not much achieved, and even more left unsolved.

    The most productive strategy would be to befriend and empower Iran and Pakistan and build up a good relationship with the Russian Federation, so that these neighbours of Afghanistan would exert the pressure needed to keep the Taliban in check, as well as take part in rebuilding the country.

    The US is far from home, and it isn’t a popular war, or won’t be one for very long. The big problem is that the US has no friends in the area,and insists on making enemies of whatever friends it may have had.

    Overwhelming force will achieve what it achieved in Vietnam in the long run: nothing at all, except a devastated anti-US wasteland.

    There’s no excuse for the killing of so many civilians,which is due to the cowboy-minded military establishment. Take a lesson from British troops; and stop reporting this as though NATO troops are part of the shoot-first-ask-questions-later mindset. That is a purely American approach.

  51. 51 Robert
    September 9, 2008 at 17:40

    Just a thought but if Afghanistan is a failed state why should we not try some new smaller states in its place? Prior to the Taliban it was controlled by warlords who acted almost independently of each other, what if the country was split into smaller countries along similar lines. The US, UK and EU each given a couple of the provinces to work with as independent states. Build democracy and economies up from the regional levels. When the time is right perhaps the new counties could reunify again or form a federation if they chose.

    I admit that its an odd idea and probably won’t work, but some out the box thinking seems to be required if a quick solution is wanted.

  52. 52 Michael
    September 9, 2008 at 17:48

    When I look at the history of the Soviets in Afghanistan, 1979-1988, and the facts that this formidable force did not achieve any of their goals in 10 years, I have my doubts that any success is possible after US-UK-Canada-NATO-Coalition presence for 7 years already (invasion October 7, 2001).

    Unless, of course, the Coalition takes troop’s extreme suggestion above, advocating the addition of several million troops and use of ruthless tactics.

    Then there is Pangolin’s suggestion . . . “leave”

    Of course, after the Soviets left behind the US supported Afghan guerilla klans, it seemed that they turned their focus in various directions from planning terrorist attacks around the world to establishing a repressive government.

    should they stay or should they go now . . . if they stay there will be trouble . . . if they go it may be double . . . will somebody please let them know . . . should they stay or should they go . . . (homage to the Clash)

  53. 53 Vijay Srao in Chattarnagar India
    September 9, 2008 at 17:49

    Circle the wagons, pull up the draw bridge the ,sky is falling.The Afghan problem is not intractable .
    The USA has to engage with the rest of the world,it simply can not withdraw to its borders and develop a bunker fortress America mentality.

    If opium poppies cultivation is necessary then the produce should be purchased by the Afghan government so they can sell it directly to other governments for the provision of opiate painkillers.

  54. September 9, 2008 at 17:50

    It is an acceptable fact,
    if you do not recognise fact or ground realities,
    you will probably adopt a way,
    leading to wront direction.

    Government in Iraq is not a government,
    haveing popular support,
    it has lost its credibility in the public,
    there is need of the government,
    which real popular support.

    Rule over the state by power,
    is wrong approach,
    rule over land by justice ,
    is a right approach,
    now see what is being done.

    In case,
    you wante peace in the region,
    you will have to bring government,
    which has really representation of majority of the people,
    pls put your approach to right direction.

    Elections ,
    under impartial authority has become induspensable.

  55. 55 Anthony
    September 9, 2008 at 17:51

    You know what, it doesn’t matter, because when the LHC is fired up tomorrow, it’s going to blow up the world anyways!!!

    -Anthony, LA, CA

  56. 56 Katie Davidson
    September 9, 2008 at 18:05

    As an American, I recognize this strategy for what it is. It is a way to pull troops from Iraq and make voters think that we are ending that war. These actions are purely happening to make the Republicans look better before the election. I think that the timing of this decision, 2 months before the election, is motivated by the in-the-toilet image of the Republican party.
    As for the question, I don’t know if it will work, but we need something different than what we are doing now.

  57. 57 Jens
    September 9, 2008 at 18:07


    yes tomorrow we will have hundreds of little blackholes, which will be better than having a hundred a-holes.

  58. 58 Anthony
    September 9, 2008 at 18:09

    @ Jens

    HAHAHA. I don’t know why, but I thought that was really funny. Remember, “Why the hole gotta be black!!! Thats racist!!! I want an apology!!!”

    I know a few people who are scared. I wonder if anything crazy will happen?!?!?!

    -Anthony, LA, CA

  59. 59 Roberto
    September 9, 2008 at 18:09

    RE: “”I don’t get it, if the FBI says their’s not enough proof to charge Osama with 9/11, then why are we in there trying to snub him out??? “”

    ———– A bogus claim. Plenty of evidence based upon his tapes where he talks about the planning and results of the attacks. Moreover he has multiple indictments for previous crimes dating back 10 yrs.

    No impetus to pile more charges on him since the assumption is he will be delivered dead, not alive if he ain’t dead already and buried in an unknown location.

    No, the US is not actively trying to snub him out. They made that clear by allowing Afghan mop-up forces to finish up the Tora Bora battle, and the Al Qaeda leaders escaped, probably with assistance from the Afghan forces. It was a bush league move by US military planners who doubtless were ordered by GWDolt to allow Afghan forces trained by Americans to prove their worth.

    Since he resides in protected the Pakistani tribal areas, the US is relying on a bounty in hopes that he will be betrayed.

    At any rate, he ain’t a factor in modern terrorism any more. Global terrorism has left him behind and operates independently. The Taliban are the real threat to the area.

  60. 60 Nura leko Zangon, Nigeria
    September 9, 2008 at 18:11

    I advise Mr. bush to save more American citizens’ lives; sending more troops to Afghanistan will trigger the taliban insurgents and, though American citizens lost hope in the republican campaign of terroris, will also lead to his party losing American support.

  61. 61 Jens
    September 9, 2008 at 18:13


    how would you call it? i mean we do also have black dwarfs in astrophysics……maybe we should invent a different pc name then. what about black bin liners then, although i have also white bin liners……..

    black and white and nevermind all the shades of grey and all the colors of panavision…..

  62. 62 Jonelle -Los Angeles
    September 9, 2008 at 18:14

    There does need to be an international presence in Afghanistan to help stabilize the government and the infrastructure of the country. There is very strong tribal leadership presence in Afghanistan (that is not Taliban) and that must be taken into consideration. The tribal leaders and the Afghan government should be treated with respect and be involved in caring for Afghanistan and its people. The Afghan people must be treated with respect, care and invested in changing the power structure in their own country. It should not be the United States running the show.

  63. 63 Mike in Portland
    September 9, 2008 at 18:15

    There has to be an international approach; terrorism is an international problem. Every western country should be involved. the entire community of nations will suffer if continues to be guided by terrorism’s potential response. That is a no-win solution, and shouldn’t be allowed to continue.

  64. September 9, 2008 at 18:15

    What mistakes? The only mistake is a country that doesn’t have the guts to fight terrorist at their own borders. Stop the complaining and take some responsibility for your own people.
    Fight, fight today for your liberties and freedom, fight for your citizens, fight against the Taliban in order to put an end to the terrorism in Pakistan.

    King Solomon

  65. September 9, 2008 at 18:21

    What mistakes? The only mistake is a country that doesn’t have the guts to fight terrorist at their own borders. Stop the complaining and take some responsibility for your own people.
    Fight, fight today for your liberties and freedom, fight for your citizens, fight against the Taliban in order to put an end to the terrorism in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Stop the crying.

  66. September 9, 2008 at 18:22

    But do we all honestly think WAR is the Answer to everything?

  67. 67 Thea Winter - Indianapolis IN, USA
    September 9, 2008 at 18:24

    Is the international approach wrong? Maybe?
    I think the Afghanistan can fight better then UN or US troops. But if they need help to fight the Taliban then more troops are the answer. However, more care needs to be taken so civilians are not killed.

  68. 68 Adnan from kuwait
    September 9, 2008 at 18:27

    I feel the west should keep in mind the religious feelings of the afghans. The west needs to take measures to educate the afghan youth.

  69. 69 Jonelle -Los Angeles
    September 9, 2008 at 18:33

    @ Adnan

    You are right. Education is the best path for a better future for Afghanistan.

  70. 70 Rory, Oman
    September 9, 2008 at 18:39

    Alexander the Great failed in 300BC.
    The British failed in the 19th Century.
    The Russians failed in the 80s.
    The west is now failing.
    When will the politicians learn the lessons of history? The topography of Afghanistan and the nature of the tribes people makes Afghanistan undefeatable by armed conflict. The only solution is to talk the tribe people into a concensus that will give Afghanistan
    its independence based on its own cultural idenetity and its own particular political institutions, not to impose an alien culture and alien political institutions that history has proven will never work.

  71. 71 Jonni
    September 9, 2008 at 18:43

    how can u stop anythlng wlth all the drugs?

  72. 72 Mike in Portland
    September 9, 2008 at 18:46

    I totally agree with what Holland John had to say:

    Safety is the responsibility of the military.
    Stability is the responsibility of the politicians.

  73. 73 CJ McAuley
    September 9, 2008 at 18:50

    It seems that it took a sledgehammer to teach that “old dog” to go back and try to finish the first bone he chewed upon! Unfortunately the bone appears to have gone rancid while he was distracted!

  74. 74 John Andrews
    September 9, 2008 at 18:50

    the international approach is definitely wrong. blindly following a US agenda which is not representative of the facts as had been the case many times. the US needs to be at war for domestic politics, calibrating military hardware, fine tuning future war parameters and strategy etc etc. the world leaders know this but the majority of the world leaders cannot say this face to face to US. we the majority of the human race do not have to succumb to their military games justifying rhetoric. the truth is very simple. the truth is that afghans need to be left alone, they are a brave people. they can come out of anything. the truth is that countries do not necessarily commit suicide for fun. so the Iranians will not bomb Israel. but the Israelis will given the slightest chance. the truth is also that we do not have to approve of this double standards and that we can be honest. we can be Cristian enough to tell the truth.

  75. 75 Harry, San Francisco
    September 9, 2008 at 18:51

    I’m not sure what planet your guests hail from but they are either lying through their teeth (and know it) or are completely uninformed.
    The Karzai regime is both corrupt and incompetent. He is a former consultant for UNOCAL, and securing the territory for a future pipeline is the major reason that the US (disguised as “NATO”) is in Afghanistan.
    The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, and they offered to negotiate and turn over Osama Bin Laden. Bush refused.

  76. 76 Ahmad Hammad
    September 9, 2008 at 18:54

    Please don’t kill the innocent people of Pakistan in the name of War on Terror. Especially when every sane person knows that it’s not War on Terror. It’s War on Oil……..

    The oil merchants of the US want to occupy the oil-rich resources of the world. Iraq has been captured and the Iraqis had been killed mercilessly. The oil resources have been captured brutally. What if they pull 8000 troops out of Iraq next year? It isn’t gonna make any difference. Out of those 8000, about 4500 would be deployed in Afghanistan. It would be catastrophic.


  77. 77 steve
    September 9, 2008 at 18:54

    @ Harry

    Do you honestly expect anyone outside of Berkely to believe that? The US demanded they hand over Bin ladin, and they refused. The Taliban provided training grounds for al quaida to train, they are directly involved in the 9/11 events as a result, unless you are one of the “truthers”. Are you?

  78. 78 Anthony
    September 9, 2008 at 18:55

    If G.W. Bush says that man and fish can coexist, then I believe that he will fix the world before he’s out of office!!!

    -Anthony, LA, CA

  79. 79 Mike in Portland
    September 9, 2008 at 18:55

    That doesn’t give us the right to attack across their border.

  80. 80 Masuod, Berlin
    September 9, 2008 at 18:55

    we don’t need extra american troops in afghanistan. we need the present american troops to monitor the afghan goverment because the present afghan goverment consist of some big warlords. They should let the afghanistan security to be controled by afghan army and police

  81. 81 Marco Lavoie
    September 9, 2008 at 18:57

    As an ex-military , I am appall by the West military strategic thinking. Minimizing casualities..they are at war….stay away from civilians do not kill civilians…let the soldiers kill soldiers…not westerners killing civilians….

    This is the worst political nightmare professional soldiers can do killing Talibans hiding with civilians (sympathizers) by dropping a bomb killing civilians,,,this is not the way to conduct a war campaign…

    Commandos need to be sent search the Taliban & killed them not the sympathizers by doing so perhaps the West will gain the trust of locals…

    The problems with today’s young soldiers … Westerns soldiers have not truly understood what is mean to be a soldier – innocent life are to be protected at all cost…

    Perhaps the cost of saving this New World Order is not worth it for Western Soldiers meaning they aren’t not willing to face the ultimite sacrifice

    May God Bless this New World Order

    In only God I trust…

  82. 82 steve
    September 9, 2008 at 18:58

    Did you hear how bitter that “canadian” caller was towards to the US due to “friendly” fire? Did you hear how bitter he sounded. He seems to find accidentally killing people worse than targetting civilians.

    He also said mohammed never killed jews? Tell that to all the jews he had killed because they wouldn’t convert!

  83. 83 Bert
    September 9, 2008 at 19:07

    Afghanistan should be easier than Iraq, and it was initially. Because the US allied with the Northern Alliance. We helped an internal movement do their thing, and those that attacked the US were also oppressing the Afghans.

    At this stage, having bolluxed everything up with the pointless Iraq fiasco, I don’t know if it makes sense to linger on in Afghanistan. But if it does make sense, I suggest continuing to stress that we are working alongside Afghans. None of this go-it-alone mentality, none of this nation building evangelism.

    Ultimately, western countries need to pay more attention to their own borders, keeping out those who are lunatics, and expelling those lunatics who got inside, as quickly as possible. The real cause for 9/11 was our own complacency and maybe even political correctness. The embassy bombings, USS Cole incident, and previous attack on the WTC, should have been plenty of wakeup calls. We’re dealing with religious loons out there, or perhaps merely lunatics who use religion as their handle, and greater vigilance is imperative.

    Most importantly, I don’t think the west should see itself in the business of nation building in “third world” countries. It doesn’t work, and the whole “father knows best” concept is understandably obnoxious to the local people.

  84. September 9, 2008 at 19:11

    Oh No i didnt listen to the show, got so Busy. Steve where u from?

  85. 85 annabeth
    September 9, 2008 at 19:30

    What I can’t understand is that all (!) of the Islamic world did absolutely nothing and still does nothing about Afghanistan = the Islamic world sat and sits on her hands already for decades – but when the USA finally invades Afghanistan after 9/11 – all hell breaks loose in the Islamic world.

    Two possibilities:

    1) The Islamic world didn’t and doesn’t give a stuff about the suffering of Afghans under the Russians, under Al Qaida and Talibans.

    2) The Islamic world condones – by her silence – what was and still is happening in Afghanistan under ‘sharia’ – and not only there as not a word about Iran’s monstrous ‘sharia’ application.

    Not only that sitting on the fence and not acting by Islamic countries – but Iran and Pakistan actually helped (!) the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and besides Pakistan allowed and still allows thousands of fundamentalist Koran madrassah’s to breed more and more Talibans/jihadists who are OUR ENEMIES!

    The USA and Western countries should immediately leave Afghanistan and give ‘our (!) Islamic countries’ the responsibility of cleaning-up their own Islam-inspired mess in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iran, S.A., Darfur, Somalia, S.A. ….. Let Islamic country do the dirty work = let moslims go and help their ‘brothers and sisters’ = let muslim die instead of Westeners in order to clean-up the mess caused by muslims.

    Particularly since muslims insist that ‘christians, jews and ‘infidels’ = the West ‘ must stay out of OUR Islamic countries’ = why the hell should the West bother and send OUR European/USA sons to die – for the benefit of muslims?

    The ONLY way the West can protect against jihadist (apart from those who have already infiltrated in the West) is to protect her own borders and internal protection. Fight in another country – and foreign armies are always at a disadvantage – as we see in Afghanistan.

    A muslim on the program: ‘the West must allow for the practices of OUR religion in Afghanistan’ – while Afghans not only murder Afghans should they not adhere to Islam but also murder christians because they are christians = muslims do not know what ‘respect’ means for other religions – yet insist on ‘respect for Islam’.

    In short my advise: let the Islamic world sort out the Islamic mess and the West must get out of Afghanistan – NOW!

  86. 86 Marco Lavoie
    September 9, 2008 at 19:35

    Bert , Steve & Michael History tend to repeat itself. Hitler also resorted to protectionism. This New World Order elites exploited nations by acquiring local business or establishing International Corporation, since the fall of the USRR utopians capitalist believe happiness is a box is the ultimate happiness…dividends lovers like Hitler’s SS will never admit their ideologies weren’t divine and perhaps event evil. Don’t get me wrong I like ordinary Americans but when someone start thing because of his/her stature , believe system, social stature…think he should have a Goddess stature over another..this attitude is no any better then Hitler’s SS…Tolerance is the key to success and gaining trust amount human being not by exploiting their weakness but by utilizing their strength perhaps that is why Canadians are so well like around the world because of our views of cooperation not exploitation….

    Dividends lovers are the true tyrants of this World….

    May God bless this New World Order & its economic systems…

  87. 87 M.Carter
    September 9, 2008 at 19:47

    Use your imagination and reverse the situation. If a foreign government invaded the US and was telling Americans to kill Americans, what do you think the Americans would do? The hard-line conservatives would probably be willing to kill some fellow Americans and so would some who felt they would benefit by siding with the invading force, but most Americans would refuse to kill other Americans at the behest of a Foreign Govt.
    If you were innocent of bearing arms but you had a beloved brother or uncle who was fighting the foreigners, would you turn him in?

    Human nature is human nature the world over. It is American male arrogance that lost the war in Vietnam and it is the same blind arrogance that has destroyed Iraq, Afghanistan and turned Pakistan against us.

    Collateral damage. To be willing to kill the women and children that the terrorists are hiding behind, is just as cold blooded as using the helpless as shields. Collateral damage is not an excuse. It is calculated.

  88. 88 steve
    September 9, 2008 at 19:52

    @ M. Carter

    That’s brilliant. You’ve made the perfect way to win a conflict. Hide behind women and children and nobody can attack you. How can anyone fight against that?

  89. 89 Jennifer
    September 9, 2008 at 19:59


    I totally agree with you.

  90. September 9, 2008 at 20:07

    With as yet unclear mission it is no wonder that it has run into the ground with many casualties, including innocent civilians. Even President is getting desperate with a near non-functional government at the centre.

  91. 91 Jennifer
    September 9, 2008 at 20:11

    @ M. Carter


    Terrorists really scare me because it DOES NOT bother them to kill innocent people for their religion.

    Why should a soldier not protect him or herself?

  92. 92 annabeth
    September 9, 2008 at 20:33

    @ Ahmed

    “Please don’t kill the innocent people of Pakistan in the name of War on Terror. Especially when every sane person knows that it’s not War on Terror. It’s War on Oil…….. ”

    Does Pakistan have oil?


    In Pakistan Talebans kill at random muslims. EVERY Pakistani, except Talibans, lives in fear of Talebans who want to establish a Taleban-government. which in North, South, West and East Pakistan – e.g. in Baluchistan, in Islamabad, in Peshwar, in Karachi where Talibans murder muslim Pakistani’s – randomly.

    but it was Afghanistan and Pakistan who allowed, even stimulated the Talibans’madrassah’s to flourish = producing thousands of jihadists.


    You better say this to the Talebans, Al Qaeda, jihadist, suicide bombers ….. to stop their random murder of innocent muslims – and whoever else they murder.

  93. 93 Bert
    September 9, 2008 at 20:49

    Marco, agree with much of your comment. Funny thing is, much of what you might consider arrogance is not considered to be arrogance by the perpetrators. The idea, for example, that any idiot out there ought to prefer our form of open democracy, to their medieval superstitions, is considered to be altrusism by many in the west. They really think they are spreading reason and good faith. But it is arrogance.

    Fundamentally, I’m with Annabeth on this. We shouldn’t meddle like this into cultures which are so foreign to ours. If they adopt it, it has to be from the inside, not crammed down their throats.

  94. 94 Jennifer
    September 9, 2008 at 21:18

    @ Bert

    I am not downplaying the value of anyone’s life. However, insurgents are using women and children to catch soldiers off guard. So, if they knew that soldiers would hesitate to kill a woman or child then they would simply go around everywhere using them for their own cowardly protection.

    I have family and friends who have served. They are not the same people they used to be. I can’t imagine the horrible things they have seen and have been forced to do. I doubt any would knowingly harm an innocent person. These soldiers are coming home with tons of baggage. It’s horrible.

    So many people say that the U.S. should not be in Afghanistan, but what if we were not there? Would we be uncaring for not helping them?

    I personally don’t care what type of democracy the people of Afghanistan prefer as long as they do not allow hooligans to come to our country and do us harm.

  95. September 9, 2008 at 21:23

    By trying to impose democracy on the people of Afganistan has been like trying to force a baby to eat a steak. It has opened a can of worms which has resulted in many deaths of young soldiers from overseas, many of whom found their presence in the country as being rediculas and a waste of time.You can take a horse to water but you cannot force it to drink.

  96. 96 Bert
    September 9, 2008 at 22:12

    Jennifer, it’s just very hard to make other cultures adopt what we might find to be obviously better. Very hard. And since I was also made to go out and do our country’s bidding, supposedly to make other people’s lives better, I certainly do question the wisdom of this form of missionary role we take upon ourselves.

    And I especially object to double standards. We hate you arrogant Americans, but you are duty bound to help us, or consider yourselves selfish isolationists.

    My perhaps overly simplistic criterion is, if the offending country is crossing borders to carry out mayhem, let’s consider a reaction. Otherwise, hell no. So, Afghanistan did qualify. Iraq, this time around did not. We should let them solve their own problems.

    BTW, I think you are quite right about the baggage many returning soldiers carry. That’s why all the parades and glory heaped on returning legions, since time immemorial. It’s a way to try to make them deal with what they cannot accept they might have done. Which explains why so many Viet vets are so messed up. They were greeted back like murderers. Hardly the right kind of therapy for people who weren’t even volunteers, for the most part.

  97. 97 Brian Larson
    September 9, 2008 at 22:33

    In my humble opinion, 9/11 was a game changer. The world’s powerful learned how vulnerable they are. As a result, failing states became an unacceptable danger to the elite. As bad as Iraq and Afghanistan is, if the wealthy are successfully attacked again, watch out.
    As for the capacities of a modern military, the ability to logistically support troops in remote regions and Space Command has changed that game too. Read you paper outside on a sunny day. Hold it the right way. They can read it with you. The problem Space Command has is timing their attacks and discerning between combatants and noncombatants.
    The larger question remains, will the powerful and the states they control address the inequities, injustices and insulting media treatments that are the root causes of violence? Are they wise enough to see the maxim … no justice, no peace? Have they traveled and seen the poverty and desperation that others live in? These are real people, with real hopes, dreams and real families. Not a Hollywood abstraction. This is something we can no longer ignore. It’s bad for business.

  98. September 9, 2008 at 23:04

    @ James Karuga,

    What I’m talking about for Afghanistan is not a surge, but more of a deluge. You do not mix our criminal ground army with the civilians. There is the Remains of the Northern Alience. There are a growing Afghan military, and we have our supposed professional soldiers and various Nato troops and AID folks in Afghanistan.

    There are special ops troops and new schemes that augmented and made a lot of what is credited for the Iraq surge work. The truth is the unmentioned parts of the scenario, and the “Sunni awakening” all came together at the same time to produce luck and the demise of the main insurgeant leadership, and the true colors of the jihadist all came together at the same time.

    The idea that we have an enemy who is so religous that they are willing to die rather in an upfront way is good for us. The real objective in war is to get the poor SOB on the other side to go die for his country or his god. Believe me when all 8 of a woman’s sons are dead, and all the kids from the same neighborhood just are not coming home. Sort of add up over the long haul and produce a rather crubling of the will in the heart of the side incurring so many deaths from the foreigners.

    Sooner or later, troops, when they have been through enough ordeals…..just want to go home and above all live. In war there really are the dead and the living. If enough are killed from your side the spirit ebbs.

    Millions of troops in an unending procession, on the boarders, and deployable into isolated freys, will be too much for the guys trying to cross into Afghanistan
    will anger then and spurt recruiting for a while but eventually they will tire of killing and running into rather rough men and women guasrding the front lines and boarders.

    If you cannot use the lowest dregs of society who actually owe a debt to society, what good are they and the illegal immigrents. Use your problems as a resource, and then use those people to take anything off the land to deny it to the taliban.

    We can take their gold and the dollars they have accumulated.

    We need to hurt them and hurt them badly.

    troop on the oregon coasst

  99. 99 Bert
    September 9, 2008 at 23:11

    Brian, to be clear, what you advocate should not be done with military intervention, right?

  100. September 9, 2008 at 23:15

    Then after the Afghan grounds are bare of real targets……slip in and high tech the bad guys into valleys of Pakistan, that can be systematically ringed in and then tighten the noose as the Mongols used to do….all derived from their hunting tactics and have their long range archers pin them to the dirt. There is nothing so exhillerating as slaughtering really basd enemies, when you have the opportunity.

    These guys are bad and most all Afghans want the taliban dead.


  101. 101 Tom D Ford
    September 9, 2008 at 23:35

    Today’s program sure was quite the propaganda blitz.


  102. 102 Jennifer
    September 10, 2008 at 00:16

    @ Bert

    Arrogant Americans, huh? We have very high impression to live up to.

    What I find interesting is that many terrorists have made trips to the U.S. They come and get education here and then take it and use it to do us harm. I don’t believe we should butt into other people’s problems. I think it’s a shame that so much killing is done in the name of religion. I understand that people want to protect the innocent people there but I care more about the innocent soldiers who have just a short time to decide if someone is a good guy or a bad guy or loose their own life.

    Parades and kind words are nice but I don’t think they even chip at the iceberg with all that soldiers need. I don’t think it’s possible for them to be “normal” again.

  103. 103 Tom D Ford
    September 10, 2008 at 05:27

    @ Jennifer

    “I think it’s a shame that so much killing is done in the name of religion.’

    No you don’t, you’re a Christian for Palin.

  104. 104 annabeth
    September 10, 2008 at 08:25

    Afghanistan is still in ruins – whole villages and cities – with millions of Afghans steeped in poverty without dignity, without water, electricity – while billions + $$$$ have been spend on Afghanistan by the coalition on weapons and the military (!) – and millions ++++ already given to the Afghan government for rebuilding Afghanistan – but with little effect.

    At the same time the Taleban, war-lords and other Afghans rake in millions of $$$$ ++++ from ‘poppy’ /opium sale – but none of this money goes to the government for use for impoverished Afghans – but frequently to buy weapons AGAINST US!

    Means that The West is pumping billions in Afghanistan – but Afghans do nothing (cannot?) do anything themselves to get the millions earned IN Afghanistan by Afghan war-lords/poppy farmers – and who get away with exporting opium to the West also TO OUR DETRIMENT = WE are the fools!

    I can imagine that the Afghans are thoroughly fed-up after alreade decennia of wars in their country, therefore want to get rid of the USA/coalition – and start to co-operate with the Talibans. The so-called reconstruction appears to be minimal ….. with the Talebans/Afghans destroying hundreds (!) of schools and hospitals when they get a chance as soon as they are built – as they do in Pakistan.

    Problem in Afghanistan is indeed fundamentalist sharia-Islam that despises us ‘infidels’. As protest against the pressence of the Russian the mullah-Talibans grabbed this chance and started jihadi-madrassa’s wherein thousands of Afghan children were indoctrinated with the fundamentalist Koran, taught violence and to hate the Russians, the West, all women, and anyone who is not a muslim. That means that as long as ‘us infidels’ remain in Afghanistan – these thousands of indoctrinated Afghan Talebans have their excuse ready at hand and will keep on fighting against us – at their advantage as Talebans are Afghans operating in their OWN country – and can and do go across the border undetected into Pakistan – where they continue their reign of terror as ‘Allah is with us’.

    What irks me also is that ‘the coalition’ is supporting the sharia-government in Afghanistan (think of the student-journalist Pervesh Kambaksh still suffering in jail under the death-sentence for ‘offending Islam’) which never can be in any way ‘democratic’ but represents a dictatorship under ‘Allah’. This means that human rights hardly exist. But NOBODY – Islamic world or otherwise – protests about the wholesale (!) enslavement of millions of muslimwomen in burka’s in Afghanistan.

    I think that the Karzai government and War-lords should be brought before the International Court in The Hague for the wholesale oppression – under use of violence – of Afghan women forcedly condemned into their private prisons – their shameful burka.

    Of course there are Afghans who despise the Talebans and sharia-Afghanistan and want democracy in Afghanistan – but they do not have the power to defeat these – and millions have had to flee and that means that the educated middle-classes have largely disappeared – and almost only the analphabetic population of Afghans is left. How can anyone expect that these people stand-up to the violent ‘God-inspired’ Talebans = they can’t.

    Here some articles by one courageous (refugee) Afghan journalist:


  105. 105 Pangolin- California
    September 10, 2008 at 10:02

    People. It’s not your problem if you don’t go there. Not a single terrorist on those planes on 9-11 was an Afghan. They were mostly Saudis.

    We can’t fix Afghanistan. The kindest thing we could do is to walk away and let the Afghans fix themselves. Even giiving them money to rebuild will just go to buy luxuries and weapons for corrupt warlords. Teaching them in our schools just gets the teachers shot. Shipping them grain encourages them to overreach the resources of their country.

    Short of an Afghan genocide there isn’t a solution that the west can offer. Their land, their culture, their problem.

    Leave them to it.

  106. 106 selena in Canada
    September 10, 2008 at 14:39


    Well said!

  107. 107 Jennifer
    September 10, 2008 at 15:39

    @ Tom

    Unless you can discuss something without your preconceived ideals about me, don’t comment about what I say.


  108. 108 annabeth
    September 10, 2008 at 16:17

    @ Jennifer

    I find the stupidity of Bush not surprising (he is not at all intelligent least an intellectual and cultured man) but Bush wanted to do better than daddy Bush as a ‘commander’ – in Iraq – and why Bush was prepared to declare war on Iraq (immensely stupid by stirring-up an Islam hornet’s nest) – with his and Condaleeza’s song ‘democracy must be’ – made ridiculous by Bush and Condaleeza – considering that democracy cannot be established in countries where Islam reigns for centuries on end with war-lords, sheikhs, imams, kings, the Ghadaffi’s, Saddam, military and mullah dictatorships ….. who will not let go of their power – but play the USA out for what they can get out of the USA – then turn around and go their own merry dicatorial ways – as happens in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

    The USA never learns her lesson = keeps playing the bully-boy = the strongest in the class – who thinks he has the right to bully others because he is physically (!) stronger (but that not for much longer). The USA has never understood the word ‘diplomacy’ – but starts threathening countries with invasions (even Europe!) and sanctions ‘if you do not behave the way WE the USA want then we will …. ‘- and that is USA dictatorship – with as a result that more and more countries/people distance themselves from USA politics/Americans who tend to think that they are ‘God’s gift to mankind’ – but have caused untold misery for millions of people – and still do – with the USA not exactly a ‘democracy’ I would like to live in = too many prisons, police-power, poverty, neocons, fundi christians, red-necks, racial hatred on both the black and white side …..

    That the coalition plays along with the USA is incomprehensible – and the combination Bush/coalition (but also the EU) have made so many diplomatic and factual mistakes – and still do – that these are not only dangerous to peace in the world – but to their own countries and populations.

    Bush/the coalition are guilty of breeding more and more…. jihadists, have increased the hatred for the USA/the West in all Islamic countries; have allowed dangerous muslims to immigrate by the thousands – who have already turned around as jihadist attacking Western populations with the promise ‘of more attacks in the future’ as young muslims grow up in these countries and radicalise for the Islam.

    This means that the USA/EU and other Western countries have voluntarily (!) allowed entry of our enemies into our own countries = how stupid can you get to IMPORT enemies!

    Bush lies in bed’ with the FUNDI WAHHABIST Saoedie Royal family – they love each other – but the same Wahhabies pump millions ++++ in trying to undermine Western culture and religion IN Western countries and the USA. Bush a so-called ‘christian’ but who doesn’t remotely understand what that means – kow-tows to muslims governments who despise christians – see S.A. – where christians are not allowed entry.

    In Afghanistan no christian is allowed to exist openly, they will be lynched when found out that they are christians as AN OFFENCE AGAINST ISLAM – yet your ‘christian” Bush/coalition are not only great mates with the Saoedies but with Karzai & Co, and Musharaf – while in Pakistan christians are also persecuted, discriminated against an murdered when muslims see fit to do so.

    Three times (or twice?) Americans have voted for this dangerous Bush & Co to the highest office in the USA. I therefore wonder what is the matter with Americans that they couldn’t see the highly dangerous war-games Bush and his neocons were and still are playing.

    Should America choose McCain & Co in the next election than the world is again stuck with the same neocons and dangerous hawks = war-lords – as Bush & Co – and I will have lost all trust in the American people.

    Let’s hope the civilised, immensely intelligent and diplomate Obama wins to win back the hearts of the world for the USA/Americans – or I foresee that a world-war will explode – on the initiative of the USA wherein already the insane (!) idea ‘to invade Iran’.

  109. 109 Jennifer
    September 10, 2008 at 22:45

    @ Annabeth

    You had me until the Bush thing…..I don’t agree. Obama will do much more harm if he is elected than McCain could possibly do. He has no experience. Sorry, I don’t want to be a guinea pig! 😀

  110. September 11, 2008 at 00:34


    Bush was great….the world deserved him. The problem is he did not put the entire free world on a war footing, and tried to fight the crazies on the cheap.

    Let’s hope McCain can in fact wage a serious war against the jihadists for the Muslim world who have decided to attack America and kill Americans and Westerners.

    The majority of the Islamic world really does need to police itself against the enemies of Allah who cause the West to invade Muslim lands in an effort to find, close with and destroy the bad ones.

    Any jihadist who kill fellow muslim people and cause them to be endangered hiding behind women, children need to be basnished and exposed as the enemies they are. Mohammed would turn over in his grave regarding the idiots who draw infidels into the land of Allah with great anger and deadly weapons.

    They say Osama Bin LAden’s son disowned his father for being so stupid to awaken the American into killing so many, (1,500) jihadists in Tora Bora.

    More mothers of Islam should shunt the bearded ones who care not for the children and innocent good people of Islam.

    Let’s hope McCain wins and gets really serious about hunting down Jihadists.

    troop on the oregon coast

  111. 111 John LaGrua/New York
    September 11, 2008 at 02:26

    Only fools ignore history and are doomed to repeat it.Britain tried in the 19 century and lost 14,000 men retreating to India from Afganistan/Pakistan .The Russians destroyed their army in Afganistan and it contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union Pakistan will not let US f orces operate in their country and US bombing is killing civilians and enraging public opinion against the US.Pakistan leaders know that the Bush/Cheney nightmare will end soon and they will have to work out a modus operandi with the Taliban.The new President of Pakistan is an artful dealer in the shadows and perhaps for his usual 10 % commission he may find a solution to the Taliban issue .The US taxpayers is about to have their pocket once again. There is no solution in Pakistan Afganistan ,Iraq ,Iran ,Isreal Palestine until the US sees it has destabilized the Mid East and threatened world peace by bowing to the Isreal Lobby and supporting the destruction of the Palestinian people.by Isreal..Tomorrow is 9/11 and the leader of the WTC attack is on trial in Guantonamo confessing his motive was US /Isreali actions against Muslims over 59 years..3000 dead , WTC,4000 in Iraq ,30,0000 hideously wounded ! What will it take for the American people to become honest ,mature world citizens again and force a change in Mid East policy

  112. September 11, 2008 at 08:46

    a bloody war is going on between the Tamil Tigers and the Sri Lakan government
    in Wanni. Millions of Tamil people have been displaced and they have no food ,clothing and shelter. UN agencies and other International NGO’s like Oxfam, save the children, and the like, have been asked to stop their work and leave Wanni immediatly.Except the ICRC who says they will not leave,others have agreed to leave, without a murmer of protest , thus leaving the displaced at lurch. What is the UN doing about it other than to make statements? Don’t you think that all the INGO’s who are helping in the other parts of Sri laka should stop their work ,as a mark of protest, against the discriminatory policies of the Govrnment ,pack up their bags and leave Srilanka.What is the use of the NGO’S calling them selves as humanitarian agencis when they are debard from working in most needed areas? IS THIS NOT SELF INTEREST OF THE NGO’s.


  113. 113 annabeth
    September 11, 2008 at 09:11

    @ John LaGrua

    The Jennifer’s in America will never learn – why the world gets stuck with so-called ‘christians’ war-lords like Bush – hand on the Bible BUT NOT the New Testament.

    “Obama has no experience”

    Is that so? Better no experience and go for diplomacy e.g. with Iran, and patch-up the world’s disgust with American politics – than another bout of dangerous Bush & Co in the form of McCain and that self-righteous christian fundamentalist woman’ governor of Alaska’ (whatever is her name?) beside him.

    so-called ‘pro-life’ fundamentalist ‘christians’ in the USA disgust me = PRO-LIFE – but these are ‘christians’ who have no objections to the death-sentence in America using that gruesome electric chair and using injections to murder Americans in America, nor do these ‘christians’ have objections to killing innocent people in USA wars – in Vietnam, Korea, Iraq, Afghanistan ….. using the most gruesome weapons possible.

    America has lost her way and Obama is now her only hope for rescue

  114. 114 Jennifer
    September 11, 2008 at 14:25


    Yeah, it is so. Obama has no experience. Plain and simple. He is full of talk and arrogance and that’s it.

    Talking with other countries is the right thing to do but it will NOT always work. There WILL be instances where we will have to have war. I don’t believe he will make wise choices where that is concerned.

    I don’t want people killing INNOCENT American people because their religion tells them it’s ok. Religion is used as a way to spread their hatred and validate it.

    As far as patching up the world’s disgust with America’s politics, is that really possible? Do you really think electing a token black president will do that? It won’t. IF (and that’s a really huge if) he is elected, his color won’t matter because he will have no clue how to run this country in a way where we are safe and secure.

  115. 115 John LaGrua/New York
    September 11, 2008 at 18:46

    Afganistan is a quicksand which swallows foreign intruders and Amerticans are learning slowly that their self styled exceptionalism can not shield them from historic reality.The lesson of 9/11 has not been learned as the people have been purposely lied to by the Bush crowd and the US media has betrayed the public trust by failing to address the real issues which have brought about this rabid anti-US reaction in the Mid East .Afganistan is a mere brush fire compared to the damage to the American republic the Constitution and freedom in the US.Those who have pushed the wars in the Mid-East which has imperilled our democracy will be the first to fall victim to authoritarian rule ..The neo cons in the US share a common root with the left which ultimately destroyed the Weimar Republic in Germany and brought Hitler to power..The gas chambers were not long in coming .A nuclear attack in the US could destabilize the nation and put ther lights of freedom out all over the world .,America must again be the symbol of peace not conflict and confound it’s adversaries with firm resolve ,wisdom and fairness.

  116. 116 annabeth
    September 12, 2008 at 10:36

    @ Jennifer

    “Is patching up the world’s disgust possible?”

    Yes of course – but not with Cheney&Co.

    Bush has made a shameful mess of not only the USA economy by squandered BILLIONS of USA taxes on his war-machines murdering thousands of people – but this hawk’s attitude = exactly the SAME as Cheney who has been a devotee of Bush’ politics throughout his career = the USA and the world will simply be stuck with another Bush in Cheney&Co.

    So what Cheney’s: ‘I have experience in WAR’ – as that doesn’t mean that he will be a WISE president – on the contrary = someone like Cheney who pats himself (!) on his own shoulders ‘because I have been fighting in wars’ sees himself ONLY as yet another overly nationalistic ‘I am your Commander’ – just like Bush – and both NEEDS wars for their OWN gloryfication. And Cheney has no time to lose = he is an old man nearing his death!

    Besides Cheney has already proven to be unpredictable, is called ‘a maverick’ which is a dangerous characteristic in the atomic age with his finger on the Red-button = he might/will start wars ‘to prove how brave in wars and what a good commander I am’ = dangerous stuff.

    That woman with ‘hair on her teeth’ as ever a woman had hair on her teeth wearing the pants ‘like a real man’ is that Mrs. Palin, who is a christian fundamentalist – who are all as short-sighted and philosophically/intellectually limited as Islam fundamentalists = dangerous for world peace.

    “a token black president”

    That is a racist remark = think about it.

    I regret that you fail to see that Obama is seen as civilised (and not Cheney&Co.) = Obama has received world-wide acclaim e.g. in Europe specifically in Berlin where thousands of Germans cheered Obama (as they did for Kennedy) – but Cheney went unnoticed.

    That it is Obama who has supreme and intelligent/intellectual oratory gifts, with a good dose of Martin Luther King, Kofi Anan, John Kennedy’s ‘I have a dream for America’ = wise men who want(ed) to build bridges between people – in Obama’s case between the USA and the world – and he has chosen a very experienced ‘foreign-affairs’ man to help him.

    Of course ‘talking to other countries’ cannot “ALWAYS” be the solution – but the USA NEVER DOES TALK (= just bullies the world!!!) – with as a result more and more enemies for the USA – dragging the world into danger of a world-war(s).

    I have no time at all for Islam – but one thing is for sure it is STUPID to invade foreign countries wherein the people do not want you, do not see you as ‘liberators’ but as their enemy – as then you will be faced with guerilla war-fare = the USA can’t win like in Vietnam, in Afghanistan, in Iraq …..

    BUSH has brought the USA – in all sorts of ways – to the brink of TOTAL defeat = inside and outside the USA as it is the USA that is morally corrupt, and deeply, deeply economically SUNK = in DEBT – in the Red – but not her enemies like Russia, Korea, Iran, Mexico, Bolivia, Cuba …

    = why Obama the charismatic diplomat is desperately needed for appeasement-diplomacy with these countries – or else America will indeed have to post her troops “along our own borders in Oregon …..”

  117. 117 Jennifer
    September 12, 2008 at 19:58

    @ Annabeth

    I don’t see how the world’s disgust can be patched up by electing Obama. He has not experience. He is very good at talking about what he would like to do but when the rubber meets the road there is no substance to what he says! Of course, he has all these celebrities backing him which is also in my opinion a mockery. I want a president not an entertainer to run our country.

    Regarding my token black comment, it wasn’t meant as racist but most Obama supporters take it there. Most just can’t get that chip off their shoulders long enough to realize not everyone cares about the color of your skin.

    I don’t agree with every decision Bush has made but I don’t think that he has been given a fair shake either. He was successfully elected not once but twice. Regarding our economy, yep, it’s bad, but isn’t Europe also in a credit crunch? I guess that is Bush’s fault too? I suppose we can just blame him for everything!

  118. 118 annabeth
    September 13, 2008 at 05:35

    @ Jennifer

    Bush has repeatedly been the laughing stock of the world e.g. when making speeches he couldn’t even formulate sentences properly bumbling along forgetting words with misprounciations, making stupid remarks ….

    e.g. I found it utmost embarrassing to see Bush MAKING FACES (showing the unsophisticaded man he is) about ‘having Queen Elizabeth in the White House’. There he was giggling/pulling faces – behind her back before joining the Queen for dinner! Oh dear what ‘a great leader Bush is’ – making the USA look like a peasant burping aloud at official dinners – repeatedly teboot!

    Surprising indeed what you say as a lot in the USA is exactly about the RIGHT ‘image’ people project of themselves to be successful – and Obama has got it all: very well educated, intellectual, very bright, good looking, tall and elegant, with great oratorial talents, great charisma, very impressive of CONTENT his speeches – with a very bright wife at his side.

    I did not mean ‘celebrities’ – but the immense good impression = GOOD WILL – Obama has ALREADY created world-wide – including when meeting foreign politicians + millions +++++ of Europeans.

    ‘Obama has no experience’ – nor had Bush when first elected and 9/11 came in handy for him as ‘your great commander’ (Pffff!) – and Cheney is just another pathetic coybow guns-on-hips ready to shoot = ‘I am your new commander’ (Pfff!) another flag-waving untra- nationalist – with as his aid a woman who freaks me out completely and would be very suitable indeed as the head of a 19th century ‘morally upright girls’ convent-school.

    Palin who worries ‘about abortions’ and all that – while the USA flows-over with poor people in slums with white and black ‘trash’ in sub-standard housing who are desperately lacking social services and dignity (!) and somehow hang on to life – filled with crimes; with the USA the biggest (as far as I know) producer and exporter of porno, violent movies and games ….. and weapons.

    Americans have already TWICE voted a dangerous idiot to the highest office in the USA – why I said before ‘what is the matter with Americans that they STILL can’t see the danger of the Bushes, Gondaleeza’s … should they vote in Cheney?’

    Anyway as they say: ‘people choose the governments/leaders they deserve’ = let’s hope Amercans won’t make another fatal mistake by chosing an ultra nationalist maverick, self-gloryfying too old man nearing death or possibly old-age dementia as their ‘commander in USA wars’.

    By the way Bush&Co should ‘be brought to Justice’ before the International Court in The Hague accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity – just like Saddam&Co.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: