It's somewhat out of the public eye but "we" have been at war in Afghanistan now for 7 years and people are dying there each day. Our politicians and our media avoid the word "war" because people here have such a dislike against war. They call it "peace mission" or "international intervention" but of course it's a war. In America they are not so sensitive, they have a "war against drugs" and a "war against terror", so the word does not have this bad connotation it has in my country.
Why did we go to Afghanistan again? It was because the Taliban supported Osama Bin Laden. He was to be caught and punished for the 9/11 attacks. We all were so shocked seeing these planes crash into the twin towers. Now we know that the Taliban had no idea about Osama Bin Laden's plan and did not support him at all, so why are we still there? Apparently, Osama Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan - why are we still there?
Of course it's not about the control of oil and gas pipelines, it's about establishing peace and stability in Afghanistan and helping the people there. Then why is Afghanistan not a peaceful and stable country after 7 years of "intervention"? Why do our soldiers need 90% of their time to protect themselves against attacks on their lives and it's getting worse and not better? How is that supposed to establish any peace and security?
When you do the same thing over again with the same result and you do it for the umpteenth time expecting a different result - it's called stupidity.
We have no money for schools and universities, we have no money for the poor and unemployed, no money for the children and the sick and old people. We do have billions for bailing out private banks and for this totally useless war. I wonder how long the tax payers will be quiet. It's time that the democracy works for the people and not for banks and oil companies.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
I have to say, I doubt this would have gone unchallenged in the 60's. People had a voice then, and they were unafraid to have it heard. Or was it that they were less lazy than we are today? Everyone complains but no one does anything. It's as if everyone expects someone else to take charge. We see what happens when we sit back and let the powerful become moreso, and yet nothing is done. It might be different individually, but as a whole, we're lazy and self-absorbed. It's happening "over there". It's happening to someone else. When it hits our homes, our families or our pocketbooks, then and only then will we complain. Sadly, I think "I, Me, Mine" is the mindset of today.
I really can't put the world's attitude any better than Bob Geldof did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgu-tzjfit0
The world just doesn't care anymore, and that's about it. "I can watch whole nations die, I don't care at all"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgu-tzjfit0
The world just doesn't care anymore, and that's about it. "I can watch whole nations die, I don't care at all"
If they get a change in President they may not be at War much longer... then again
Great weed.
Seriously though, it is an obvious invasion with the purpose of gaining corporate America additional profit.
Seriously though, it is an obvious invasion with the purpose of gaining corporate America additional profit.
I think there's a lot more to the conflict in Afghanistan besides an international man-hunt. The country is in absolute shambles and is ruled by an unstable government. Left alone, they could become quite a far greater threat to the world than Iran.
This country has a history of civil war, followed by invasions by neighboring countries. Russia, or what's left of it, is not financially solidified enough to take that on themselves, which I guess is the main reason they pulled out in 1988. Now the US led coalition is facing the same problem. We had a global economic failure back then, too.
I dunno. Maybe Obama will find Osama.
This country has a history of civil war, followed by invasions by neighboring countries. Russia, or what's left of it, is not financially solidified enough to take that on themselves, which I guess is the main reason they pulled out in 1988. Now the US led coalition is facing the same problem. We had a global economic failure back then, too.
I dunno. Maybe Obama will find Osama.
[QUOTE]
[b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/b]
I have to say, I doubt this would have gone unchallenged in the 60's. People had a voice then, and they were unafraid to have it heard. Or was it that they were less lazy than we are today? Everyone complains but no one does anything. It's as if everyone expects someone else to take charge. We see what happens when we sit back and let the powerful become moreso, and yet nothing is done. It might be different individually, but as a whole, we're lazy and self-absorbed. It's happening "over there". It's happening to someone else. When it hits our homes, our families or our pocketbooks, then and only then will we complain. Sadly, I think "I, Me, Mine" is the mindset of today.
[/QUOTE]
I think we have less independent media, we are more brainwashed and fooled by the Orwellian language of our own leadership who lie to us shamelessly .Also we feel helpless in the globalized world dominated by a power structure we do not even know about.
The worldwide resistance against the Vietnam war came from the TV footage provided by independent war reporters. Today they are "embedded " (i.e. under total control and censored) in the army. Today we do not see the war images unless in very few cases something leaks to the public. As a result the public got more angry about a puppet thrown down a hill by a soldier than about all the war crimes combined. Crimes are not called crimes but "incidents" and the leadership lies about what happens with no shame. The media endorse the govenments in unprecedented sheepish obedience, just incredible.
We are affected, aren't we? People lose their homes and retirement portfolios in the "bank crisis". The governments heap up incredible debt in order to bail out banks and fund wars which only serve the interests of the oil and gas industry. Work incomes keep decreasing but the media tell us about how dangerous the bird flu is and alligators in the sewage system. What happened to the mad cow disease, anyway?
In the 1980s I was on demonstrations against the Pershing 2 with 200 000 poeple in our then capital. Today only a couple of hundred people can be mobilized for any peace demonstration, it's embarrassing. I don't want to generalize - it's not that the youth does not care but a big part of the young people were brought up thinking they are the center of the universe. In my generation we had many people who only ever thought about their hairdo, too - that cannot be the reason that Joe Public seems to be so unconcerned. I don't know what happened but there is a widespread feeling of helplessness and denial.
[b]magicalfreddiemercury wrote: [/b]
I have to say, I doubt this would have gone unchallenged in the 60's. People had a voice then, and they were unafraid to have it heard. Or was it that they were less lazy than we are today? Everyone complains but no one does anything. It's as if everyone expects someone else to take charge. We see what happens when we sit back and let the powerful become moreso, and yet nothing is done. It might be different individually, but as a whole, we're lazy and self-absorbed. It's happening "over there". It's happening to someone else. When it hits our homes, our families or our pocketbooks, then and only then will we complain. Sadly, I think "I, Me, Mine" is the mindset of today.
[/QUOTE]
I think we have less independent media, we are more brainwashed and fooled by the Orwellian language of our own leadership who lie to us shamelessly .Also we feel helpless in the globalized world dominated by a power structure we do not even know about.
The worldwide resistance against the Vietnam war came from the TV footage provided by independent war reporters. Today they are "embedded " (i.e. under total control and censored) in the army. Today we do not see the war images unless in very few cases something leaks to the public. As a result the public got more angry about a puppet thrown down a hill by a soldier than about all the war crimes combined. Crimes are not called crimes but "incidents" and the leadership lies about what happens with no shame. The media endorse the govenments in unprecedented sheepish obedience, just incredible.
We are affected, aren't we? People lose their homes and retirement portfolios in the "bank crisis". The governments heap up incredible debt in order to bail out banks and fund wars which only serve the interests of the oil and gas industry. Work incomes keep decreasing but the media tell us about how dangerous the bird flu is and alligators in the sewage system. What happened to the mad cow disease, anyway?
In the 1980s I was on demonstrations against the Pershing 2 with 200 000 poeple in our then capital. Today only a couple of hundred people can be mobilized for any peace demonstration, it's embarrassing. I don't want to generalize - it's not that the youth does not care but a big part of the young people were brought up thinking they are the center of the universe. In my generation we had many people who only ever thought about their hairdo, too - that cannot be the reason that Joe Public seems to be so unconcerned. I don't know what happened but there is a widespread feeling of helplessness and denial.
[b]===
YourValentine wrote: [/b]
I don't want to generalize - it's not that the youth does not care but a big part of the young people were brought up thinking they are the center of the universe. In my generation we had many people who only ever thought about their hairdo, too - that cannot be the reason that Joe Public seems to be so unconcerned. I don't know what happened but there is a widespread feeling of helplessness and denial.
===[/QUOTE]
I think that's the problem. It's not only the youth - indifference jumps the generation gap.
You're correct, and I understand, how the media brought horrible images and ideas back from Vietnam but while there have been attempts as suppression re. Iraq, there have also been a lot of despicable scenes shown here. People ARE upset. People ARE pissed off. And people do indeed want these wars to end. BUT they don't want to get involved. It sad but not unusual.
When my daughter was in kindergarten, all of the parents from my daughter's class - and I mean ALL - complained about two specific issues every morning when we dropped the kids off and every afternoon when we picked them up. After months of hearing the complaints, I suggested we sit down, as a united force, with the principle and present our concerns. It was like I'd walked into Stepford. There was an instant change in everyone. Suddenly the problems weren't so serious. Suddenly, they could deal with the issues themselves. I pulled my daughter out of that school and have remained very involved with her education since. Most of the others are still in that school and still in denial about this issues.
I think that same don't-get-involved attitude is what prevents the majority of people from demanding change. I also think, while the 'credit crisis' has hit some/many personally, it hasn't hit enough. It's still happening 'over there' or to someone else. Very few people are willing to exert the extra time or energy it takes to help someone else.
YourValentine wrote: [/b]
I don't want to generalize - it's not that the youth does not care but a big part of the young people were brought up thinking they are the center of the universe. In my generation we had many people who only ever thought about their hairdo, too - that cannot be the reason that Joe Public seems to be so unconcerned. I don't know what happened but there is a widespread feeling of helplessness and denial.
===[/QUOTE]
I think that's the problem. It's not only the youth - indifference jumps the generation gap.
You're correct, and I understand, how the media brought horrible images and ideas back from Vietnam but while there have been attempts as suppression re. Iraq, there have also been a lot of despicable scenes shown here. People ARE upset. People ARE pissed off. And people do indeed want these wars to end. BUT they don't want to get involved. It sad but not unusual.
When my daughter was in kindergarten, all of the parents from my daughter's class - and I mean ALL - complained about two specific issues every morning when we dropped the kids off and every afternoon when we picked them up. After months of hearing the complaints, I suggested we sit down, as a united force, with the principle and present our concerns. It was like I'd walked into Stepford. There was an instant change in everyone. Suddenly the problems weren't so serious. Suddenly, they could deal with the issues themselves. I pulled my daughter out of that school and have remained very involved with her education since. Most of the others are still in that school and still in denial about this issues.
I think that same don't-get-involved attitude is what prevents the majority of people from demanding change. I also think, while the 'credit crisis' has hit some/many personally, it hasn't hit enough. It's still happening 'over there' or to someone else. Very few people are willing to exert the extra time or energy it takes to help someone else.
YV wrote: "Now we know that the Taliban had no idea about Osama Bin Laden's plan and did not support him at all,"
Do we know that?
In any event, getting rid of the Taleban in itself is a good thing (even if that wasn't the real reason behind the occupation of Afghanistan). personally, I've always been aganst the war in Iraq and broadly supportive of the war in Afghanistan. If we can[t use our military and economic might to get rid of a hideous cult like the taleban we may as well retreat intro our own borders and shut oursleves off from the rest of the world. However, NATO countries either refuse to send troops or don't send enough so it's left always to the Brits and Americans to carry the can.
Do we know that?
In any event, getting rid of the Taleban in itself is a good thing (even if that wasn't the real reason behind the occupation of Afghanistan). personally, I've always been aganst the war in Iraq and broadly supportive of the war in Afghanistan. If we can[t use our military and economic might to get rid of a hideous cult like the taleban we may as well retreat intro our own borders and shut oursleves off from the rest of the world. However, NATO countries either refuse to send troops or don't send enough so it's left always to the Brits and Americans to carry the can.
Guys, if the USA wanted they would have been through with the war in a week. Actually they want or need the war to laundry the dirty money, to have the military complex working or to justify the campaign against terrorism, saying that all the terror comes from that country, or Taliban, or O.B. Laden, who maybe doesn`t even exist. The war is a fake.
[b]April wrote: [/b]
Guys, if the USA wanted they would have been through with the war in a week. [/QUOTE]
Just like the USSR in Afghanistan, right?
Guys, if the USA wanted they would have been through with the war in a week. [/QUOTE]
Just like the USSR in Afghanistan, right?
I guess a better question would be Why can't the Afghani people get their country in order? Instead of herding around in Tribes, realize this is 2008 and we don't need to do that anymore? There has been a civil was there for over 40 years now!!
[QUOTE]
[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b]
Why did we go to Afghanistan again? It was because the Taliban supported Osama Bin Laden. He was to be caught and punished for the 9/11 attacks. We all were so shocked seeing these planes crash into the twin towers. Now we know that the Taliban had no idea about Osama Bin Laden's plan and did not support him at all, so why are we still there? Apparently, Osama Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan - why are we still there?
[/QUOTE]
Just because Bin Laden might not be there NOW, it doesn't mean he was never there.
There's plenty of evidence to prove that Al-Qaeda's training camps before 9/11 were there.
Iraq, as well all know is a completely different story.
I do certainly agree that the role of the UN and the coalition in Afghanistan hasn't lead to a considerable improvement for Afghanis.
[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b]
Why did we go to Afghanistan again? It was because the Taliban supported Osama Bin Laden. He was to be caught and punished for the 9/11 attacks. We all were so shocked seeing these planes crash into the twin towers. Now we know that the Taliban had no idea about Osama Bin Laden's plan and did not support him at all, so why are we still there? Apparently, Osama Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan - why are we still there?
[/QUOTE]
Just because Bin Laden might not be there NOW, it doesn't mean he was never there.
There's plenty of evidence to prove that Al-Qaeda's training camps before 9/11 were there.
Iraq, as well all know is a completely different story.
I do certainly agree that the role of the UN and the coalition in Afghanistan hasn't lead to a considerable improvement for Afghanis.
The USA would have put the country in order in no time, if that was the aim. They would have found O.B.Laden in any secluded cave or residence with all the inteligence equipment and sources...
[QUOTE]
[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b]
It's somewhat out of the public eye but "we" have been at war in Afghanistan now for 7 years and people are dying there each day. Our politicians and our media avoid the word "war" because people here have such a dislike against war. They call it "peace mission" or "international intervention" but of course it's a war. In America they are not so sensitive, they have a "war against drugs" and a "war against terror", so the word does not have this bad connotation it has in my country.
Why did we go to Afghanistan again? It was because the Taliban supported Osama Bin Laden. He was to be caught and punished for the 9/11 attacks. We all were so shocked seeing these planes crash into the twin towers. Now we know that the Taliban had no idea about Osama Bin Laden's plan and did not support him at all, so why are we still there? Apparently, Osama Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan - why are we still there?
Of course it's not about the control of oil and gas pipelines, it's about establishing peace and stability in Afghanistan and helping the people there. Then why is Afghanistan not a peaceful and stable country after 7 years of "intervention"? Why do our soldiers need 90% of their time to protect themselves against attacks on their lives and it's getting worse and not better? How is that supposed to establish any peace and security?
When you do the same thing over again with the same result and you do it for the umpteenth time expecting a different result - it's called stupidity.
We have no money for schools and universities, we have no money for the poor and unemployed, no money for the children and the sick and old people. We do have billions for bailing out private banks and for this totally useless war. I wonder how long the tax payers will be quiet. It's time that the democracy works for the people and not for banks and oil companies.[/QUOTE]
I don't really see a reason to have war in Afghanistan, or any other country for that matter. They'll probably use the Bin Laden excuse, but I we don't need to throw bombs at countries to find him. I think of the people in those countries that have been invaded, and wonder what'd it be like if my country was invaded by another country and hearing bombs and gun fire all the time. It'd be horrible.
[b]YourValentine wrote: [/b]
It's somewhat out of the public eye but "we" have been at war in Afghanistan now for 7 years and people are dying there each day. Our politicians and our media avoid the word "war" because people here have such a dislike against war. They call it "peace mission" or "international intervention" but of course it's a war. In America they are not so sensitive, they have a "war against drugs" and a "war against terror", so the word does not have this bad connotation it has in my country.
Why did we go to Afghanistan again? It was because the Taliban supported Osama Bin Laden. He was to be caught and punished for the 9/11 attacks. We all were so shocked seeing these planes crash into the twin towers. Now we know that the Taliban had no idea about Osama Bin Laden's plan and did not support him at all, so why are we still there? Apparently, Osama Bin Laden is not in Afghanistan - why are we still there?
Of course it's not about the control of oil and gas pipelines, it's about establishing peace and stability in Afghanistan and helping the people there. Then why is Afghanistan not a peaceful and stable country after 7 years of "intervention"? Why do our soldiers need 90% of their time to protect themselves against attacks on their lives and it's getting worse and not better? How is that supposed to establish any peace and security?
When you do the same thing over again with the same result and you do it for the umpteenth time expecting a different result - it's called stupidity.
We have no money for schools and universities, we have no money for the poor and unemployed, no money for the children and the sick and old people. We do have billions for bailing out private banks and for this totally useless war. I wonder how long the tax payers will be quiet. It's time that the democracy works for the people and not for banks and oil companies.[/QUOTE]
I don't really see a reason to have war in Afghanistan, or any other country for that matter. They'll probably use the Bin Laden excuse, but I we don't need to throw bombs at countries to find him. I think of the people in those countries that have been invaded, and wonder what'd it be like if my country was invaded by another country and hearing bombs and gun fire all the time. It'd be horrible.