« 回到论坛
版主：
AminaYasmine, Liamjod, mnopq
 作者 |
 发布
|
 |
|
belalady
连接： Mar 14, 2004
邮件 4
帖子等级
发音不清
用户是：
下线
国家：Spain
|
Re: reply
April 2, 2005 - 06:48 AM
|
|
vous etes de mauvaise foi. Ben laden et Zarquaoui ne sont pas des Americains qui ont choisi de tuer des gens innocent au hazard en envoyant des avions suicides ou en posant des bombes a Djerba, Le Caire, Alger, Omman, Medine, Alexandrie etc etc sur des gens qu'ils jalousent et haissent parce qu'ils n'ont pas les memes origines qu'eux.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Luke Lieberman
连接： Feb 13, 2003
邮件 156
帖子等级
喋喋不休
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 30
国家：United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: reply
April 3, 2005 - 01:12 AM
|
|
Udara - I don't feel like getting into another row with you -
You have a good point about the Warlords, I think America should have more troops on the ground.
Basically what is happening is that the Administraition does not want to commit the necissary troops to both Police the country and hunt Al Qaeda - rather they are outsourcing and hiring local Warlords to fight Al Qaeda for them - we only have 15,000 troops in country - Syria has that many in Lebannon and its a much smaller and tamer country.
this is obviously what is happening, and the CIA doesn't seem to concerned about who they hire for the job - which is not the first time they have made this mistake.
So I agree that the US should bite the bullet and commit more troops - do their own dirty work basically. And not just the US but ALL the affluent nations should be donating more AID to the Afganis.
The problem is simple, and I said it 3 years ago - the US moved on to Iraq too quickly and did not do a proper Job with Afghanistan securing the country and empowering the central government.
Had the US kept a full troop commitment (100,000+) for an additional 6 months in Afghanistan, like they are doing in Iraq - then the country would be better off.
But as I said before - the real way to disempower the warlords is through their major trade - Opium - ban that and you have cut of the warlords oxygen.
And if you want to move Bush in that direction what really needs to happen is to raise awareness amongst the Christian conservative base of the amount of Herion being produced in Afghanistan - that will get the Admistraition moving in the right direction.
In fact on that note - I am going to post a messege to this effect on a more conservative American website I also participate in.
"if you think that just one person control all the American politics"
You are confusing 2 issues - one the one hand you think Bush is a Puppet of big bussiness - which he is not - he is their freind, but not their puppet, or their lackey -
And on the other you say that by denying Bush is a puppet I am saying he is the only power in AMerican politics - which does not logically follow.
- I never claimed that no one has any influence over him - nor did I ever claim he is the only power in the government - he is not a dictator -
but just because there are other powers in the American government which can check Bush's power - most notibly the Courts - does not make him a puppet.
Bush still has the power to tell just about anyone in the world to go f%$# themselves - except for a Federal Judge.
The American system of Government is based on Checks and Balances - so if Bush is a puppet then by your logic all American Presidents are precisely because they are not dictators and they have constituencies that they must appease.
That said once you have been elected President of the US you become a very difficult person for ANYONE to push around - that is why I reject the idea of him being a puppet.
But - your point is well taken regarding the Warlords.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Udara
连接： Dec 10, 2003
邮件 55
帖子等级
爱说话的
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 25
国家：Sri Lanka
|
Re: reply
April 3, 2005 - 05:58 AM
|
|
>Udara - let me make it simple - has the US installed a >Shah type figure in either Afghanistan or Iraq?
>if not what is the relevence of Iran 1952?
This created so much problems Luke, why did USA support Iraq under Sadaam. Ofcourse its because of radicals in Iran.
While you blaming the British for choas in middle east, you have failed to see the role of USA! And thats what i would like to remind you!
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Udara
连接： Dec 10, 2003
邮件 55
帖子等级
爱说话的
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 25
国家：Sri Lanka
|
Re: reply
April 3, 2005 - 06:01 AM
|
|
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski about how the US provoked the Soviet Union into invadingAfghanistan and starting the whole mess
Le Nouvel Observateur (France), Jan 15-21, 1998, p. 76*
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs [From the Shadows], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan six months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, closely guarded until now, is completely otherwise:Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid
was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
Question: Despite this risk, you were an advocate of this covert action. But perhaps you yourself desired this Soviet entry into war and looked to provoke it?
Brzezinski: It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would.
Question: When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to fight against secret involvement of the United States in Afghanistan, people didn't believe them. However, there was a basis of truth. You don't regret anything today?
Brzezinski: Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of drawing the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day that the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, in substance: We now have the opportunity of giving to the USSR its Vietnam war.
Indeed, for almost 10 years, Moscow had to carry on a war
unsupportable by the government, a conflict that brought about the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet empire.
Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalists, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?**
Question: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
----------------------------------------------------
* There are at least two editions of this magazine; with the
perhaps sole exception of the Library of Congress, the version
sent to the United States is shorter than the French version, and
the Brzezinski interview was not included in the shorter version.** It should be noted that there is no demonstrable connection between the Afghanistan war and the breakup of the Soviet Union
and its satellites.
This interview was translated from the French by William Blum,
Author of "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions
Since World War II" and "Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only
Superpower". Portions of the books can be read at:
http://members.aol.com/superogue/homepage.htm (with a link to
Killing Hope)
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Udara
连接： Dec 10, 2003
邮件 55
帖子等级
爱说话的
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 25
国家：Sri Lanka
|
Re: reply
April 3, 2005 - 06:04 AM
|
|
Luke, someday in your life, you will understand 9/11 too is nothing but a result of the action of US foreign policy.
It seems USA got their justice done against by bombing Afghanistan, how many poor other countries in the world will get their justice done against the atrocities of America?
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Udara
连接： Dec 10, 2003
邮件 55
帖子等级
爱说话的
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 25
国家：Sri Lanka
|
Re: reply
April 3, 2005 - 06:07 AM
|
|
>Also Udara - as one who abhorrs violence - I ask you - >what would happen if Kabul and the US started cracking >down on the Warlords hard - alot of innocent people would >die in the crossfire - these warlords would not go down >without a fight.
Luke, USA can do a lot being a powerful army in a country like Afghanistan. What is happening is not even remotely close of CRACKING them luke, its active support for war lords.
You should get some inside news on this from Haseeb, I assure you he will be able to give u a clear picture!
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Udara
连接： Dec 10, 2003
邮件 55
帖子等级
爱说话的
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 25
国家：Sri Lanka
|
Re: reply
April 3, 2005 - 06:29 AM
|
|
>- you can't do nothing, or neither, you have to pick the >lesser of two evils, whatever you think that is -
Luke, How do you define lesser evil ?
It seems as pro-AMerican evil is lesser while anti-American evil is severe.
America can do a lot of ground work in Afghanistan empowering people NOT war lords. But to make it a reality, Afghanistan need a lot of aid.
But the easy way is to empower american friendly war lords as they will make sure that people will not turned out against America under their gun point!
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Udara
连接： Dec 10, 2003
邮件 55
帖子等级
爱说话的
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 25
国家：Sri Lanka
|
Re: reply
April 3, 2005 - 06:42 AM
|
|
>Udara What??? You can't be serious - I'm not even going to >answer this one. I have never heard anyone call Bush a >helpless puppet before
Bush is nothing but a helpless puppet of oil and big money, it is obvious for anybody!
>I think the >US could be doing more
I agree, Afghanistan needs MORE and MORE help, but sadly, what is happening is war lords thriving in everywhere except Kabul under the blessing of US troops.
>frankly if Kabul wants to disempower the warlords they >would outlaw the Opium trade and crack down. Also Udara - >as one who abhorrs violence - I ask you - what would >happen if Kabul and the US started cracking down on the >Warlords hard - alot of innocent people would die in the >crossfire - these warlords would not go down without a >fight
How many innocent people already died in the process of "liberating" afghanistan? Not that i want more people to die, but why doing a job undone inviting for more trouble in future ? How many more years will the people tolerate war lords ? What if they turns yet again to Taliban sort of groups!
Afghans initially supported Talibans , why ? Because they thought Talibans could bring some stability in the country!
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Udara
连接： Dec 10, 2003
邮件 55
帖子等级
爱说话的
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 25
国家：Sri Lanka
|
Re: reply
April 3, 2005 - 09:45 AM
|
|
Afghanistan: Return of the Warlords
Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper
June 2002
The United States and its coalition forces have an active presence in southern Afghanistan and have used local troops supplied by warlords in combat operations. These activities have fostered the impression that the United States is supporting the warlords, directly or indirectly. In Zabul, for instance, Observer O, who has been traveling throughout southern Afghanistan to monitor the loya jirga process, described the perceived link between U.S. coalition forces and Governor Tokhi:
Because the United States does not have any troops - no land troops - to deploy, it was only bombing, and they used these people as land troops to capture and take the place of the Taliban. Therefore they came into power, and then Hamid Karzai had no police and no army and he was compelled to accept their authority and their power in Zabul. The U.S. gives them satellite telephones, financial support, and enough weapons. On our way back from Qalat [after elections were cancelled due to Governor Tokhi's repressive tactics], we saw that American troops were on their way to Qalat.66
An international member of a loya jirga observation team described a similar perception of the link between U.S. coalition forces and local warlords in Oruzgan province, and the widely shared belief that "the U.S. forces are helping to protect the governor in Tirin Kot [the governor of Oruzgan]... in Helmand... in Kandahar."67
Official U.S. policy in Afghanistan is driven by a desire to avoid entanglement in Afghanistan and minimize the commitment of American combat troops there, necessitating a reliance on local commanders - regardless of their human rights records - to provide security.
While the U.S. government does not view this policy as actively supporting local warlords, the distinction is often lost on Afghan civilians who see coalition forces openly interacting with warlords.
A senior member of the loya jirga observation team for the southern region of Afghanistan repeated the widespread sentiment that commanders across the area west of Kandahar were directly using American support to intimidate local populations. He told Human Rights Watch that commanders in Gholistan, Farah, north Helmand, and Nimroz have used satellite phones, many given to them by coalition forces, to threaten opposition leaders or other villages with bombing:
The commanders who the United States have supported, there is no one to stand up to them. The commanders all around this area very easily threaten the local population. Many of them have been given satellite telephones, and they use these to scare everyone. They say to people, "If you do not do what we say, we will tell the Americans you are Taliban or Al Qaeda, and have the Americans bomb you." They misuse the phones, they intimidate people. [We hear this from] all the people who have been nominated for the loya jirga process, who have complaints about the commanders, and who come to us.68
Residents of Sanzari district, in Kandahar province, told Human Rights Watch that their fear of their local commander Habibullah was in part based on their perception that U.S. coalition forces, as well as provincial governor Gul Agha, supported Habibullah. One man explained the roots of this belief:
These people got their weapons from Gul Agha. Gul Agha did get support from the Americans, and Habibullah got the support from Gul Agha, so you can decide for yourself... Gul Agha has been out to Sanzari some times, to have lunch with Habibullah. The American troops have come to Habibullah about ten times. Sometimes with two trucks, with three trucks, or four trucks, sometimes just with one truck. Many times they have come.69
Such fears about the involvement of U.S. troops are stoked by incidents such as the assault on the village of Band-e Temur, when some fifty local villagers were arrested and their elderly leader was killed while being taken into custody of U.S. troops, apparently because of a case of mistaken identity.70
Although U.S. forces were clearly visible to our researchers, Human Rights Watch during its mission could not independently confirm allegations about active agents from other governments. The consistent and broad nature of the testimony raised serious concerns about recurring interference of Afghanistan's neighbors in the country's domestic processes. International and local observers of the loya jirga expressed their strong belief that agents of these two governments are active throughout southern Afghanistan.71 Given the history of involvement and support by Iran and Pakistan with various Afghan factions, such allegations are eminently plausible and require proper investigation by the Afghan government, the United Nations, and international security forces.72
http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghanistan/warlords5.htm#P277_51810
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Luke Lieberman
连接： Feb 13, 2003
邮件 156
帖子等级
喋喋不休
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 30
国家：United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: reply
April 3, 2005 - 10:19 AM
|
|
"Bush is nothing but a helpless puppet of oil and big money, it is obvious for anybody!" - Udara
then who is the puppetmaster? Some nameless shadowy figure.
I think Bush is too cozy with AOT of industries, including the phamecutical companies - but that doesn't make them his master - Bush is the most powerful person on earth, he is no one's puppet.
If anyone is pulling his strings it is the Religious Right constituency that got him re-elected, because they give him his political clout.
Frankly Udara - if you are regarding Bush as a puppet - you are seriously misunderstanding what it means to be the President of the United States - big money - what is that compared with the capital that Bush already weilds?
You would benefit greatly from a more reolistic understanding of American politics. Right now your understanding is evidently very shallow.
As for Warlords having the blessing of American troops - America does not have enough troops to police the country - we have about 15,000, whose real job is to hunt Bin Laden.
In order to crush the Warlords it would require at least 3 times as many troops.
I think you are mistaking indifference, or inability to handle the warlords, for support.
You still have yet to give me any reason why it behooves America for troops would support the warlords as instability is obviously not in America's interests - how is America benefitting from this alledged support?
"America can do a lot of ground work in Afghanistan empowering people NOT war lords" - Udara
We did, we held elections for that exact purpose of empowering the people.
"empower american friendly war lords" - are you saying that America is putting in place warlords - or simply working with ones who are already there?
I think basically America is working with a pre-established power structure.
Also this idea that we have such warlords in place to make sure no one turns on us by gunpoint - what is an "America friendly" warlord exactly?
- it doesn't seem to me such a thing actually exists - it is not like Warlords have any real sense of loyalty, certainly not to us - you can buy the loyalty for some period of time, but that is about it.
I am also certain that some of the warlords have been paid for their soldeirs in operations against Al Qaeda.
I certainly looks like the CIA spread around some greenbacks to buy off the warlords.
I think it is understood that Karzi is the most enduringly loyal figure in Afghanistan - that is why he has our support -
- I would like to see him get more money though.
"Luke, someday in your life, you will understand 9/11 too is nothing but a result of the action of US foreign policy." - Udara
Udara someday in your life you will grow to understand that 9/11 was the result of a radical religious ideology, and the actions of mad men - if we did bussiness with these people 20 years ago is basically irrelevent.
Someday you will understand, as I did upon seeing the disaster - that there is no such thing as a "reason" for actions like that one.
We did not create the Whahabbi schools in Saudi Arabia, we did not create the concept of Jihad.
When the Nazis started bombing London in the 40's a kid like you could have said to the English "This is a result of your foreign policy" - and sure the English imposed war reparations on Germany that destroyed the German economy after WW1 -
- but that does not make them responsible for the existance, or actions caused by Nazi ideology.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Luke Lieberman
连接： Feb 13, 2003
邮件 156
帖子等级
喋喋不休
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 30
国家：United States
Province/State: California
|
Re: reply
April 3, 2005 - 10:24 AM
|
|
- http://www.e-ariana.com/ariana/eariana.nsf/0/5D87E10F09316F0C87256C070069B43A?OpenDocument
A recent study published by Human Rights Watch says that the resurgence of warlordism in Afghanistan is fueled, in part, by international factors.
It says the unwillingness of the international community to deploy peacekeeping forces outside of Kabul, combined with the frequent presence of U.S. troops and their apparent cooperation with regional warlords, has left the impression among many Afghans that the warlords enjoy U.S. support.
Indeed, the United States and its coalition forces have an active presence in southern Afghanistan and have used the troops of Afghan warlords in combat operations against the Taliban and Al-Qaeda.
Human Rights Watch notes that the official U.S. policy in Afghanistan has been driven by a desire to minimize the commitment of U.S. combat troops. That has meant a reliance on local warlords -- regardless of their human rights records -- to provide security and to help with ground operations.
U.S. officials have confirmed that troops from Afghan factions are working with U.S. Special Forces in the war on terror. But Washington does not view that policy as active support for local warlords.
Human Rights Watch says it also has received unconfirmed reports of active support for different warlords by Iran and Pakistan.
The latest clashes to erupt between the private Afghan armies occurred early this week in the western provinces of Herat and Farah.
That fighting involves troops that had not confronted each other since the signing of the Bonn accords last December. They are ethnic Tajik fighters of the pro-Iranian Herat Province Governor Ismail Khan and ethnic Pashtun troops from the south under the command of Ammanullah Khan.
Lieutenant General Dan McNeill recently offered to help resolve tensions between Ismail Khan and the ethnic Pashtuns.
But the Herat governor reportedly told McNeill that he does not need the United States to play the role of mediator. Ismail Khan?s private army is thought to number about 30,000 troops.
Significantly, the fighting this week broke out along the transport corridor that passes through Kandahar and Herat to link western Pakistan to Turkmenistan and the rest of Central Asia.
Truck drivers at the Afghan-Pakistan border crossing near Spin Boldak and Chaman have been on strike this week to protest dozens of illegal road blocks along the route that make their jobs dangerous and unprofitable.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Udara
连接： Dec 10, 2003
邮件 55
帖子等级
爱说话的
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 25
国家：Sri Lanka
|
Re: reply
April 3, 2005 - 10:24 AM
|
|
Afghanistan: Return of the Warlords
Human Rights Watch Briefing Paper
June 2002
>You still have yet to give me any reason why it behooves >America for troops would support the warlords as >instability is obviously not in America's interests - how >is America benefitting from this alledged support?
This report says everything, shall i not give any credibility to this report ? Its an original REPORT from Human rights watch.
[I}Official U.S. policy in Afghanistan is driven by a desire to avoid entanglement in Afghanistan and minimize the commitment of American combat troops there, necessitating a reliance on local commanders - regardless of their human rights records - to provide security.
[/I]
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Udara
连接： Dec 10, 2003
邮件 55
帖子等级
爱说话的
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 25
国家：Sri Lanka
|
Re: reply
April 3, 2005 - 10:45 AM
|
|
>Udara someday in your life you will grow to understand >that 9/11 was the result of a radical religious ideology, >and the actions of mad men - if we did bussiness with >these people 20 years ago is basically irrelevent.
>Someday you will understand, as I did upon seeing the >disaster - that there is no such thing as a "reason" for >actions like that one.
IRRELEVENT ? Let me remind u this:
(Zbigniew Brzezinski about how the US provoked the Soviet Union into invadingAfghanistan and starting the whole mess)
Question: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalists, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?
Brzezinski: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?**
Question: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated: Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.
Brzezinski: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Udara
连接： Dec 10, 2003
邮件 55
帖子等级
爱说话的
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 25
国家：Sri Lanka
|
Re: reply
April 3, 2005 - 11:03 AM
|
|
>In order to crush the Warlords it would require at least 3 >times as many troops
What do u mean crushing? Look what human right watch says:
He told Human Rights Watch that commanders in Gholistan, Farah, north Helmand, and Nimroz have used satellite phones, many given to them by coalition forces, to threaten opposition leaders or other villages with bombing: The commanders who the United States have supported, there is no one to stand up to them. The commanders all around this area very easily threaten the local population. Many of them have been given satellite telephones, and they use these to scare everyone. They say to people, "If you do not do what we say, we will tell the Americans you are Taliban or Al Qaeda, and have the Americans bomb you." They misuse the phones, they intimidate people. [We hear this from] all the people who have been nominated for the loya jirga process
Giving weapons and satelite phones can be considered as "crack down" ???
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
Udara
连接： Dec 10, 2003
邮件 55
帖子等级
爱说话的
用户是：
下线
性别和年龄： 男性, 25
国家：Sri Lanka
|
Re: reply
April 3, 2005 - 11:18 AM
|
|
>Frankly Udara - if you are regarding Bush as a puppet - >you are seriously misunderstanding what it means to be the >President of the United States - big money - what is that >compared with the capital that Bush already weilds? You >would benefit greatly from a more reolistic understanding >of American politics. Right now your understanding is >evidently very shallow.
While I would not like to comment on any shallow or deep understanding of yours in any issue and creating personal rifts,I would comment saying that it is evident that Bush is a puppet of right wings and big business folks.
And if you think that just one person control all the American politics, its upto you to believe that. This issue i believe was clearly summed up by Jedimike in some other discussions last year.
|
|
回到顶部 |
链接这个地址
|
|
|
从帖子中显示：
|
|
主页
团体
