"Troops from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have been delivering humanitarian aid to their fellow Muslims and, on occasion, fighting their way out of Taleban ambushes. Though Jordanian forces have been carrying out some base security duties, the UAE's troops are the only Arab soldiers undertaking full-scale operations in the country.
Until now, their deployment has been kept so secret that not even their own countrymen knew they were here."
"We try to convince the people about the US, about British. They came here to give you peace" UAE Maj Ghanem al-Mazroui.
More here
29 March, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
43 comments:
Great idea.
The coalition troops should be replaced with Muslim troops as long as the Afghans are happy with it.
America has had nearly seven years to find bin Laden, and has failed to do so. Its time their tenure expires.
lo, that is a good one.
I bet this Ghanem guy doesn't even believe in what he said.
You know Rosh, I listened to this report on BBC Arabic and didn't hear Al Ghanem saying that he tries to convince the Afghan that the Americans are there to help them.
In fact, he said something contrary to that: he said that his requisite before engaging in Afghanistan was that the UAE troops would not engage in any fighting but only in humanitarian missions….
I think these two statements are contradictory, either Al Ghanem didn’t say it and it was dubbed to his mouth by the English reporter. Or, as Proud Emirati said, he doesn't believe in what he's saying.
American/ British troops and peace can't be put in one sentence.
Rose in Dubai
What possible reason could they have for NOT wanting peace??
Hmmm, how about serving the neo-cons agenda for a starter??
Jazz,
Ridding Afghanistan of the Taliban and Iraq of Saddam ARE actually humanitarian missions in the long run.
I'm pleased the UAE makes the right stand.
If I heard correctly on the BBC radio report, the UAE army has been there for years. So, why now is the secret being revealed? Then again, how were they able to keep this a secret for so long in the first place?
Whatever the case, we all know that military cooperation between an Arab-Muslim state and the United States is a very sensitive a charged issue. But of course, the reality is that this cooperation has existed for a long time and to quite an extensive degree.
Of course, being prudent is called for and such cooperation is often veiled. I've heard for example that the busiest port for US naval operations outside of the US itself is Jebel Ali. Of course, this is never talked about.
Nick ya Habib,
Political amnesia is a very vicious decease…
It's important to remember who had planted the 'Mujahdeen' in Afghanistan in the first place…
....
It's also important to note that the UAE troops are not 'cooperating' with the Americans, they are working under the charter of the United Nations…there is a big difference…
Well, Jazz, it doesn't matter who planted the Taliban (Benazir Bhutto I believe with US money) because it doesn't follow that you have to stick with them forever.
This is not called political amnesia but re-evaluation of geopolitical strategy, habibi.
Secondly, one of the two concurrent operations,
International Security Assistance Force is authorized by the UN security council and any humanitarian efforts like the World Food Programme (presumably under which the UAE troops are working) work in tandem with miltary operations. You cannot be part of the latter without implicitly, and retrospectively, becoming part of the first.
So, yes, the UAE are making a stand here. Good on them.
True Nick, you've just proved my point.
The ISAF is working under the UN charter; the UAE regiment would be part of them. so Al Ghanem saying that the Americans and British are there to make peace is irrelevant, because it is the UN who is (or should be) taking the lead…
It matters who have planted (recruited, armed and trained) the Muj in the first place, because those very people are not morally qualified to re-conquer Afghanistan under 'humanitarian' pretenses.
Apparently the whole thing has backfired on them.
Jazz,
Firstly, there are two separate operations going on in Afghanistan, one by US and Britain and and ISAF which is the other one which is NATO led and sanctioned by the UN. I don't believe the UAE are actually part of that one either, but who knows for sure. I think they are with the UN World Food programme.
And secondly, the mujahedeen were not trained and bankrolled to turn onto their own people like religious fascists, but to fight the Soviets, which was I think was a good intention. Obviously alliances change as do the intentions of all parties concerned. In my opinion it is now irrelevant who invented the Mujahedeen because you have to deal with the Taliban now as they are today.
ldu: it's not like one party has it all - the arms, muscle, diplomacy and influence. UAE troops can bring forth an amount of diplomacy & influence with US/British arms/power.
PE: am curious, how would you know & why would you say that? It's your men out there, perhaps believe in them.
DJ: I watched it on BBC (English), please note the link provided is more extensive than the broadcast.
"American/ British troops and peace can't be put in one sentence" - sorry, disagree. Plus DJ, the entire world stood by and talked (read: did nothing) when Soviets savaged Afghanistan. At the least US provided these people with something to fight back. It's unfair to claim Mujahidin were directly created by the US.
real nick: very true.
BD: UAE has always been neutral, and almost never confrontational. Diplomacy/talks have been most influential assets.
All said, no matter the level of effort/contribution from a single or few nations, perhaps it takes Joint effort/Team work, to bring peace, awareness and stability.
rosh Wow, do u seriously believe in this At the least US provided these people with something to fight back. It's unfair to claim Mujahidin were directly created by the US?
I bet also that the US invaded Iraq because it wanted to liberate the Iraqis, yea right !!!
The only reason why the US helped them is because it wanted to stop the Soviets ambition and power, it has nothing to do with peace, love or any other crap, FULL STOP.
History repeating itself, CLASSIC.
UAE was one of the three countries (others Saudi and Pakistan) who recognized the Taleban government of Afghanistan before 9/11. UAE supported their actions and for instance allowed Taleban run afghan government planes to use Sharjah airport for their logistics.
But when their master (i.e US of course) decided to go after the Taleban and Al Qaida, the puppet followed and was scared to admit it openly till now.
I think it explains it all.
All of it sounds unrealistic.
Nick,
I don't disagree with you, I just hope that the Afghan people would no more be used to fight the surrogate wars of other parties. They've had enough already and it's time to tidy this country up.
Six years along the American invasion and things are as bad as can be…
If the UAE presence can make a difference then good for them.
Rosh,
How can you tell the Soviet has ravaged the country? They actually had a puppet government (almost like the one in place now there) and good portion of the population supported them. And the regions they've controlled were quite stable.
The afghan war was a show down between two superpowers and ideologies no more. None of them is morally superior to the other.
DJ,
The sad truth about Afghanistan is that it has been one fulcrum of in Middle East geopolitics for a long time, starting in the 1920's with the first Afghan war (in which the Brits were properly clobbered by the Afghans and Russians) - up until now. That place is important. The West could not leave it to the Soviets, whether directly or indirectly by way of Najibullah and other puppets, and we cannot leave it to religious fanatics today.
'Stability' per se is a vapid and fallcious argument. The USSR was quite stable and Iraq under Saddam was stable and Syria is quite stable - at the expense of their citizens' basic freedoms!
All those who are myopic enough to complain about civil war and instability in Iraq today should remember the unrest and chaos in the US after the Civil war, or Spain after Franco, or Europe at large after WW1 and 2. Out of that chaos grew democracy and prosperity - not out of tyranny, but out of wars of liberation.
Nick:
You present some valid counterpoints in your 10:31 AM comment, and admirably when you say ‘Out of that chaos grew democracy and prosperity - not out of tyranny, but out of wars of liberation.’
Might I further add that in order for democracy to flourish, one has to want it to begin with and simultaneously work hard to maintain its continuity!
Democracy can flourish in the Middle East but it has to be dealt with kid gloves. An evidence of this could be found in the following (thinly veiled) lines from Dominique de Villepin’s speech to the UN in 2003:
To those who choose to use force and think they can resolve the world’s complex problems through swift and preventive action, we argue the need for determined action over time. For today, to ensure our security, we have to take account of the multiplicity of the many crises and their many facets, including their cultural and religious dimensions. Nothing lasting in international relations can therefore be built without dialogue and without respect for the Other, without exigency and abiding by principles, especially for the democracies that must set the example. To ignore this is to run the risk of misunderstanding, radicalization and spiraling violence. This is even more true in the Middle East, an area of divisions, long torn apart by strife, whose stability must be a major objective for us.
Go here to read the whole speech.
Finally, Nick, are you a history buff?
Kyle,
Villepin's measured language is beautiful and nothing but the usual diplomatic farting about and merely describes a status quo. He is right of course that preemptive military action is not always appropriate. For example (I would add) where it is not only complex but where it doesn't really matter to the world, like in Gaza.
I like history, yes. But there are several different histories around these parts. I guess I couldn't even agree with Dubai Jazz on the spelling of Bernard Lewis' name.
anonymous,
what sort of third world craphole are you from ? Im sure youre from the type of third world cesspool that begs the americans for aid to feed its people.
Nick,
This is the kind of argument that pisses me off, 'where it matters to the world' so you want to pick and chose according to your own interests? And who knows; maybe your own whims as well?
And who has given the US and UK the moral superiority to decide where the next hit is going to be and to what extent it might be taken?
It's exactly because of this line of thought the world had to establish something called the United Nation, for all its impotency, the UN is a better judge of the international affairs than the white house or a bunch of neo-con think-tanks.
You want to try to change the world by the virtue of your powerful whip, then go ahead and be my guest. But please do not pontificate to me about good intentions. All the proper channels of diplomacy were shut down to invade Iraq. All legal issues where bypassed, circumvented and ignored. Whenever the objective of the war was turned out to be a bust a new false objective was invented. And you describe what's happening in Iraq right now as normal? Hundreds of thousands of dead and God knows how many else maimed or disabled and you say it's normal? Maybe you'd also opt for Rice's favorite expression "the birth pangs of the new middle east".
Okay let's forget about the status quo for a moment and think about the future; where do you see this war going? What the ultimate reborn Iraq after this war is going to look like? Will it ever be the independent sovereign and democratic state with the presence of the permanent American military bases? Why would you need permanent bases when Iraq is going to be presumably secured and democratic? To ensure the flow of oil maybe? To guarantee the subordination of the government?
There are no clear moral, just or honest answers to all these questions even though Bush is trying now to bond the next American presidents with this 'permanent bases' treaty. This is the utmost hypocrisy and colonialism in its best.
But I am not pessimistic, as long as there are people like this guy who would stand for justice and truth no matter what. And as long as the greater chuck of the British people were/are opposed to this hegemony. I still see light at the end of the tunnel.
emirati,
I was just reminding everyone that UAE was supporting one of the most brutal and ignorant regime in the world and suddenly they flipped for the reasons i mentioned earlier.
About your "third world" crap, just listen to yourself and pause, what the hell are you talking about? You are from the ignorant and stupid kind who would never get it.
I just thank god everyday that i not from a country whose people shit on their pants and call on US to protect them. Perhaps you should take a tour of Jabel Ali port and the airbase behind the Global village and god knows how many other bases of shame in your country till you realize where you come from.
You have got to open your eyes, forget about your filthy Bedouin way of thinking and at least join the third world countries. I think years of surviving on camel milk and whatever other shit you can find in the desert have turned you all to idiots of today.
^^ Wow, u are seriously from a third world craphole, at least the way you think.
Well said Dubai Jazz
DJ,
How else do you expect "the West" to form our opinions and define our actions, if not according to our own interests and through our own eyes and interpretation?
As if Arab countries, or any other country didn't do exactly the same?
Please spell it out for me: What precisely do you as an Arab want the US and UK to do?
- Wait and watch the corrupt and selfserving shysters at the UN talking shop forfuckingever? and why ? What exactly has the UN done or achieved on their own account, to deserve credit in its own right, without military and financial support from NATO or corps of individual states?
DJ, the UN are one humongeous waste of money and effort. The UN have achieved iconic status amongst international fencesitters and Guardinaistas and bath themselves in an inverted reflection of glory simply by virtue of always being opposed to something (US policies) rather then themselves having defined successful policies.
Don't give me the fucking UN as solution to the Middle East's problems.
Don't give me the fucking UN as solution to the Middle East's problems.
What kind of a problem that Iraq has posed, which couldn’t have been resolved through the UN?
Yea I wonder, all the problems in the last century are caused by the west, starting from WWI, WWII, establishing Israel, colonizing most of the Islamic world, supporting corrupt regimes, planting terrorists , and now invading Iraq and Afghanistan
So it is the west that is useless and the one participate in terrorizing the world and not the UN. We need a better leadership now!
Proud emirati,
all the problems in the last century are caused by the west,..
Damn, you really got us there.
And then on the other hand, all the good things in the last century have come from the Middle East: Oil, hummos, falafel, man's slippers with silver buckles- the list is endless.
Brings such cheer to read, ya'll on the same page :)
I know I know :P
Brilliant, Rosh. I was about to blog about this.
The only comment I don't agree with:
"We try to convince the people about the US, about British. They came here to give you peace" UAE Maj Ghanem al-Mazroui.
But the rest is pretty good, if they're trying to help.
Errrmmm - why not VM?
I think the reasons have all been discussed above. But still, I don't believe the U.S/British & co. actually went to Afghanistan to give the people 'peace'. The Afghanis dislike them, and view them as foreign occupation. They haven't done much for the Country, except for make the situation worse in Afghanistan.
Like mentioned previously, there is a high possibility Ghanem probably didn't mean it.
That's your prerogative, and purely based on what you think.
I cannot imagine, how you've come to some conclusion the Afghans didn't need help? Even before September 11, Afghans fleeing war and hunger were the second-largest group of refugees in the world, according to Mennonite Central Committee statistics. The United Nations now estimates that seven million will be at risk of malnutrition, a figure seven times larger than the '80s famine crisis in Ethiopia.
Today, when they talk about insecurity, Afghans often speak of their fear - a return to the mayhem of the warlords or the harsh rule of the Taliban, and they fear new troubles sure to arise from a criminal economy fueled by booming heroin production. Taliban forces are resurgent and emboldened in their attacks on U.S. troops as well as on the government of President Hamid Karzai and the foreign community supporting him. Warlords, militias, and brigands dominate the entire country, including the city of Kabul. Many women and girls, freed from the Taliban’s rule, have again been forced out of schools and jobs due to insecurity.
But then, again - am sure, you disagree with all the above, since you do believe, Americans and the West came into Afghanistan to cause ADDED mayhem - just for the fun of it! You know what - not everyone on either side is evil. In my opinion, you clearly need to see thru that veil in your mind, a little better, your blog posts are absolute testaments.
Good luck.
You said it Rush;
The United Nations now estimates that seven million will be at risk of malnutrition, a figure seven times larger than the '80s famine crisis in Ethiopia.
hmmm, Afghanistan has been under control of the Americans for 6 years, and an atrocious famine is about to break? How reassuring…
And what’s more Hamid Karazai is a revered president but Najibullah was the puppet of the Russian ….?!
And why would the poor American soldiers come from half the way across the world unless it was their own good intentions toward the Afghan people?
Rosh, this is nothing but a 19th century colonial argument. As I said above, the Americans have helped the Muj against the Russians (arms, training, intell…etc..etc..), but when the Russians pulled out, the Americans left the country to crumble under the warring warlords and militia which they helped to create in the first place. And as I said, I believe the whole thing has backfired on them.
And what about Iraq? You see, Iraq and Afghanistan are inseparable on the neocons’ agenda, at least in the minds of the people of this region. Are you saying the neocons have pure good intentions in Iraq as well?
You want people to still believe in what Bush says even after what had happened in Iraq?
".......the Americans left the country to crumble under the warring warlords and militia....'
Agreed that was a fuck-up.
"You want people to still believe in what Bush says even after what had happened in Iraq?"
Absolutely YES! I'd rather have GWB, despite, the false war rhetoric, than, goddamn Saddam or the lousy Arab leaders we've got today. I've never believed, the end justifies the means - but perhaps, this is an exception, every rule has an exception, yes?
DJ: read thru your comments, primarily you claim, Americans left Afghanistan to mercy of the warlords. This is exactly what shall happen if Americans pull out of Iraq today. I have to agree what fellow blogger, Brn said - "damn if you do, damn if you don't".
And, let's be honest, Who's causing harm/violence in Iraq today? Who's killing each other in the name of religious divide!
These people have a chance to make something of their nation - and they choose to kill each other, burn it all down to hell.
When the Gulf war broke out in the 1990's, friends and I were preparing for the O finals. It was quite an uncertain time. There was talk about having to possibly leave the UAE, friends parents, who were in the army, were sent to the borders - our world was being torn apart.
I am glad Saddam is gone. Am glad we don't have to deal with his menacing ways of life in the region.
Lastly, I don't even wish to get into neo-con agendas/debates. There never is a free lunch - however, there shall be opportunities to make a better future. Iraq has that today - this is what Afghanistan didn't have. Take it, and built your nation, educate your people to prosper for a brighter future.
Rosh,
The reason why the neocons lack the moral integrity to wage wars and invade countries is because they do this to serve their agenda. While you are now so comfortably stating that leaving Afghanistan after 'the job was done' was a fuck-up (and I certainly agree), they at the time couldn't care less, their mission there was to harass the Russian and this mission was accomplished; so who cares what happens to the Afghans?
And I must say that I am upset with you ya Rosh, you go to the extent of saying that the Iraqis are to blame for what's happening in Iraq right now? That they have been given the opportunity to freedom and they decided to radicalize and kill each other instead? A person with your intelligence and with your open heart and mind should know that these are the same propaganda that the Americans are using: 'If we leave Iraq now things will deteriorate.' …'Iraq is the forefront in the war against terrorism…etc…etc…
Mccain is even prepared to stay there for 100 years. Let's see to what extent the American people's patience will stretch. 60 percent of the them are blaming the recession on the Iraq war and its horrendous expenses.
What I am saying is simple; any lawful military action against a sovereign member of the united nation should have the blessing of the united nation, I was relived to see Kuwait liberated from Saddam's crazy adventure; but I ask you the same question that I asked the Real Nick: what kind of threat Saddam was posing to the world's security in 2003 that the UN couldn't handle on its own?
The expenses of the war are horrendous, for 75 billion a year (which has now been remarkably exceeded), you could have eliminated poverty from the face of the earth! You could have educated all the children of the world! You could have ensured clean water to the whole world population! (and this was documented in a study by Chatham House), but instead what do you have as a result of this investment?: a country that is debilitated; poor services, poor security, sectarian strife, a very powerful military which is confused and morally uncomfortable (just check the numbers of Iraq veteran with PTSD and other illnesses) ..etc..etc…but what you also have is few neocons corporate principals, shareholders and defense contractors with their pockets stuffed with loads of money.
I know that we'll never agree with each other on this subject and I totally respect your point of view, so let's leave it at that : )
Yup, let's respectfully agree to disagree on most of it. To clarify, however...
"...the Iraqis are to blame for what's happening in Iraq right now'
Surely, you don't think Americans are killing 100's of innocents in Iraq, do you? The, almost daily suicide attacks, shootings, kidnappings etc all, are American soldiers?
Am not saying, there isn't fault, however, quite importantly, in the present - these people have a chance, they have an opportunity to get their nation back on track, put aside religious ideologies, respect fellow citizens for a better future..
As for the UN - (France, Germany, UK and gang) a bunch of sissies at a tea a party. All they ever did was TALK and prance around like little girls playing musical chairs, till the town went up in smoke.
As for Saddam's threat in 2003. The man and his goons always PROVED to be a menace, so were his sons, during his time at helm. I wasn't willing to take the "chance" and find out - what additional risks/mayhem he would have brought into the future, say in 2008. Am glad he's gone for good. Many in the Arab world are thankful, the US led coalition, took out Saddam in 1990's.
DJ: there is nothing to gain for anybody, including the US, if there is continued mayhem in Iraq and Afghanistan. At some point, all this rhetoric HAS to be put aside. People need to stop with the killing, and help one another built broken nations. Anyway, that was the point to this post.
"The expenses of the war are horrendous, for 75 billion a year”
I don't even know, how "the cost" is added up, but I ask you this- why would anyone wish to have their soldiers die and burn up all that monies, if not for a better peace and future.
Also, didn't mean to upset you. Apologies for that, am just trying to express something - the past happened, let's try and move on. I realize "moving on" has much attached to it. At some point, we've got to grab the best help there is and move on for the sake of a future.
If you ask me - the helping hand, largely in Afghanistan & Iraq, is the United States. Yup, they've "broken" many things, at the least, they are investing/spending and taking the heat to built - put it back together. Does that not say something to you?
Again, apologies for angst caused.
masalama
:)
Rosh:
That's your prerogative, and purely based on what you think.
Uh no. That's what I and thousands of other people who oppose this 'War of Terror' think based on past and recent evidence and current situation.
I cannot imagine, how you've come to some conclusion the Afghans didn't need help? Even before September 11, Afghans fleeing war and hunger were the second-largest group of refugees in the world, according to Mennonite Central Committee statistics. The United Nations now estimates that seven million will be at risk of malnutrition, a figure seven times larger than the '80s famine crisis in Ethiopia.
I never said the Afghans didn’t need help. However, they certainly did not, and don’t want It from Western occupying forces who are in Afghanistan because of their own agenda. To believe that the West is in Afghanistan to actually ‘help the people’ is laughable. Secondly, why be in a Country when the people do not want you there, if your pure reason is to help the country and eliminate their suffering.
In case you didn’t notice, even in the original article that was posted here, it was obvious the Afghans don’t like and are afraid of the Occupying forces.
Quote from the article:
"At first I thought these were American soldiers and I wanted them to leave but when they said they were Muslims I knew they were our brothers," a young Afghan man says.
You need to understand a bit more about the history and culture of Muslim Lands to realise that occupation in any form, especially by the West will not be accepted or taken lightly. The Afghanis have a powerful history, sure they’ve been attacked again and again, but that has only made them stronger. They are a very proud people.
Also, following the Media in the past few years since Afghanistan was invaded, there have been several cases out where Afghans have been mistreated, killed because of the War and conditions are worse for Afghanis under Western occupation. The living conditions are drastic, have worsened, opium production has increased as people turn to it for survival.
Today, when they talk about insecurity, Afghans often speak of their fear - a return to the mayhem of the warlords or the harsh rule of the Taliban, and they fear new troubles sure to arise from a criminal economy fueled by booming heroin production. Taliban forces are resurgent and emboldened in their attacks on U.S. troops as well as on the government of President Hamid Karzai and the foreign community supporting him. Warlords, militias, and brigands dominate the entire country, including the city of Kabul. Many women and girls, freed from the Taliban’s rule, have again been forced out of schools and jobs due to insecurity.
When the Taliban came to power, they initially stopped Warlords from destroying the Country. There was control and order, albeit harsh. Before the People would say they do not want to return to that, but now, MANY say they wouldn’t prefer either the rule of Taliban or Western occupying forces while others say they actually prefer the rule of the Taliban compared to the conditions that have come about with Western occupation of Afghanistan. In the 1990s, when the Taliban were in their highest state of power, they put an end to opium production, rape, banditry and thievery among other things.
Also Hamid Karzai is nothing but a puppet who wouldn't last without U.S backing.
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t support the Taliban as such, because I recognise their excesses and harsh laws, some which also do not have any basis in Islam. And secondly, they have been corrupted too, even within their own ranks, although they started out with good intentions.
However, too often the Taliban are portrayed in a bad light by the Western Media, again to support their own agenda. Just recently there was a report where the Taliban had re-captured a tribal area is the Afghanistan/Pakistan area and enforced a law that Women who had been forcibly captured and made to work in other peoples home had to be sent to their own homes otherwise the Taliban would inflict harsh punishment. A Woman who had worked in a Mans house for 25 years, against her own will, finally had the chance and freedom to leave and return to her own family. Likewise, it isn’t as if the Taliban hasn’t done ANY good, it just goes unreported by the Mainstream media.
Infact, It was the US-British invasion that actually lifted the ban on opium production in 2001. Interesting, isn’t it?
There are always two sides to the story.
But then, again - am sure, you disagree with all the above, since you do believe, Americans and the West came into Afghanistan to cause ADDED mayhem - just for the fun of it! You know what - not everyone on either side is evil. In my opinion, you clearly need to see thru that veil in your mind, a little better, your blog posts are absolute testaments.
If you go back, the reason, or should I say pre-text the U.S initially invaded Afghanistan in, was not to ‘help’ the Country or the people, but the main reason was to get back at those who President Bush ‘thought’ had done 9/11. The civilians that died alone in the immediate conflict were five times more then those dead in 9/11. Secondly, it wasn’t and hasn’t even been proven that Al-Qaeda was behind 9/11 [Note: Conspiracy theories]. Also, Afghanistan even OFFERED Osama Bin Laden before the U.S attacked to be trialed in another Country, but did they take up the offer? No. They chose to attack the Country. ‘Helping’ the people was not the main or initial cause. You do not start by mass bombing, tearing apart families and sending Sons of civilians to Gitmo or torturing prisoners to ‘help’ a Country.
I’d like to add that I never said people on either side are evil. I know there are sincere people in the U.S and the West in general who are out to help. But the overall view isn’t too nice and those people are a minority.
And I think it is not me that need to see through the ‘Veil in my mind’, but you. I choose not to believe in an idealistic view of the Western occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. There have been too many mistakes, too many pawns and other agendas involved for me to believe that they are out to help. Heck, a lot of Americans don't even support or believe in this War.
Anyway, this is a big fat can of worms and a futile debate which can be never ending. I just hope that the War stops, the bloodshed, the famine and the unjust imprisonment and harsh treatment and the people are given more rights and respected.
Good luck.
Same to you. :)
On an extremely side note, I respect you Rosh, but I understand that we don't always stand on the same footing regarding a lot of issues.
Peace.
VM:
"That's what I and thousands of other people who oppose this 'War of Terror' "
Yes of course, it isn't just you, there are others like you - and I was one amongst them. However, I learnt to see something beyond. That in - to bring about positive change for the long haul, you've got to go thru a harsher fight/period. There is never a free lunch, however, there are opportunities attached, for a brighter tomorrow.
".....however, they certainly did not, and don’t want It from Western occupying forces who are in Afghanistan because of their own agenda. "
Really? How would you know? It's amazing, the short sightedness. Most people of Afghanistan are poor, uneducated peasant folks who believed Taliban BS was godsend. Hell they danced to OBL and cronies swan song on what TRUE Islam represents, and these people actually bought it!! DO you think they did not want or need (even out of choice) external help??
Yes, of course the west didn't come in with a free lunch - and I've already stated that. However, learn to see for what it is - with this so called "occupation" the West, now, is trying to bring about some life and set some civility to the ways of life of these people. Pull that country out of the dark ages a bit.
Emancipate women folk - bring about a 21st century education and health care system.
Educated and wordily Afghans like Hamid Karzai is what's needed to put that unfortunate nation back on track - and as long as you had the Taliban, an entire country would just continue it's downward spiral to hell. You call him a puppet - I choose to see him as a valid representative who can lead his country amongst other nations, in the 21 st century.
"The living conditions are drastic, have worsened, opium production has increased as people turn to it for survival"
Living conditions haven't worsened because of the west you silly girl! It's worsened because these "PROUD" people you claim, who are unable to fend and look after their own. They continue to rob, kill and degrade their women folk. If you watch that video on BBC, linked to this article, it shall give you short insight.
Don't blame every thing on the WEST!! There are genuine people from the WEST out there, away from their families, doing voluntary work on their own, placing their lives at risk, so that Afghan folks can have a life - have some comfort and peace, none of which I can say for the Arab or Asian world. How many of your people are out there helping the Afghans or the Iraqi's? The entire WEST isn't encouraging these people to get back to Taliban lifestyle, in fact just the opposite.
"others say they actually prefer the rule of the Taliban compared to the conditions that have come about with Western occupation of Afghanistan."
Sure they do and exactly who are these people- the ones who believe in OBL's version of Islam?
"The civilians that died alone in the immediate conflict were five times more then those dead in 9/11."
This is true, and unfortunate - which is why I never supported either wars in the beginning. However, it's done - it's in the past - you CANNOT change that. The WEST feels the heat and the guilt, they are trying to bring about change for the better, and that is what needs focus. Not this chunk of unproductive rhetoric you spew out - it's useless honestly and breeds further hate. The hope for a brighter future rests on those eyes and minds which can forgive the past and grasp an opportunity to have lives for a brighter future.
"Afghanistan even OFFERED Osama Bin Laden before the U.S attacked ...."
hahaha, OMG - I need to circle this joke to all my Muslim friends - good one VM :) Am sure Pakistan did the same a hundred times - just that, the location was never correct eh.
There's much else I need to say, however, your belief system seems mostly one sided, hence shall probably not change unless you see/experience the beyond. I hope, someday you learn to see beyond, which is partly, why I used the phrase "Veil in my mind".
Thanks for sentiments on respect. I shall be honest - can't say I wholly respect you, I'd be lying. That said, I do believe you have an ability to see beyond - and I hope that you learn to reconcile, realize rhetoric can be unproductive and see the good in a whole lot of bad.
Once again - good luck.
Peace.
Post a Comment
NOTE: By making a post/comment on this blog you agree that you are solely responsible for its content and that you are up to date on the laws of the country you are posting from and that your post/comment abides by them.
To read the rules click here
If you would like to post content on this blog click here