Only the country that gave you American Idol would be capable of this.
The head general in the Afghanistan War went on Afghan TV to apologize to the Afghan people for killing innocent bystanders caught in the crossfire of the recent fighting. What does this be-medaled dolt think war is? It’s killing.
We killed half a million people in Iraq. Go on TV and say, gee, I’m sorry, as if a television apology makes it alright.
This is truly Beyond The Valley of Orwell. The ultimate extension of the TV generation into madness. I’m sorry we’re killing your people who are innocent of anything more than being in the wrong place, but you see we have to do it. Okay?
What is the Afghan citizen watching the TV set living in the abject poverty of his mud hut supposed to say back to the TV screen to the foreign general? I accept your apology, go on with the killing?
Using television to try and absolve yourself of complicity in violent death as the world’s mightiest superpower attempts to impose its will on one of the poorest regions of the earth? There is a fantastic quality to it, men who claim to be leaders going about this business heedless and without the involvement of mind-numbed American people, who are so spaced from reality they can’t even see the insanity of it all. Attempting to make war acceptable to a television audience in which members of that audience are some of the ones being victimized.
“We pause for station identification.” POW! BLAM! The roof caves in and buries you and your TV set. I’m sorry. You were in the way. What ever happened to the slogan “War is hell?”
I’ve got an idea. Why don’t we send text messages to the families of innocent people killed that say, I’m sorry your loved one got his head blown off. Then sign it, General Bullright.
It’s madness. Lunacy. The people running this country have syphilis of the brain. A nine-year open-ended war that will go on forever in which a conventional army with sophisticated weapons fights a ragged insurgency in which the bad guys don’t even have shoes on their feet. Can we win? Are we proud?
I know I know. They’re all evil and we’re all pure and righteous and blameless for whatever happens.
This is in actuality a first. Never before in recorded history has a general gone on television to ask the natives of a country with a much lower standard of living than the country the general represents, to understand and be patient with the general and his forces for destroying a part of that impoverished country. If it wasn’t tragic, this could be a comedy.
Conventional wisdom is that a conventional army captures and occupies territory (or a town) and installs a friendly regime. The insurgency, faced with an opponent with overwhelming superiority in firepower and weapons, disperses into remote areas and waits out the occupation while continuing hit-and-run attacks. Because the conventional army occupies ground and drives the other force off the battlefield, they (conventional army) claim victory, or progress maybe.
The insurgency simply moves off and takes up new positions and hunkers down to wait as they have through ten previous invasions going as far back as the Romans under Mark Anthony. If we capture one of their leaders, a new one steps up.
Perhaps we can go on TV and ask them to surrender.
Huffington Post: In a much-anticipated Sunday showdown between Vice President Joe Biden and his predecessor Dick Cheney, Biden has drawn first blood.
Asked to respond to a range of harsh attacks on the Obama administration leveled by Cheney, Biden first gathered himself. “Let me choose my words carefully here,” he told David Gregory in a pre-taped interview for Sunday’s “Meet the Press.”
Then Biden let loose with several minutes of his most pointed criticism of Cheney since the 2008 presidential campaign, when Biden claimed that Cheney had “done more harm than any other single elected official in memory in terms of shredding the Constitution.” [ READ MORE ]
By: Roberto Dr. Cintli Rodriguez The images from Haiti compel us to look at the mirror and ask ourselves, if we have a heart and a face? What we see compels us to ask if we are the human beings that we profess to be. The answer moves us to act.
As Haiti bleeds, we don’t ask for proof of their humanity; we feel it.
We do not ask if we are related; we know it. As Haiti bleeds, we do not ask for their citizenship nor do we ask their religion. We… we realize that the world is we and we have become one. And so their children are our children and their elders are our elders. And all nations open up their borders.
As Haiti bleeds, we all open up our hearts. Celebrities freely lend their names, their words, their music and songs and we respond by sending ten dollars via a text message. Is that enough? Can we do more than simply send some bucks for a tax-break? Can we give of ourselves?
Can we give blood? Indeed, some do more.
Yet, deep down, we all know that no matter how much is raised, it won’t be enough. On the disaster scale, Haiti is 100 times Katrina.
Haiti is in danger of becoming one gigantic and permanent undignified Sally Struthers plea for assistance. Haiti does not need pity; it needs to be rebuilt. $100 million from the U.S. government and assorted charities will not suffice (This is 1,000 times less than the U.S. has spent on its current wars). Beyond that, Haiti needs to be brought into the family of nations, with dignity and a clear path to self-determination and self-reliance.
Haiti’s tragedy was not borne of a natural disaster; it was a tragedy before the quake. The U.S. imperial footprint is all over Haiti’s corridors of power and thus it cannot return to what it was. But that’s a narrative that will have to be written by Haitians, which may include the return of Jean-Bertrand Aristide – Haiti’s first democratically elected president that has been ousted several times by U.S.-supported forces.
The other narrative that Haiti has already changed is that mirror that the rest of the world now wakes up to each morning.
We now know that when Haiti bleeds, we too bleed. Perhaps people will come to understand that about Afghanistan and Iraq too. The people there daily bleed, not because of earthquakes or hurricanes, but because something has happened to dull U.S. minds and eyes. Something has prevented us from seeing our true hearts and our true faces. It is a smoking mirror. It is what has permitted illegal, immoral, senseless, costly and bloody wars to be waged in our names to the tune of over $1 trillion. And that’s but the short-term financial cost.
For at least a decade, U.S. bombs have been dropped all over those two nations with our names inscribed upon them. Our silence permits the carnage. Hundreds of thousands have been killed and maimed and millions have been displaced. Yet, we don’t have an actual count because the U.S. government doesn’t even bother; this is the meaning of dehumanization. As far as this government is concerned, everyone there is a potential enemy, a terrorist or collateral damage. And we all accept their deaths and this generalized and permanent war as necessary to maintain “our freedoms” and “our safety.”
Most of us know better, yet we’ve grown accustomed to looking the other way. Perhaps it is war fatigue. Most assuredly, there is no urgency, nor are there mass appeals to stop this destruction. If we protest the illegality and immorality of these wars, we are told that they are yesterday’s wars or yesterday’s news. But they are being fought today and tomorrow. But already, today and tomorrow is Yemen and Pakistan, Somalia and the Sudan. Possibly even Cuba and Venezuela.
We have found our collective humanity in Haiti and it now compels us to remove that smoke from our mirrors. It compels us to act, not just in Haiti and not just abroad, but even at home.
Perhaps we are not far off from the day when people will also feel compelled to demand from the U.S. government to put a halt to its draconian, anti-immigrant policies that contribute to the killing fields along the U.S. Mexico border. In this decade, more than five thousand corpses have turned up in the mountains and desert, yet where are the mass appeals? Where is our humanity?
• Rodriguez can be reached at: XColumn@gmail.com or PO BOX 85476 – Tucson, AZ 85754
America can no longer continue to impose its will on the world community. Nor can it suppress Islamic fundamentalism or its spread by its military power alone. The rise of Islamic fundamentalism with its current ferocity is a problem for the Muslim populace as well. But they will be reluctant to join the fight with true conviction unless America is willing to change its attitude towards Muslims and correct its past mistakes. Unless America plays its cards right, the consequence of its military exercise in Afghanistan will be just as futile as the war in Vietnam.
By: Prof. Mahfuz Chowdhury America has often fought the wrong war, at the wrong time, and against the wrong people. The wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and now Afghanistan would seem to fall into such categories. Although, apart from the human tragedy, the enormous economic fallout of the Vietnam War might be imagined, the full outcome of the Iraq war must be awaited as it is not over yet. However, the debate on the launch of the Afghan war has only begun and it would take many more years to assess the damage, assuming the war is not going to end anytime soon. This war is also affecting neighboring Pakistan and creating a great controversy in terms of its economic cost and more importantly about whether it is winnable. Opinions vary, but those who doubt that the war could be won seem to be gaining ground.
Here are some of their arguments. Afghanistan was such a sectarian and unmanageable country that super powers like the Soviets and earlier the British failed to control it. This country has not changed much since those days. The enemy that America is fighting in Afghanistan is elusive and the situation on the battleground itself is very erratic and unpredictable. The daily news of horrors such as the recent killings of the chief CIA operative including 6 other colleagues in Afghanistan, and the unprecedented and ever increasing human carnage in neighboring Pakistan should provide some important clues. In fact, the escalating conflict and mayhem in Pakistan, a nuclear country, is now adding to the genuine fear that its nuclear weapons are not safe in the hands of its government.
Is America’s goal to contain terrorism or to oppose organized Islamic fundamentalism in Afghanistan? If the fight is to contain fundamentalism, winning this war in Afghanistan alone is not likely to achieve it. The skeptics should only look at the unrelenting and vicious terrorist activities as well as the outright defiance that is spreading not only in Afghanistan and Pakistan, but also in Yemen, Somalia, Iran, Palestine, Lebanon, Iraq and many other countries, including America itself. (Notethe recent shooting rampage by an American army psychiatrist in Fort Hood, Texas, that claimed 13 lives plus many more injuries). Clearly, there are innumerable signs that the conflict is spreading. Indeed, after the failed 2009 Christmas Day bombing plot on a flight from Amsterdam, the U.S. government imposed intense screening of passengers at airports worldwide from 14 terror suspect nations. America had thought that it had found a willing partner in the Yemeni government that would support the deployment of American troops to fight the rising Islamic militants there. But it has been reported that the government of Yemen has rebuffed the idea for fear of losing popular support.
Religious fundamentalism is nothing new as it has been in existence since the birth of religion itself. The main theme of every religion was supposed to guide people to lead a noble life. Yet human society has experienced enormous oppression, suppression, violence, crime, brutality, fatality, and war in the name of religion. No religion is immune from the appeal of fundamentalism, and fundamentalist practices are still very much in existence, though subtly in some cases and violently in others. Without a doubt, Muslims have had their share of religious violence, and the present situation is no different. But to blame only Muslims for what is happening now would be morally wrong. How could one justify what Jews are doing to Muslims in the Middle East? Does not anyone see how Israel is provoking the Muslims?
Every heinous act of terrorism is a serious crime, and it must never be condoned under any circumstance, be it individual or collective. But, instead of looking or treating every terrorist act equally, if society condones or overlooks one and tries to punish the other, it only intensifies violence. This is precisely what seems to be the case with Islamic fundamentalist terrorism.
Islam is a world religion with a great following, and it certainly deserves respect. Yet the Muslim community always felt that they were being treated unjustly by the affluent west. The Arab-Israeli conflict has kept that feeling alive and very intense. The Muslims believe that the creation of Israel and the continued atrocities that are being perpetrated by Israel is nothing but a big conspiracy by the west to suppress them. They also believe that the Iraq and Afghan wars initiated by the United States are all part of the same conspiracy. And the religious fundamentalists are taking full advantage of public sentiment to create havoc and spread terrorism everywhere.
America claims itself to be the promoter of human rights and preaches self determination of all people. But it utterly fails to help the Palestinian cause. Why? The most difficult and painful situation for Muslims and other rational people, is to see and accept the sufferings of their fellow brethren in Palestine. The Muslims squarely blame America for the present tragedy because of its unequivocal support of Israel. After many years of armed struggle, the Palestinians have agreed to live peacefully with Israel in the internationally recognized pre 1967 border of Palestine. But Israel steadfastly refuses to compromise and continues to thumb its nose against world opinion by brutally suppressing the Palestinians, using American weaponry.
The best case for the Palestinians has probably been made by none other than the former U.S. President and a Nobel laureate Jimmy Carter, who argues in his book “Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid” that Israel’s continued control and colonization of Palestinian land have been the primary obstacles to a comprehensive peace agreement in the Middle East. The Israeli blockade of Gaza’s 1.5 million residents for the past year?as a collective punishment, which has drawn many international condemnations including allegations of war crimes?is a glaring example of actions that openly provoke Muslims to resent America, which refuses to intervene and stop such Israeli atrocities.
There are other issues of contention for Muslims. America supports Saudi Arabia, an autocratic country with no democratic rights, while it refuses to recognize the democratically elected Palestinian representatives of Hamas in Gaza. By the way, America along with Israel once supported the Hamas in Gaza as a counter to the Fatah movement. On the other hand, many believe that Saudi Arabia is sponsoring fundamentalism by providing financial help to religious schools in Pakistan and other Muslim countries.
Additionally, America went to war in Iraq under false pretexts and different agendas, though it now claims that the purpose was to save the Iraqis from the brutality of Saddam Hussein. Muslims believe that the main purpose for invading Iraq was to protect America’s oil supply. And they have plenty of facts to justify their claim that America is driven by its economic greed. They look at the situation in Darfur, Congo, Myanmar and other countries where America failed to prevent atrocities or promote democratic rights.
Muslims even question the American policy of allowing Israel to hide its nuclear weapons and maintaining its own nuclear stockpile, while it rallies its western allies to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Ironically, America’s success against Iran would depend entirely on the co-operation of China and Russia, which might not be forthcoming as they too have their own world agendas to pursue.
The above exemplifies the ways that America has alienated Muslims over the years. Now the new generation of educated Muslims is getting impatient with American prejudices, and is effectively using the internet to communicate with and receive feedback from each other. The fundamentalists are successfully indoctrinating these young people to resort to violent tactics in the name of “Jihad“, a religious word for martyrdom. America and the rest of the world have already witnessed some of their brutal suicidal acts during and since 9/11. If the core issues are not addressed, even if America wins the war in Afghanistan, it might not dampen the spirit of young Muslims around the world to pursue their resistance. American suppression is likely to embolden the fundamentalists to embrace new or more dangerous tactics of terrorism. Violence begets violence, and it would be impossible for America to monitor, invade, occupy or control every Muslim militant country in the world.
Although it is the sole remaining super power, America seems to be losing its grip on its economic power. The country has yet to recover from the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression. The unemployment rate is hovering around 10 per cent, the federal debt has already surpassed $7.5 trillion, and the federal budget deficit was $1.4 trillion in fiscal year 2009. There are other emerging economic powers now, who are preparing to compete and check American hegemony in the world. In fact, America can no longer continue to impose its will on the world community. Nor can it suppress Islamic fundamentalism or its spread by its military power alone. It clearly needs to reassess its overall foreign policies if it wishes to rein in the fundamentalists and remain an important international player.
The rise of Islamic fundamentalism with its current ferocity is a problem for the Muslim populace as well. But they will be reluctant to join the fight with true conviction unless America is willing to change its attitude towards Muslims and correct its past mistakes. A speedy and just settlement of the Palestinian crisis would be a good start. It should then be followed by a quick withdrawal of American troops from Iraq and a winding down of the Afghan war as fast as possible. Unless America plays its cards right, the consequence of its military exercise in Afghanistan will be just as futile as the war in Vietnam.
About The Author: Professor Mahfuz R. Chowdhury teaches Economics at C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University, New York, USA.
He has published articles on various issues of Bangladesh and other economic issues, which are posted on numerous web sites. He has wide ranging experience in international business and commerce, and has written on failure of communism & problem with developing countries.
Between war, and what the intended Nigerian underwear airplane bomber did?
It seems to be largely ruled by semantics.
The bomber, a troubled, insecure, boy, allowed himself to be duped by Yemeni extremists. That was wrong, what he tried to do.
But if a whole row of buildings are blown up in Baghdad and 1,000 people killed in an American air strike, nobody cares. In the US that is. That’s war. They deserved it, because they live in a country with bad people. Even though many of them were innocent. They just happened to be unfortunate enough to live there and be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Nobody in the US hears about them dying or cares.
But if a nut targets a plane with innocent people, who, according to the nut, live in a bad country, then the world shudders.
It seems to be the use of the word “war.”
When we kill them it’s war. When they kill us it’s terror. It’s semantics. In the case of both, the rights of innocent civilians are often totally disregarded.
Why is war acceptable? Why does the use of that term make it so?
In World War Two, thousands of civilians in Germany were killed by bombing. It can be argued that in that case, at the very least, war was used to stop war. The Nazis had to be stopped.
Unlike World War Two, Iraq is a war we started under false pretenses (false weapons of mass destruction).
Thus, in this case, war is not terror.
War is when the leaders of a country decide the leaders of another country (or a movement in that country) are bad and take steps to inflict damage on that country and its population. Terror is when the leaders of a country (or movement) decide the leaders of another country are bad and take steps to inflict damage on that country and its population. Both are pursued to increase or change influence in a region.
Thus, war is not terror.
But back to semantics. Why does the word “war” sound more acceptable than use of the word “terror?” When we do it to them, it’s war. When they do it to us, it’s terror. War often results in terror (ever have a bomb dropped on your head and not be terrified)?
Sometimes our leaders use the phrase “war on terror.” This is kind of an oxymoron. It’s like saying “stink on shit.”
They both stink.
War sounds much more noble and upbeat than does the word terror. Perhaps if we could find out which side used the “war” the most, we could determine who was using the word to sugar coat what is in both cases, a simple brutal resort to force to settle a dispute.
Words have psychological meanings that are important. For example, no intelligent person would dispute there is a huge difference between calling someone a “faggot,” and calling them a person into an “alternative lifestyle.”
Perhaps, similarly, war and terror mean basically just the same thing, with a difference of intent, that of justifying one argument against the other.
This is ludicrous.
America has often fought the wrong war, at the wrong time, and against the wrong people. The wars in Vietnam, Iraq, and now Afghanistan would seem to fall into such categories. Although, apart from the human tragedy, the enormous economic fallout of the Vietnam War might be imagined, the full outcome of the Iraq war must be awaited as it is not over yet. However, the debate on the launch of the Afghan war has only begun and it would take many more years to assess the damage, assuming the war is not going to end anytime soon. This war is also affecting neighboring Pakistan and creating a great controversy in terms of its economic cost and more importantly about whether it is winnable. Opinions vary, but those who doubt that the war could be won seem to be gaining ground.
About The Author: Professor Mahfuz R. Chowdhury teaches Economics at C.W. Post Campus of Long Island University, New York, USA.
