by Keith Locke
Images courtesy of Radio Live
*****
The three Kiwi soldiers in Afghanistan might have seen it as a bit of harmless fun. To help a drink promotion they slapped a Demon sticker reading “No Limits, No Laws” on a 2000 lb bomb attached to the undercarriage of a [presumably] American plane at [presumably] Bagram airbase. The NZ Defence Force has logistics liaison personnel at Bagram.
All very funny, except that Bagram base is notorious for torturing Afghan prisoners under a “No Limits, No Laws” principle. In fact, American soldiers tortured several Afghans to death. This is now being looked in to.
Some of the prisoners mistreated at Bagram may have come from an earlier Kiwi SAS contingent. It is known that in 2002 our SAS handed over to the American forces 70 prisoners, without any follow-up about what happened to them.
It’s true that the treatment of prisoners might have improved under Obama, but I haven’t yet seen that Bagram prison has been given a clean bill of health.
Also, Bagram has been the launch-pad for many American airstrikes criticised even by the UN Secretary General for killing too many civilians.
Wedding parties and the like have been bombed. The Americans have operated their air war on a “No [Geneva] Laws” principle regarding “collateral” civilian damage”.
We now hear that American strategy has changed, and they are engaged more in “surgical” air strikes. Funny then how they are still using 2000 pound bombs. It doesn’t sound very surgical.
Published in Justice & Democracy by Keith Locke on Fri, September 4th, 2009
Tags: afghanistan, United Nations, US bombing
More posts by Keith Locke | more about Keith Locke
on the trolls and those who are unable to keep on topic
Sorry to be off topic, but I’m surprised your lot doesnt have even a slight mentionon the Canterbury Water Management Strategy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“In fact, American soldiers tortured several Afghans to death. This is now being looked in to.” I think the right word in this sentence Keith is “alleged”.
What would you do? Would you leave Afghanistan to the Taliban and hope it doesn’t spread to Pakistan? Take over Afghanistan? or continue this adhoc half hearted military activity to keep the balance? None of the above seem easy or good options to be fair.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
oh come on LS!!!
Countless innocent civilians vapourised.
150 years of failed military adventurism in Afghanistan
And NZA is sending it’s SAS in?
They must think we’re stupid too
BJ:Fly – this is in the Top Ten
Stupid kiwi ideas
with respect and all.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Hahaha LS
We should conscript every person in NZ LS and send them over to Afghanistan. I mean unless we stop the RED threat there it will move into Pakistan and then India and then on into the the rest of south east asia and then Indonesia will fall and then Australia will fall and finally NZ will fall to this RED threat. Please LS we heard your stupid ideas back in the 60′s they were wrong then and they are wrong now.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Maybe we could conscript some common sense and tackle the huge problem of child abuse. Who can honesty say they’re proud to be a kiwi with such a war affecting our children? What a sad country. Gold medalists in child abuse.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh yes nearly forgot our youth suicide rate is twice that of the USA.
What a deranged country run by ego filth who don’t care about children.
This country is a fucking disgrace!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Isn’t it more cost/benefit keeping out a radical Islamic government?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Good, sensible post d4j. Do you have a similarly sensible suggestion as to how we should go about tackling the problem? I’d like to hear it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No, the cost benefit goes in the other direction. Leave people alone, don’t stir up hatred, save money and lives.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Of all people Heith Locke should have some empathy towards the US.
After all he was a sympathiser of the Soviets that went into Afghanastan in the 80′s and murdered thousands of innocent civilians back then. Although in that case the Soviets were attacking Afghanastan to annex it. The Yanks on the other hand are fighting in Afghanistan because they were attacked by terrorists (who deliberately targeted and killed innocent civilians but this time it was on US soil).
Afghanistan is a safe haven for the groups that train terrorists (or it used to be). The Taliban support guys like Osama Bin Laden, and after the 9/11 attack (on American soil) the Yanks retaliated against the Taliban because of it.
America was being attacked, surely they had an obligation to defend their people?
I’d say there would be alot of innocent people killed by both the Yanks and the Taliban, but the Yanks understand the implications of doing so, so I doubt civilians are deliberately targeted. The Taliban on the other hand have only recently put out orders not to kill innocent people, so they have only just got to grips with the idea of winning the hearts and minds of the Afghani population. Up untill then, the Taliban deliberately targeted innocent people, but you don’t hear someone like Heith Locke say anything about that do you?
As far as torturing prisoners to death goes, well I guess that happens sometimes when you use pain to extract information (maybe Sue Bradford should show them how to interrogate using the naughty corner). Or maybe Keith has some Soviet contacts that could do a better job at interrogation?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
How come when we see images of WWII bombers and their pilots painting the bombs we don’t object so strenously but rather think “Good old boys saving us from evil” but when we see this you say it’s tantamount to child abuse..?
Activities like the one above form bonds between the soliders, what they did was stupid and wrong but until I’ve served my country, risking my life overseas, I think I’ll stick to hoping they get told off and thank them for their service when they get home…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Basically JH, the Iraq strategy prior to Dubya.
Containment and criminalization. They may remain a wound on the body politic, but they are the ones who suffer, Until they themselves are ready to do what is needful. Treating Osama Bin Laden as a criminal (which he most certainly was) rather than a warrior prince, would have made the entire movement illegitimate for the majority of Islam. It would have had the effect of bringing moderate Islam into a reasonable alignment with core values relating to education and women’s rights and the rest.
This of course, did not happen and instead much of moderate Islam now hates the West in all its many values…
Since we had criminals in the White House at the time however, it is hard to see what else might have been done. When a treasonous snake like Cheney takes it that he is above the law, it is clear that we have no chance of getting anything like a sane policy.
LS – The answer remains to isolate these people. Which can’t be and yet must be thought on now. We have given some of them hope.
The alternative is to destroy the country in order to save it.
In the muddle is a long hard war of attrition with no certain ending.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well DougT please explain since most of the 9/11 terrorists were from Saudi Arabia why the US hasn’t invaded it and isn’t currently bombing it back into the stone age.
9/11 and terrorism have nothing to do with the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq. Oil is the reason, in the case of Afghanistan so they can secure pipe lines to transport central asian oil.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Saudi Arabia has a good relationship with The Yanks, so they would shut down any terrorist training camps. Osama Bin Laden had to leave Saudi Arabia because of his radical views, and Afghanistan was a safe place for him. Osama hates the Saudis because of the relationship they have with the Yanks, and because they let America fight back Sadam in the first gulf war instead of allowing Osama and his Mujahideen fight back the Iraqis.
Alot of terrorists from the various cells around the world (including Saudi Arabia) travelled to Afghanistan to train as Mujahideen. There are no doubt other places around the world that do similar training as well, but Afghanistan was the safest place to do it, because the Taliban allowed it to happen.
If the Yanks were that keen on Afghanastan they would have kept a closer presence after they helped the Muj fight off the Soviets.
You dicks always say “oh it’s all about the oil” but sometimes things are a little more complicated than you think.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well asked! This is the point, the whole point, and nothing but the point!
Until the question “what are we actually doing there?” has been answered, I don’t thing we should be there at all. It’s a bit like going on a family holiday where you get everyone in the car, get to the first turn in the road, and the driver says “right then, where shall we go this year?”
At the moment the objective of foreign presence in Afghanistan is like the square root of minus one!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Thank you for that Jezza, it saved me the same rant. The PC brigade have got the chalk these days, and things like morale, esprit d’corps, and good old stress relief are viewed as terrible things in today’s world.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So if the main Middle East export was vegetables instead of oil, the US would still be fighting over it. Yea right. Sometimes things actually are bleeding obvious.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Jezza – in order to stem the flow of images that upset the public, you’re going to have to bring down digital camera/phones and that pesky interwebby thing in order to have things the jolly ol’ way they were.
Good luck with that.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis – vegetable wars? That too will come.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
But not to the desert I think.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis says:
September 5, 2009 at 3:09 pm
“So if the main Middle East export was vegetables instead of oil, the US would still be fighting over it. Yea right.”
The invasion of Iraq was largely about oil, but I’m not convinced that the invasion of Afghanistan was. I suspect it really was about a response to the 9/11 attacks, and the US govt invaded Afghanistan with arms blazing because they decided a big macho-looking military response would be better for building government support and loyalty at home than other methods of apprehending the Al Qaeda leaders and reducing the terrorist threat.
As for Doug’s comments about things being ‘a little more complicated’, the connections between the Iraq war and oil are a little more complicated than many people think. Many people instinctively assume it’s about getting the ability to buy Iraqi oil, but it was really about getting the ability to invest in Iraqi oil infrastructure, getting preferential oil field contracts, and determining which currency the Oil was going to be traded in on the world market.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What the hell are you talking about..? Nothing to do with my post…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
CWMS – mentioned over at Red Alert
http://blog.labour.org.nz/index.php/2009/09/03/winwin-water-strategy/comment-page-1/#comment-8798
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
dad4justice said “Oh yes nearly forgot our youth suicide rate is twice that of the USA.”
Oh really? Don’t believe it! More likely we don’t hide the stats like other countries do. The bigger the population, the easier it is to fudge stats.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually one of the main exports from Afghanastan is Opium.
And oil is one of the main “imports” to Afghanastan.
As I said before, the Yanks have a fairly good relationship with Saudi Arabia (they are the ones who export alot of oil Valis). And I have no doubt that the oil is the main reason for that good relationship, but the Yanks aren’t fighting Saudi Arabia are they Valis?
The thing that isn’t so obvious to you is that in the same way that Christianity has a few fringe militant radicals that preach intollerance towards anyone who doesn’t share their world view. There are similar groups within Islam. The difference is that some of those fringe groups like Al Qaeda believe in taking the struggle (Jihad) beyond Islam. There have been plenty of reports of terroists killing innocent people in the name of Islam and the one that sparked America’s response in Afgahnistan was the 9/11 attack. Even the Bali bombing, which was targeted at Austalians was largely funded by Al Qaeda. Osama Bin Laden has labled America and Israel as his main enemies. If you don’t know why Israel is his enemy then you should learn about the history of Israel. The Yanks are allies of the Isralis and have quite a few Jews in America too. America’s relationship with Israel and the interests (mainly oil) they have in the Middle East make them a prime target for militants like Al Qaeda.
The problem is that some idiots think its all about the oil. I’ve heard very complex explanations of how the CIA planned and executed the 9/11 attack on itself so that they could attack Afghanastan because it was “all about the oil”. There is another explanation, but to understand it you would have to learn a bit about the history of Islam, and the interpretation of the Qur’an and Hadith by people like Osam Bin Laden. That would help you understand why the 9/11 attack happened. The Yanks going into Afghanastan was retaliation for the attack. To just stay at home would be a sign of weakness, and with an unstable nuclear armed county right next door to Afghanastan there is always the chance they might get their hands on a nuke or two.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I just did a bit of background reading and the read keith lockes post again and concluded Keith Lockes analysis is a bit weak. Once he mentions America he seems to feel he’s made his case.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Does Keith favour negotiating with the Taliban?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
What would I do – stick to the Geneva Convention – no torture – decent prisoner of war camps – human rights violations zero – ‘collateral damage’ at an absolute minimum – a large fund for re-construction – a winning hearts & minds approach – education education education, to use a Blair phrase which by the way he never kept to.
Why does Obama stay with totally discredited Bush Policies in Afganistan – badly advised or bad faith ?
This is either a war or not a war – if a war then stick with Geneva – if not get out !
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
DougT says:
September 5, 2009 at 5:32 pm
> As I said before, the Yanks have a fairly good relationship with Saudi Arabia (they are the ones who export alot of oil Valis). And I have no doubt that the oil is the main reason for that good relationship, but the Yanks aren’t fighting Saudi Arabia are they Valis?
Indeed. The Saudis have been generous to the US government and its oil companies, giving them everything they want. The primary motivation for the US invasion of Iraq was to install a regime that would behave similarly.
> The Yanks going into Afghanastan was retaliation for the attack. To just stay at home would be a sign of weakness,
Indeed. It was all about macho notions of ‘shows of strength’ and ‘shows of weakness’, rather than what would actually be effective in reducing the terrorist threat or apprehending Osama bin Laden.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
jh – it seems to me that if you wish to stop war maybe the first step is to understand your opponents point of view. Talking to them would be a good start towards that.
If a solution is ever to be reached, other than totally defeating your ‘enemy’ (impossible in these circumstances in my view, where the ‘enemy’ is embedded so totally in the population) you must talk, yes even negotiate with ‘the enemy’.
Look at history. The US spent years negotiating with the Viet-kong/North Vietnam (Paris Peace Talks) & before that in secret through the Russians.
1st WW – no negotiations just ‘total war’ – each side fought each other to a stand still until the weight of numbers & economic factors gave the advantage to ‘the Allies’. Big difference – total mobilisation on both sides , entry of the US into the war.
2nd WW – The Allies secretly sought contacts with the Axis & there were many frustrated efforts to enter negotiations from both sides. The Gestapo + other factors such as the US’s openly stated aim of total victory prevented these from coming to anything – result victory for the Allies but almost total destruction of swathes of Europe/Japan/Russia.
At present we have a mish-mash of policy failures, ignorance of the enemy (as in Iraq, the US did not even know the difference between Sunni & Shia, as in Afganistan between groups in the Taliban or ‘other groups on their side’), backing of ‘the wrong horse’ (Karzai), tolerance of rampant corruption, bad leadership in the Military, etc.etc. It’s a mess, poorly understood by MSM & many policy makers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Actually it was about reducing the threat of terrorism. By disrupting the safe haven in Afghanastan, Al Qaeda is not able to operate as effectively.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“Indeed. It was all about macho notions of ’shows of strength’ and ’shows of weakness’”
Are you refering to the 9/11 attack or the American response?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Why would Keith Locke need to base anything he said on fact? As far as he is concerned, he already knows the truth. Getting his facts would only take up his valuable time. It is interesting that he treads carefully around Obama though. I [presume] he doesn’t want to sound like a racist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I would like to send out a challenge to anyone (especially Heith Locke) to post at least one link of a news item where the US killed innocent civilians in a bombing, or military attack in Afghanastan. But for each story you find, you have to also post one about a bombing or attack by the “Taliban” that killed civilians.
There is a point to this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
This is pathetic, when will this stop people getting married are worried about their lives?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
A pointless exercise as no one is arguing the Taliban aren’t murderers. The point is that the US is doing it in someone else’s country. Yes, a murder is a murder, but the bar for international intervention is rightly very high and international law is flouted by the US routinely.
The other argument is that history teaches the futility of such adventurism (and that humanitarianism is rarely the real reason for unilateral action of a great power, but that’s yet another story). I saw a news programme the other day about NZ (I think) forces working with a local community on a rebuilding project. The Taliban started an action and the US engaged and before long all the village men joined in – on the side of the Taliban. When asked why afterward, they said of course they hated the Taliban, but no self respecting Afghani would do anything but fight the foreign invader. How many valuable lessons should we draw from that?
It is natural that people want to help others being treated poorly, but this is never enough reason on its own to justify action. Sometimes no matter what you do, you will only make things worse and in such circumstances, you need the wisdom to let things be. World powers almost never let things be and there’s learning to be had there as well. There are times where intervention is warranted, but the bar needs to be very high and the rules as codified in international law are clear enough. We need to respect them for a change rather than respond to injustice with the creation of more injustice.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
DougT says:
September 6, 2009 at 12:06 am
> Why would Keith Locke need to base anything he said on fact?
because otherwise he’d be in danger of making the same sort of mistakes you make.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
the Taleban offered to hand Osama bin Laden over for trial in a ‘neutral muslim country’. There were widespread rumours at the time that the Taleban were getting sick of sheltering Al Qaeda, so they may well have been genuine about this, but the US refused to even test the waters to see if they were genuine. Bush made threats to thw Pakistani government to force them to cut off diplomatic relations with the Talebvan, even though those diplomatic relations were one of the things that could have helped lead to a peaceful handover of Al Qaeda operatives.
Instead, they launched a war which has been a total failure – Osama bin Laden is still at large, Al Qaeda have used the wars as a recruiting tool to convince more people to join their cause and commit other terrorist attacks (mostly in Iraq and Pakistan, but also the UK and Spain), and the Taleban are rising again and now control not much less of Afghanistan than they did before the invasion.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I was talking about the US government’s response (particularly the invasion of Afghanistan – the invasion of Iraq was probably more about oil).
It’s an interesting question whether the September 11 attacks were also primarily about a macho display of strength. The alternative theory is that they were launched primarily as a provocation – Al Qaeda need a lot more supporters if they are to achieve their aims, and the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq have helped them to gain some more support, and the most logical explanation for the September 11 attacks is that they were calculated to provoke such a response, in the hope of using it to recruit more supporters.
I don’t know if Al Qaeda would have specifically expected the US govt to respond by invading Iraq – one of Al Qaeda’s demands has always been the overthrow of ‘corrupt secular’ Arab dictators, of whom Saddam Hussein was one of their favourite examples. The idea that the US would respond to an attack from Al Qaeda by actually doing this would probably have been considered woshful thinking.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
bin Laden said specifically that his targets were corrupt Arab governments and that by attacking the US he hoped to provoke an over reaction that would radicalise Arabs for recruiting to al Qaeda. Bush turned 9/11 into “they hate our freedom and want a world-wide caliphate, so we’d better to get them first” and did as requested.
I have on occasion asked people what the single biggest difference is between bin Laden and Bush. They’re both religious nutters, so its not that, though bizarrely this is often what comes to mind first for many. The biggest difference is that Bush was able to kill people in numbers bin Laden could only dream of. bin Laden knew this and used it to his advantage.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
My favorite theory is that Bush is Bin-Laden’s secret lover. That’s the only way to explain why he did EVERYTHING that Bin-Laden wanted.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well, there are rather a lot of photos of both Bush’s holding hands with members of the bin Laden family
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t think you get how this works Valis.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I couldn’t have said it better myself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Pray tell jh, how Keith got it wrong.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Keith’s facts seem just fine and well documented all over.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t think you have a clue either.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Does jh favour dialogue with the Greens?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
i reckon you should be over there – teaching them your valuable lessons jh.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ps “Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just.”: Thomas Jefferson
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The issue is whether it is safer to let Afghanistan be Taliban run, and risk taking over parts of Pakistan (and the lot) or to let it be.
Of course the conspiracy theorists on the left think it’s always about resources even though there is no evidence Afghanistan is anything about oil anymore than claiming opponents to the war are Islamist sympathisers who would like nothing better than for war to be waged on the US. I notice how the Greens are eminently silent over the slave labour concentration camps with young children in them run by North Korea, but I presume that’s just laziness and a preference to attack Americans than real evil, than sympathy for North Korea.
I sincerely don’t know what the answer is to Afghanistan, but Pakistan becoming partly or wholly Taliban run is terrifying. Parts of Afghanistan are undoubtedly better off now than they were before the Western invasion, but clear objectives are needed for military action. For now it appears to be floundering, and the Taliban are just hoping for a war of attrition for Western forces to pull out when their governments get fed up with it.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“America was being attacked, surely they had an obligation to defend their people?”
Assuming the US are obliged to defend their people. At what point have they fulfilled their obligation? When all Taliban are dead? When the same number of Taliban are killed as were killed in 9/11? 10 x that number? When 10x that number of Afgan civillians are dead?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Great photo
it shows the boys and gals really know what they are there for
Typical PC Bullshit from the liberals who would be first to be shot in the Soccer stadium if the medieval Islamists win this War of Culture
this is a war we have to win as there will be no second chances
Smoke em
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You can’t win a cultural war unless you are prepared to permanently occupy each of those countries with far more people than in the local population. Its either that or kill them by the millions. I’m picking you’d prefer the nukes. Your trivialisation of mass murder with the charge that we’re just PC is pathetic.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
“this is a war we have to win as there will be no second chances”
Who is ‘we’? Are you an American?
This is not our (NZ’s) war. But photos like this circulating around Taliban could bring us (NZ) into this “war of Culture”. Interesting name for the war. Really makes you wonder who decides what culture people should have. Do we decide for ourselves? How does a person know if they have the right one/culture?
If one culture is better than the another should the ‘good culture’ people force the ‘bad culture’ people to change? Is that what a good culture does?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Too many questions fin. panda is scared, really scared, and his fear justifies any action no matter how heinous.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ohhhh I might be “Gasp, Shock, Horror an American” what a terrible thing that would be
I am sorry to inform you but this is OUR WAR
we are part of the western civilization the Taliban and their Islamists brothers have sworn to destroy
Ask the women in the Soccer stadium with the AK47 pointed to her head if she wants to live under the taliban?(whoops sorry you cant they blew her head off !!!)
this is the culture who you are supporting
you ask me if our Culture should force the bad culture to change ? don’t ask me ask the lady in the blue head scarf in the soccer stadium
how do you people sleep at night or don’t you really give a shit
Our Soldiers know what they are doing and what they are up against and I thank Allah Every night they are there doing thier job
And just so you know, I don’t hate Muslims I haven’t had the privilege of meeting many but they ones I have meet I have enjoyed talking to very much
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
too right I am scared
I am scared in 10 years time if you lot have your way we will wake up and it will be too late to change anything
Radical Islam will not stop
it never sleeps
I know you don’t believe me I know you think I am a raving right wing loon
you know I hope I am
I hope you are right and all will be sweetness and light but some how I don’t think so .
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Panda, if you ARE an American you are also one of the Americans who persuaded me that the country is in far deeper trouble than in any Taleban wet dream.
Think, for just a few minutes, about how you marginalize the muslim fundamentalist. It isn’t like this guy is the most popular point of view on the planet, or even in the religion of Islam, he’s violent and vengeful and full of rules that everyone has to live by.
He protects criminals. The whole world was happy to see all manner of sanctions against his country after 9/11 and it wasn’t real popular among Muslims either. So it should have been easy to marginalize these guys, get moderate Islam on-side and move the Taleban and Bin-Laden into the “criminals” category. Which turns the whole “war” thing on its head.
Because I don’t give a rats rear end about the Taleban running Afghanistan, I DO care about how I treat individuals so as not to create more terrorists to feed into the Taleban.
Which is something YOU seem to have no clarity about. You have two choices on your road. The first is we exterminate every last one of them. The second is they exterminate us. You really didn’t leave any middle ground where the two sides manage to NOT get into a holy war.
I was pretty sure Bush was lying (you have to actually know the truth to tell a lie) , and I knew for SURE that Cheney was lying, when they put us into Iraq. I knew damned well what the stakes were then. They haven’t changed.
We’re just making the mess bigger and worse. As an American I have little hope that this will end well.
It is amazing how many things I can say that about now.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
panda, at least you have doubts, which means you are not yet lost, unlike the Bushies who started this mess. God talks to them too you know, they’ve said so. Such people are equally the enemy of peace.
NO ONE here thinks this will turn out sweetness and light. That’s not what being right about this means. There will be plenty of tears no matter what. Take bj’s advice and try to see more than black and white. Survival lies in the grey area, destruction at either extreme. We’re all worried about where this will be in 10 years. Wisdom and courage are required. It is not brave to walk into a room (or a country) and shoot everyone. There are alternatives to total destruction.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
panda says:
September 6, 2009 at 10:53 pm
> Great photo
> it shows the boys and gals really know what they are there for
what? advertising brands of drink?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
No Kahi – to make light of death.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I am Sorry ?
–I don’t give a rats rear end about the Taleban running Afghanistan,
I bet you would with a AK47 pointed at your head !!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Taliban death ?
I don’t give a shit
they gave their rights to human decency years ago
Civilian deaths are a different matter and are always tragic no matter where and when but (you knew that was coming didn’t you )when your enemy hides among them like the cowards they are, then deaths will occur
Most civilian deaths in afghanistan can be directly attributed to the Taliban and their tactics
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
well raise your Black Flag and get over there – not in my name – i’m with bj here. 150 years of military failure (including the Russians who live next door)
So we send in the Kiwis?
How would you feel if they came out here to rearrange NZ by Violence?….whoops…..not so hot hey?
Truth is, we have no business there.
War is big business – and a ‘uman needs to be @ 40 to wake up to the world.
If you are going to believe everything you read – then add ten or twenty years to that!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
who is they ?
uman =human ?
40 years old ?
sorry just trying to decipher the gibberish
I love the liberal dogma, America =bad, bad, bad,
I will tell you what, given the choice of living under them or the Taliban I know who I will chose every time !!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I bet that with an AK47 pointed at your head, Afganistan wouldn’t even come into your mind (given that lead might).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Panda says:
‘I don’t give a shit”
From what I’ve observed, people who use this expression are constipated.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
ooof…the Taliban maybe? – we are making their business ours after all.
I love America. Even they say their Military Prescence has created more Taliban than it has ‘cured’ – right?
Suicide Rates amongst US troops exceed casualties – I care for these kids too.
Must be a fluffy toy bear without a heart I think.
What if you lose your Choices little Bear?
Gibberish if you like – I know you don’t understand….mix that sort of ignorance with violence….give it to 19 year olds to deal with – hard to think of a less moral endeavour.
However – if Peace Keepers allow them to have Fair Elections, then by all means.
I spend a lot of time on overseas Blogs, and am sick of reading about civilian deaths in Afghanistan – the only smart bomb was the one we never made.
Anyway I got a life to go to – may I suggest anger management for your problems?
You’ll find life a lot easier.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Panda- “Uman” is an Afgan word (or ‘Afganistanian’ word, to use the ‘Keyism) meaning ‘paranoid merchant of fear and disseminator of hate’
You must be familiar with the term.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I love the liberal dogma, America =bad, bad, bad,
Its not about America. All world powers act the same. You’re just to myopic to see it.
I will tell you what, given the choice of living under them or the Taliban I know who I will chose every time !!!
So would all of us. Why even say something so obvious? And that means what – that not everything about the world power is bad either. Again obvious unless you live in the black/white world where paradoxes don’t exist.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Panda
Containment and Criminalization (at the international level) means that the AK47 is effectively constrained to operate only within Afghanistan.
If I don’t GO there, and if I arrange things so that there is no broad based popular support for their CRIMINAL activities, nobody will be pointing any such device at my head.
At least not for fundamentalist religious reasons. There are still Resource Wars on offer.
THINK! I suspect you of having the necessary tools to manage that task.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mark
Personal abuse is not called for
why do you resort to this when someone has the affrontry to not conform to you world view ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I didn’t say America was bad Panda.
I said it was making some bad choices and decisions about how to deal with Afghanistan, and Iraq for that matter… and Goldman-Sacks-The-Planet for another… and Climate Change for another… and Health-Care for another…
…and I can go on and on and ON with that little mantra.
This from an American. I still love my country, but I despair when I consider what has been done to it, and who is running it.
You mistake pretty much everything here… except that Keith does seem to have a bit of an attitude. We CREATED that attitude for him though.
When I consider the America that COULD have emerged from the Cold War and I examine that contrast with the one that did, the differences are pelagic deeps… not a future I want for my children.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Durn Greenfly
I thought it was a game reference – to “Starflight II”
An enslaved population with massive technical abilities but no ability to control themselves.
In a game you can only win by RELINQUISHING power.
respectfully
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Containment and Criminalization (at the international level) means that the AK47 is effectively constrained to operate only within Afghanistan.
have you Erv herd of the World Trade Centre ?
If I don’t GO there, and if I arrange things so that there is no broad based popular support for their CRIMINAL activities, nobody will be pointing any such device at my head.
At least not for fundamentalist religious reasons.
I am sorry but you are just Flat out wrong
why do the left always have to patronise any dissenting view as a lack of real thought
have you ever thought that my views my be the result of a considered and well thought out opinion
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Panda – is this your masquerade? – did you not invent the idea that I hated America?
Really if you are going to tag people with lies, you may expect any old response.
Whatever, I am content to leave you to ponder your own views.
I don’t think I can achieve much with someone who is hallucinating – have people here who are making an effort to better themselves.
I don’t pretend to a ‘world view’.
That is a concoction of your own (again)
Yeah you will get a response in the Negatory from everyone you care to defame.
“The strongest passions and most dangerous weaknesses of the human breast; ambition, avarice, vanity, the honorable or venal love of fame, are all in conspiracy against the desire and duty of peace”:
James Madison
.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You mistake pretty much everything here… except that Keith does seem to have a bit of an attitude. We CREATED that attitude for him though.
I don’t think I do
I have refrained from Commenting Comrade Keith as my thoughts on him are not fit to print
I have great respect for several Green MPs he just isn’t one of them
I said it was making some bad choices and decisions about how to deal with Afghanistan, and Iraq for that matter… and Goldman-Sacks-The-Planet for another… and Climate Change for another… and Health-Care for another…
…and I can go on and on and ON with that little mantra.
that is your opinion and you are entitled to it just as I am entitled to mine that the NZ soldiers are more than entitled to have a bit of fun and carry on the time honoured tradition of writing messages on bombs before delivery to our Common enemy
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
‘Little Bear’ is personal abuse?
You softy.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Panda – it’s the Army making noise over this issue, isn’t it? Isn’t it they who are set to chastise and punish these ‘boys’? Hope you are busy commenting on their website, along the same lines as you are here.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Briefly.
Must fly.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Panda
I was part of the team that mapped the asbestos contamination and the hot-spots. Look up AVIRIS… we overflew the site to get those maps.
The World Trade Center bombing was occurred because the people involved were NOT at that point contained or criminalized. Imagine the same effort being done from Iraq before the second invasion.
Was Bin-Laden a criminal before the WTC? Not in the USA. In Saudi Arabia perhaps, but there was insufficient evidence to even bring him to trial before he went to Afghanistan.
… and until the WTC, there were no reasons to regard the Taleban’s Afganistan as an outlaw state. An abuser of human rights, to be sure, but there are many such. We don’t go to war for no reason Panda, not even now, we always have to have SOME half-baked excuse.
After the WTC we should have stood on that solid base of support, isolated the country and continued to demand the extradition of Osama and his terrorists. We could have pushed hard on that isolation… and left Iraq alone, and neutralized him permanently. Instead we strengthened him, we recruited for him.. we screwed up by the numbers.
An act of war is an event between nations, and Osama-Bin-Laden is neither Taleban NOR a government. Bin-Laden treated as a criminal could have been de-fanged and his influence destroyed.
If you don’t like fundamentalists, and I don’t, don’t give people reasons to agree with the fundamentalists. America still does.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Mark
What do you despise? By this you are truly known
Frank Herbert
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I despise the wilfully ignorant.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
NZ soldiers are more than entitled to have a bit of fun and carry on the time honoured tradition of writing messages on bombs before delivery to our Common enemy
If I could be assured that they would be delivered on the “common enemy” (and who is that exactly?) I would not even worry about the bombs.
and on this point I do agree…
…the messages are not a problem even if the bombs are. It isn’t as though the recipient is going to have a chance to read them and be offended. I would have doubted that anyone could take this as seriously as it has been, until I moved here.
Which changes none of my previous comments, just puts things in context with the OP.
BJ
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
why do the left always have to patronise any dissenting view as a lack of real thought
Perhaps if you didn’t start off by being patronising yourself, you wouldn’t get the same in return.
have you ever thought that my views my be the result of a considered and well thought out opinion
I would like to think so, but you haven’t displayed it yet. You have displayed a lot of fear and argued for mass destruction, so that’s what we’ve responded to. We look forward to the more considered and well thought out stuff. Will we see it or are you just having fun?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
there we are – that’s much better – and a good question for reflection.
I apologise if you felt insulted.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Great photo. It’s good to see people using humour and a reminder of home to make life a little easier so far away from their loved ones.
I hope they know they vast majority of New Zealanders fully support them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Well Panda,(this is not the 20,000 word answer)
But a question that’s fair enough as far as it goes.
I find I don’t do a lot of despising. Would consider myself emotionally poisoned if I did. A subjective and almost destructive waste of energy.
It’s awfully close to Hatred dontchya think?
It would mean something negative was living rent-free in my head.
I don’t suffer the agonies of negativity
Am a person who has some training in psychiatry and seeks to Understand, to be positive , to heal!
Am a person who regularly considers all he has to be gratefull for.
Quite an opposite notion – so I couldn’t agree with the quote you mention from Mr Herbert.
Today I spent Counselling a young person who wants to stop substance abuse before it kills her.
My only motive is to see her recover.
Yet there are people who would have her back there plastered and helpless, so that they could have sex with her.
Pretty despicable – killing for sex – wouldn’t you say?
Apart from the agonies this would cause a whole range of people, it would be a failed return on a lot of my time money and best efforts.
Will I let it have me hating? No.
Will I continue on this journey, take the wins with the losses, but above all , keep trying?
Yes.
This may well be gibberish to you, but others find it helpfull
regards etc.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Lovely sentiments Lawrence. I’m thinking too, of the loved ones of those who will be the recipients of those bombs and wondering if they will see the humour, now that they can view the photos and form their own opinions of New Zealand and our sense of what’s funny.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That’s nice, but what does it mean to “fully support” the troops? Hopefully you don’t mean what they mean in the States, where support for troops is conflated with support for the mission. I’ve no desire to attack those individuals as I’m sure the vast majority are sincere and dedicated, but using the troops to fend off legitimate criticism of a government’s foreign policy intentions is low indeed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
wot he said !!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
So why don’t you answer the question then?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I’m just a civilian, staying behind with the women and children, but I can honestly say that if I were in Afghanistan I’d be more than prepared to blow of a Taliban’s head and **** down his throat.
Therefore, when I see a picture of some troops showing high morale and welcome aggression towards this vile enemy I applaud it.
- “We now hear that American strategy has changed, and they are engaged more in “surgical” air strikes. Funny then how they are still using 2000 pound bombs. It doesn’t sound very surgical.”
Well gee, Keith. Maybe they’ve got a whole range of bombs for different scenarios; from big ones down to little ones. Do you think that could be possible? If only there were some interconnected web of computers where one could go to find this information and get informed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I don’t think the collateral damage care much what size bombs killed them.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis,
Oh what a wonderful, caring and deeply compassionate person you must be to post such a thought.
Really, it puts you in a different moral plane to the soldiers who are actually out there fighting the Taliban.
You know what? From now on I’m going to call you Sensei and you shall be my teacher.
In the meantime, why don’t google for “taliban” and “women” and click on a few links.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
You can hide under a rock and pretend Helen Clark’s “benign strategic environment” is real if you want.
The Taliban know where New Zealand is. They know we’ve had troops there from the start. They’d come after us if they could but they’re in a fight for their lives so have more pressing priorities.
And when say “fully support” I mean just that. If you wear the uniform of the New Zealand Defence Force, you’ve volunteered to stand between harm and my family. I’m behind you 100 percent.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
They know where we live and they know now, what we consider funny. Bet they’re splitting their side too!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Wat – are you suggesting that the ‘soldiers out there’ are on the same moral plane as us civilians?
Valis – wat has invited you to be his teacher. It’s an honour and a challenge at the same time. Grasp the opportunity and teach him good (there’s a great deal to be done, empty vessel and all that!)
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Oh wat an ass you can be. I have never denied that the Taliban suck. That is just a straw man you’re using to avoid dealing with the fact that non-combatants are being killed as well.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
That is a very interesting thought. What would the Taliban find funny?
Just like all enemies it is easy to demonise them as humourless fundamentalists but I’m sure they laugh like any other humans. Just what would make them laugh though I have no idea.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Lost cause. The best one can do is point out his fallacies for others.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Valis,
So are you saying that the West should pull-out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban rule with a free hand, because fighting them inevitably involves some civilian casualties?
If not, then what? Take as much care as possible to avoid them? Well duh.
So let’s hear you say it. Do you think the West should fight the Taliban and accept the inevitable civilian casualties, whilst obviously taking great care to minimise them?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It is possible that the war in Afganistan will not weaken the Taliban, it could even strengthen the ‘culture’.
It is likely that there are options other than war, which would see a better future for Afgan women. But the details of these other options, sadly I do not have.
In the man time it might help to “blow of[sic] a Taliban’s head and **** down his throat”…
Because then the Afgans will see the good culture in all its glory
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There is nothing immoral about killing combatants that are part of a murderous despicable stone age group of aggressors. Presumably if the Taliban could be fought and defeated by military means, with no civilian casualties, the Greens would support it?
Or, if the Taliban took over substantial parts of Pakistan, what should be the Western response to a Pakistani government seeking help to quell this?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Fin says:
Because then the Afghans will see the good culture in all its glory
We’ll be their beacon of hope in a mad, mad world!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
There are plenty of well articulated points thoughout these posts which I won’t rehash.
@Fin hits the nail on the head… Are we increasing the reach of the Taliban by marginalising the moderates of the country? I for one may become a little extremist if someone invaded NZ in 2001 and was still bombing us 8 years later…
2 thoughts..
Would Pakistan have had such a moderate election outcome if it wasn’t disheartened with their American allied govt and the US war in Afganistan?
Would there be such a soft border between Afganistan and Pakistan (not to mention regional/ tribal support on the ground) without the US invasion?
The most obvious point (and I apologise if I missed someone making this earlier) is it is debatable that the Taliban would have even be in control of Afganistan if it wasn’t for the Cold War that was fought out across their lands, and the power vaccuum left after 1991.
The longer we fight, the more extreme moderates on the ground will become, and the more sympathy the neighbouring countries will have for the Afghani people in general. The Afgani people are a proud people and they will never give up their land. To assume they are all Taliban supporters is like assuming every German supported the National Socialist party in the ’30′s.
Why are we forever forced to repeat the mistakes of history?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
It sounds like you think the US is in Afghanistan out of the goodness of its heart.
Of course we should NOT be in Afghanistan except to help with rebuilding. The reason you give is only one of many, but I’m far too tired to engage tonight – hopefully tomorrow.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
The West has been their best recruiter so far – business is Booming.
Point that weapon at your own head and try and laugh!
Collect your Families body parts from the flattened area you used to live in and try laughing.
We are going there at a time when the rest of the World are leaving – we are inviting Terrorism from that quarter….there is nothing funny for anyone in this.
How could you think otherwise?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
Lawrence – just a thought – a question really.. if you and your family were under constant threat of being bombed, would your opinion of your enemy change, if you knew they were mocking you publically, on the internet etc., as well as bombing you? Does it make any difference to the situation, in this electronic age, do you think?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
I support our troops so much that I dont want them going.
Not to a war which I suspect is driven by Trade Concessions.
After all, Uncle Sam didn’t care how many Kurds Saddam murdered in 91/92 did he?
Saved the OIL, packed up and went home – left Hussein to Gas all those civilians.
So lose the pretence this has anything to do with ‘rights’ or ‘freedom’.
The convoy carrying those kids went right by my door yesterday. Can’t recall seeing so many kids so obviously terrified….I hope they all survive there and thereafter – it’s people like me who have to work hard to help our casualties, go to their funerals, talk to the families in words no one can believe.
I don’t appreciate flippant and ignorant warmongering – if it’s all the same to you that is….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)
OK, of course we should get out. They have cultural and institutional problems that we cannot change, but only make worse, as others have pointed out. Unless you are prepared to permanently occupy the country or nuke them. Which is it? Otherwise they will continue to prefer struggling with their own people and will outlast any external efforts to mold them into some Western model.
Why are we there? Is it to combat terrorism, the Taliban or to save the local population from a terrible fate? We do not invade every country that experiences gross injustice. Even if we had the resources, we wouldn’t do so, as it is counterproductive from a humanitarian perspective as well as an economic perspective. There are a few rare instances where such action is justified. Those situations are recognised in international law. There are good reason that individual countries aren’t supposed to decide on their own when to intervene.
Why is US aid generally inversely proportional to countries human rights records? – i.e, the worse the record, the greater the aid to the existing government? The West, and particularly the US, ruthlessly follows its own perceived interests, regardless of other considerations. Democratic reform is not a requirement for US support, only alignment with US policy is. If you are aligned, the US doesn’t care what you do to your population as demonstrated in so many countries – Chile, Indonesia, even in the mid east where oppressive governments like Saudi get nary a mention due to their strategic importance. Where there is no alignment, human rights suddenly becomes a big issue because public support can be drummed up with it. But why should an Afghan woman’s plight be more important than a Saudi woman’s plight, or a woman from East Timor under Indonesia?
Why haven’t we taken Mugabe out, to name just one deserving regime? Surely the case there is even more straight forward. The difference is that he has nothing we want, unlike countries in the Middle East. The US had no real problems with the Taliban before 9/11. It was just as nasty then, but we were interested in an oil pipeline to the Caspian, so we looked the other way. This is the one pattern that can be counted on when looking at US military intervention, rather than the excuses it may give. Certainly there was no suggestion of invading to save its population from an evil govt. Were you campaigning for an invasion in the 1990’s wat?
If the West was really interested in democracy, it would support internal movements and institutions where they exist over the long haul as that is the only way to make the change stick. But they would also have to support the independent decision making of other countries. This means avoiding the knee-jerk reactions of the past to subvert even democratic government because they tick us off. Iran in 1953 was the most modern and most secular country in the mid east. Unfortunately they wanted to be independent and nationalised oil companies (with compensation). The West’s real priorities shone through once again, destroying the best hope the Arab world ever had to modernise in a compatible way with the West. We suffer from this catastrophic mistake even today.
Some will argue that since we’re there, we should do the job even if US intentions are not good. This is one of the most difficult fallacies as it plays so strongly on out desire to help people in need. But in fact, a country with bad intentions really can’t deliver a good outcome for the people on the street. Even when it looks like there is common cause, the real goals win out in the end and the people get screwed. The best we can do is get out and provide funding to clean up our mess. It will take longer, as it is even more broken than before we arrived, but otherwise we’ll be having this discussion for a long time to come.
Lastly, this is not really about the US. They just happen to be the current world power. That they consistently act in their own selfish interests should not be a surprise – what is there to stop them? (Potentially public opinion, but the public are so poorly informed that there is little chance of that in most cases.) The US is just doing what every single world power before it has done. The rhetoric of freedom is just a convenience fooling only the naive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0 (0)