3 million...thanks, US forces!

(Mods–the NY Times website only leaves full articles up for seven days, so I hope you don’t mind me posting the whole thing?)

I think an astounding thing is happening in Afghanistan. Contrary to what Chomsky feared, that genocide and mass starvation would occur following the US action there, three million refugees have returned to Afghanistan since 2001.

Wait a minute…I’m not sure the “anti-war” lefties quite understood that last part correctly, so let me repeat it:

Three million refugees have returned to Afghanistan following the fall of the Taliban.

This is what you might call, erm…good.

I’ll preempt the naysayers by stating that my rather congratulatory post does not imply blanket approval to all US foreign policy over the years, nor is it meant to convince objectors to the action in Iraq that many aspects of the aftermath of the war in Iraq have been handled scandalously badly by Bush et al.

Rather, I think the results of the war in Afghanistan are vindication for those who saw clearly that it was necessary and essential. Indeed, they should give pause to knee-jerk anti-American leftists who consider John Ashcroft to be a greater threat to world peace and stability than the nasties out there who brought this all on.

Think about it…three million.

[quote]OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

Hope Amid the Rubble

By PETER BERGEN

Washington

Based on what Americans have been seeing in the news media about Afghanistan lately, there may not be many who believed President Bush on Tuesday when he told the United Nations that the “Afghan people are on the path to democracy and freedom.” But then again, not many Americans know what Afghanistan was like before the American-led invasion. Let me offer some perspective.

This summer I visited Kandahar, the former Taliban stronghold in southern Afghanistan, for the first time since the winter of 1999. Five years ago, the Taliban and its Al Qaeda allies were at the height of their power. They had turned Afghanistan into a terrorist state, with more than a dozen training camps churning out thousands of jihadist graduates every year.

The scene was very different this time around. The Kandahar airport, where I had once seen Taliban soldiers showing off their antiaircraft missiles, is now a vast American base with thousands of soldiers, as well as a 24-hour coffee shop, a North Face clothing store, a day spa and a PX the size of a Wal-Mart. Next door, what was once a base for Osama bin Laden is now an American shooting range. In downtown Kandahar, the gaudy compound of the Taliban leader, Mullah Muhammad Omar, now houses United States Special Forces units.

As I toured other parts of the country, the image that I was prepared for - that of a nation wracked by competing warlords and in danger of degenerating into a Colombia-style narcostate - never materialized. Undeniably, the drug trade is a serious concern (it now compromises about a third of the country’s gross domestic product) and the slow pace of disarming the warlords is worrisome.

Over the last three years, however, most of the important militia leaders, like Gen. Abdul Rashid Dostum of the Uzbek community in the country’s north, have shed their battle fatigues for the business attire of the politicians they hope to become. It’s also promising that some three million refugees have returned to Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban. Kabul, the capital, is now one of the fastest-growing cities in the world, with spectacular traffic jams and booming construction sites. And urban centers around the country are experiencing similar growth.

While two out of three Afghans cited security as their most pressing concern in a poll taken this summer by the International Republican Institute, four out of five respondents also said things are better than they were two years ago. Despite dire predictions from many Westerners, the presidential election, scheduled for Oct. 9, now looks promising. Ten million Afghans have registered to vote, far more than were anticipated, and almost half of those who have signed up are women. Indeed, one of the 18 candidates for president is a woman. Even in Kandahar, more then 60 percent of the population has registered to vote, while 45 percent have registered in Uruzgan Province, the birthplace of Mullah Omar. With these kinds of numbers registering, it seems possible that turnout will be higher than the one-third of eligible voters who have participated in recent American presidential elections.

According to a poll taken in July by the Asia Foundation, President Hamid Karzai is drawing substantial support around the country. He has emerged not only as a popular leader, but also as a shrewd player of the kind of hardball politics that would have warmed the heart of Lyndon Johnson. This summer he dropped his running mate, Mohammad Fahim, a power-hungry general who had pompously awarded himself the title of field marshal after the fall of the Taliban. And this month Mr. Karzai forced Ismail Khan, the governor of the western province of Herat, to resign. These moves not only neutralized two powerful rivals, men who could field their own private armies, but also increased the stability of the central government.

What we are seeing in Afghanistan is far from perfect, but it’s better than so-so. Disputes that would once have been settled with the barrel of a gun are now increasingly being dealt with politically. The remnants of the Taliban are doing what they can to disrupt the coming election, but their attacks, aimed at election officials, American forces and international aid workers, are sporadic and strategically ineffective.

If the elections are a success, it will send a powerful signal to neighboring countries like Pakistan, Iran, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, none of which can claim to be representative democracies. If so, the democratic domino effect, which was one of the Bush administration’s arguments for the Iraq war, may be more realistic in Central Asia than it has proved to be in the Middle East.

Peter Bergen is a fellow at the New America Foundation and an adjunct professor at the School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins University.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/23/opinion/23bergen.html
[/quote]

Reality check:

The vast majority of us – including the French – supported the invasion of Afghanistan and the routing of al Qaeda and their hosts, the Taleban.

They’re the real enemy.

Our problem is that the job was left half done in typical Washington DC attention deficit disorder style and the intact virus was able to spread to Iraq with relatively little trouble because it hadn’t been completely eliminated.

That’s simply not true. The vast majority of you, if by “you” you mean the Left, were against the war in Afghanistan from the get-go. The anti-war rallies back in the fall of 2001 were far bigger than they were in the spring of 2003.

I find that some (emphasis on “some,” as opposed to “many”) people on the Left are contrite about their positions concerning Afghanistan; they are awkwardly admitting that in retrospect it wasn’t necessarily “such a bad thing.” What’s even amusing is the number of people, like yourself, who protest against the action in Iraq by admitting that the action in Afghanistan was the right thing to do where in Iraq the action was not. Maybe not you (I can’t be bothered to search through your postings), but most of these people were the very ones on the front lines of the anti-war brigade back in the fall of 2001.

"PARIS, MARCH 16, 2004: Osama Bin Laden narrowly escaped capture by French troops in Afghanistan, perhaps several times, the head of France

There is still ongoing violence in Afghanistan but 3 million refugees have returned. That is even larger than the 2 to 2.5 million that I have been quoting recently AND 1.5 million Iraqis have returned as well to their nation.

Therefore what is going on? How is it that Afghanistan seems to be in more trouble than Iraq but still the steady drumbeat is always on Iraq? Because that is where the press is. That is why Afghanistan (even though it has worse chances of becoming a stable democracy) is off the radar and Iraq is on. That is why we hear nothing but negatives from Iraq but thank goodness Afghanistan is allowed to keep a low profile.

And spare me the we all agreed on Afghanistan. Noam Chomsky (beloved of the mindless minions of the left) predicted 7 million to 9 million would starve or become refugees in the greatest humanitarian crisis the world has ever seen blah blah blah but he was wrong by 12 million if you take the plus and add it to the negative.

We are right in Iraq and I think that the best way we can get Iraq off the chart is by invading a new country to give the press a distraction. That or Bush should have a sex affair so that the press will have something else to rip on him about. Then, the news from Iraq will be allowed to fall off the radar as well. We have seen the malicious character assassination that Dan Rather was capable of. An accident my ass. Think of what the other “right thinking” press that “know better than we do” about “how we should vote” are doing.

[quote=“spook”]
How about it? How many people here at Forumosa who opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq think the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan and toppling of the Taleban was unjustified? [/quote]

We all know the role that the terrorists coming from Afghanistan played in 9/11. Going into that country to get rid of the Talaban and hunt for bin Lauden was completely justified because Afghanistan was a safe haven for proven enemies of the USA. Iraq was an entirely different situation.

What was Hussein’s role in 9/11? It has never been shown at all that he, monster that he is, had anything to do with 9/11. However, the US decided to send a message to terrorists everywhere by invading Iraq. For the life of me, I can’t figure out the logic of this. What was the reason for attacking Iraq?

Post 9/11, the entire focus of the US should have been to capture bin Lauden, who is the proven mastermind behind the attack upon the USA. Instead, the US allowed it’s attention to get diverted and now we are stuck in Iraq for who knows how long, while bin Lauden seems more and more like a distance memory.

"AFGHANISTAN: SCHROEDER REITERATES FULL SUPPORT OF USA

New York, 10 Oct, 2001 - (Adnkronos/Dpa) - Gerhard Schroeder has expressed his deep shock following the visit to the ruins of the World Trade Center. The devastation is beyond any imagination, the German chancellor said, accompanied by the mayor Giuliani. Previously he had assured President Bush, during talks at the White House, full solidarity to the USA and the availability to participate in military operations. (Ses/Zn/Adnkronos)"

You neoconfabulators are ‘making things up’ again by blurring real distinctions between Iraq and Afghanistan.

Where did Bush ever say that Saddam was responsible for 911, but he was worried about potential link ups between the two and we could not risk Saddam giving wmds to al Qaeda. We can fight more than one battle. This is not a one-off strategy. We have killed or captured 75% of al Qaeda’s top leadership. We will win. Iraq is part of this. Fine if you cannot see it okay but those of us who can now are able to chalk Libya up as a success too. Why? Because we invaded Iraq. Why is Syria pulling its troops out of Lebanon? Because we invaded Iraq? Why is Saudi Arabia reforming? Because we have troops in Iraq. Why is Sudan talking at all about Darfur? Because we invaded Iraq.

Why did the European nations of Germany and France oppose? Germany was in thrall to a Marxist foreign minister Fischer for whom all things American are anathema. Why did France oppose? Follow the money. Follow the weapons sales. Follow the corruption. It was the same corruption that led straight to Kofi Annan at the UN. Wonder why he opposed. This will come out one day. The corruption will be revealed. Annan and Chriac will be prosecuted.

Read up on Fox News about how some of Saddam’s Oil for Food money may have gone to al Qaeda. So Bush WAS RIGHT. Check it out at www.foxnews.com/

Fred, you’re ranting.

Ah so I rant but you spout words of wisdom spook? I am grateful though that you have been of late capable of leaving the evil jews out of your rants, er, that is reasoned postings.

Nobody is above criticism.

Spook, as you know by now, Fred ALWAYS rants. :laughing:

[quote=“cableguy”]We all know the role that the terrorists coming from Afghanistan played in 9/11. Going into that country to get rid of the Talaban and hunt for bin Lauden was completely justified because Afghanistan was a safe haven for proven enemies of the USA. Iraq was an entirely different situation.

What was Hussein’s role in 9/11? It has never been shown at all that he, monster that he is, had anything to do with 9/11. However, the US decided to send a message to terrorists everywhere by invading Iraq. For the life of me, I can’t figure out the logic of this. What was the reason for attacking Iraq?[/quote]

How many times does this need to be explained to you Bush-bashers? Do you folks purposely block this explanation out so you can keep asking the same question over and over?

In Bush’s first State of the Union address (29 January 2002) after 911, he explained that Iraq was part of a larger and more persistent problem, one that he identified as the overriding threat of our time: the conjunction of terrorism, terrorist states and weapons of mass destruction. Bush stated that unless we dealt with this problem, we could be faced with attacks potentially much more catastrophic than the 911 attacks.

Bush on 29 January 2002 told how discoveries in Afghanistan confirm US fears of the madness of the destruction terrorists design, evidenced by diagrams of US nuclear power plants and public water facilities, detailed instructions for making chemical weapons, surveillance maps of American cities, and thorough descriptions of landmarks in the US and throughout the world. Bush explained that terrorists were trained in Afghanistan’s camps, and that 1000s of dangerous killers, schooled in the methods of murder, often supported by outlaw regimes, are now spread throughout the world like ticking time bombs, set to go off without warning

The Magnificent Tigerman wrote

[quote]Bush stated that it is vital to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening the US and US allies with WMD[/quote].
Please tell me when Iraq threatened the US with WMDs?

Well, if Bush gets put back in office for 4 more horrible years, and if the US ever manages to get out of Iraq, based on your post it is clear that either N.Korea or Iran is next to meet our troops. :astonished:
Doesn’t the US have anything better to do with our resources than to use them attacking nations?
Hey, when all the fighting is ultimately over, in which country do you think we will have lost the most troops? Right now Iraq seems to be the winner but that is simply because we haven’t gone to Iran or N.Korea yet. However, I’m willing to bet that Iran is gonna prove to be one tough country to beat. Oh, well, we first have to wait until the election to see if Bush is our leader again before we find the answer. :help:

Not on my planet. No evidence has come forth over here in the real world. In the Cloud Cuckoo Land of BushWorld ™, where Bush is like Churchhill and Jebus is going to come down and wind the whole thing up anyway so we may as well trash the world, perhaps Hussein supported terrorists. But in our reality, Bush simply lied so that he could secure good incomes for his cronies and various other reasons having to do with the long-term plan to attack Iran, and of course, oil and gas pipeline routes across Asia (also the reason we went into Afghanistan). Of the countries we are involved with, Pakistan is the only one that really supported and guided Al Qaeda, which has close links to Pakistani intelligence.

And if we’re making war on “those who support terrorists,” by all means let’s bomb Miami, NY, and several western states, so we can get at supporters of the IRA, the anti-Cuban terrorist movements, and the militias.

Vorkosigan

Handy Dandy Forumosa translator:

“Fred, you’re ranting” = Fred, once again you are right and I don’t a have a clue in the world how to make an intelligent retort to your post.

“Fred is always ranting” = This chap my ass that Fred, or some other ‘neocon’ always has the facts backing them up. Lets divert, parse and go to semantic masturbation while we try and come up with something.

“Uhhh…Lets Blame Bush” = Shit…I don’t have a damn thing to contribute here but lets Blame Bush. Bush believes in God and I don’t so he must be guilty of something. So…crank up the hyperbole and Lets Blame Bush!

Another translation service provided by…Handy Dandy Forumosa translator.

[quote=“The Magnificent Tigerman”]
Bush on 4 April 2002 explained that Iraq rewards financially the parents of Palestinian terrorists in Israel and called on leaders to condemn such practices[/quote]

[color=blue]Israel rewards the families of suicide bombers with the demolition of their homes whether they’re complicit or not. Iraq rewarded them with a roof over their head again. Apparently alleviating their arbitrary homlessness is what we’re supposed to condemn.[/color]

"Sunday’s suicide bombing on a Jerusalem bus . . . was carried out by a 23-year-old building labourer who left a toddler and wife behind, devastated relatives said before the Israeli army moved in to arrest them.

Mohammed Zuhul . . . shared a four-room house with his wife, two-year-old son Ibrahim, mother, father and ten siblings.

His parents, both in their sixties, said they were stunned upon hearing he had died blowing himself up on a packed Jerusalem commuter bus early on Sunday.

“I became aware of it when I saw people coming over to our house after they heard about it on television,” said Zuhul’s mother, Badiya, visibly overwhelmed with grief.

His father Issa, wearing the traditional Muslim white skullcap, could not come to grips with the news.

“I am still unsure it was my son,” he said in a whisper.

As soon as they knew Mohammed had carried out the bombing, his four brothers started clearing the house of its furniture, anticipating an Israeli army bulldozer would soon come to flatten it.

The army systematically destroys the houses of suicide bombers to deter other Palestinian militants from following their example."

news24.com/News24/World/News … 59,00.html

From V:

Not on my planet. No evidence has come forth over here in the real world. In the Cloud Cuckoo Land of BushWorld ™, where Bush is like [quote]Churchhill and Jebus is going to come down and wind the whole thing up anyway so we may as well trash the world, perhaps Hussein supported terrorists. But in our reality, Bush simply lied so that he could secure good incomes for his cronies and various other reasons having to do with the long-term plan to attack Iran, and of course, oil and gas pipeline routes across Asia (also the reason we went into Afghanistan). Of the countries we are involved with, Pakistan is the only one that really supported and guided Al Qaeda, which has close links to Pakistani intelligence.

And if we’re making war on “those who support terrorists,” by all means let’s bomb Miami, NY, and several western states, so we can get at supporters of the IRA, the anti-Cuban terrorist movements, and the militias. [/quote]

Where is the pipeline across Afghanistan by the way? Where is the oil that Bush and his cronies are getting in Iraq? We must come up with a new word to describe this kind of redneck thinking only for the enlightened coastal areas. What do we call someone with a bit of an education who probably grew up in a city who thinks they are smart but ain’t?

Anyone?

[quote=“The Magnificent Tigerman”]Bush stated that it is vital to prevent regimes that sponsor terror from threatening the US and US allies with WMD[/quote].

Read my statement again, carefully this time. PREVENT. PREVENT. An ounce of PREVENTION is worth a pound of cure.

That is not clear at all.

Troops, I don’t know. But we lost more civilians in one day in the 911 attacks than we have lost troops in over a year in Iraq. The significance of this should be obvious to you.

there are the odd one or two who believe in God who think that Bush is an idiot too :wink: