Thursday, August 13, 2009

Backed by their army, settlers bid for expansion in three locations

Hebron – Ma’an – Israeli settlers launched a series of actions on Friday in a bid to take over more West Bank land from Palestinians.
-----------
Are they paying "market price" for it?
Posted by at

54 comments:

  1. vAugust 13, 2009 at 11:31 AM

    BERNARD LEWIS WAS MY GUIDE...(THEN I WENT TO THE MIDDLE EAST)

    http://mondoweiss.net/2009/08/bernard-lewis-was-my-guide-then-i-went-to-the-middle-east.html#more-8381

    "Samuel Huntington and Bernard Lewis (pictured) were my guides.  They were realists, I would tell myself, whereas those who quarreled with them, for instance colleagues at Rice who were more interested in postcolonial studies than I, had political axes to grind.  Not for me the romance of resistance.  I was a good skeptic, an empiricist; and if there was a problem in Israel it was clear to me it had to do with Muslim fundamentalism, terrorism, and the clash between Enlightenment values and democracy on the one hand and premodern tribalism and totalitarianism on the other...

    "...I’m through with grad school, I finally have some time and money, and I embark on a self-directed course of study on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict....

    The result?  Well, the whole experience essentially knocked me on my butt.  I was wrong about a great many things.  And not just wrong but deeply wrong.  Wrong to a degree that to realize it has left me shaken, wondering how exactly I got to be so intellectually, and in this case morally, obtuse. "

    ReplyDelete
  2. VAAAugust 13, 2009 at 4:13 PM

    How the Lobby Took Control of U.S. Foreign Policy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. vAugust 13, 2009 at 5:47 PM

    I understand all of this VAA, however I think it is necessary to also understand that there is a concluence of interest in Washington.  We certainly should not believe that the lobby is omnipotent, and this is because there are many ways this is used.  It must be understood who is giving this apperance - it can be used to spark another diaspora to Israel if it is inflamed beyond reason.  I believe that this is what the Zionists desire.

    So itis not merely an inflence of foreign interest in the sense of Israel, but it is foreign because it is the will of a few to continue to exploit this region. The region was attacked and exploited long before the Zionists arrived, they just hitched a ride.  this is why they always confound the so-called "war on terror" (which is also bogus) with their occupation of Palestine.

    ReplyDelete
  4. vAugust 13, 2009 at 5:49 PM

    <span>I understand all of this VAA, however I think it is necessary to also understand that there is a confluence of interest in Washington.  We certainly should not believe that the lobby is omnipotent, and this is because there are many ways this is used.  It must be understood who is giving this apperance - it can be used to spark another diaspora to Israel if it is inflamed beyond reason.  It can be used to get domestic leaders off the hook. I believe that this is what the Zionists desire, as long as they can get their way in Palestine. 
     
    So it is not merely an inflence of foreign interest in the sense of Israel, but it is foreign because it is the will of a few to continue to exploit this region. The region was attacked and exploited long before the Zionists arrived, they just hitched a ride.  this is why they always confound the so-called "war on terror" (which is also bogus) with their occupation of Palestine</span>

    ReplyDelete
  5. vzaAugust 13, 2009 at 8:09 PM

    The Arab people I met in Syria, Lebanon and the West Bank (and Jerusalem), the vast majority of them Muslims, were almost uniformly lovely, warm, and welcoming.  I wasn’t expecting passersby in the street in all of these places to invite me into their homes for tea to discuss how much they "hate George Bush, but like Americans."  (This happened too often to count.)  Pretty much everyone thought U.S. policy was a disaster.  But they were angry about policy and lovely to me in ways that make the "they hate us for our freedom" line not only inaccurate but criminal."

    Why was this guy so surprised by how friendly the people were? Didn't he read about the countries he planned to visit? Any basic guide book on Syria will mention how warm the people are and how they will invite you to tea, etc.  Also, nobody ever said that ALL or even most Muslims "hate us for our freedom". That line, I believe, referred Bin Laden and his followers.

    ReplyDelete
  6. vzaAugust 13, 2009 at 8:11 PM

    <span>The Arab people I met in Syria, Lebanon and the West Bank (and Jerusalem), the vast majority of them Muslims, were almost uniformly lovely, warm, and welcoming.  I wasn’t expecting passersby in the street in all of these places to invite me into their homes for tea to discuss how much they "hate George Bush, but like Americans."  (This happened too often to count.)  Pretty much everyone thought U.S. policy was a disaster.  But they were angry about policy and lovely to me in ways that make the "they hate us for our freedom" line not only inaccurate but criminal." 
     
    Why was this guy so surprised by how friendly the people were? Didn't he read about the countries he planned to visit? Any basic guide book on Syria will mention how warm the people are and how they will invite you to tea, etc.  Also, nobody ever said that ALL or even most Muslims "hate us for our freedom". That line, I believe, referred to Bin Laden and his followers.</span>

    ReplyDelete
  7. vAugust 13, 2009 at 10:26 PM

    Well vza, that is apparently not what he was taught in Graduate school eh? Also vza, you cannot say they "hate us for our freedoms" and just apply it to Bin Laden and his followers when -

    1) You attack entire nations right after you make that statement;

    2). Introduce draconian and highly profiling methodology, detain and expell, and say you have the right to arrest without remedy anyone who comes from a said region, as a domestic policy;

    3). Than say "gee, that just applied to Bin Laden and his followers," OK?

    ReplyDelete
  8. anandAugust 13, 2009 at 10:52 PM

    OBL attacks many countries for their freedoms.

    ReplyDelete
  9. anandAugust 13, 2009 at 10:52 PM

    Not just America.

    ReplyDelete
  10. anandAugust 13, 2009 at 10:54 PM

    OBL attacks many countries for their freedoms, and not just America.

    VZA, I would like to ask Palestinians why they think Americans should sacrifice to help them.

    I think America should; but I would be curious to hear their reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  11. anandAugust 13, 2009 at 10:56 PM

    VAA, why does Israel have so many friends in the world?:
    -Turkay
    -Malaysia
    -Indonesia
    -India
    -China
    -Japan
    -South Korea
    -Russia
    -Serbia
    -Kosovo (how Israel manages to be friends with both enemies, is pretty amazing)
    -Germany

    The Israeli lobby is very powerful globally. But is it just the lobby, or other things?

    ReplyDelete
  12. vAugust 13, 2009 at 11:54 PM

    Awe sorry anand, no answer as usual - what is it like in your dimension of the twilight zone?

    ReplyDelete
  13. VAAAugust 13, 2009 at 11:56 PM

    anand
    <span style="">I would like to ask Palestinians why they think Americans should sacrifice to help them. anand</span>
    The question would be better rephrased : Why Americans should stop being part of the Israeli's conquest . Palestinians probably won't need American's help nor their sacrifice . And BTW what's the American's sacrifice ? You have to understand one very simple reality " US is largely responsible ". 

    ReplyDelete
  14. thankgodimatheistAugust 14, 2009 at 3:14 AM

    <span><span> That line, I believe, referred to Bin Laden and his followers.</span></span>
    --------------
    This line, ALSO for Bin Laden and his followers was wrong..It was never for the " freedom" that there was hatred from anyone...This must have been the silliest and most ridiculous line in history !!

    ReplyDelete
  15. thankgodimatheistAugust 14, 2009 at 3:17 AM

    Wrong,  anand? Countries want to do business not make friends! Those countries you mentioned are not Israel's "friends" .....Maybe you are but certainly not them...

    ReplyDelete
  16. thankgodimatheistAugust 14, 2009 at 3:19 AM

    <span>Wrong anand! Countries want to do business..want to trade, not make friends! Those countries you mentioned are not Israel's "friends" maybe business partners but cetainly not friends .....Maybe you are but certainly not them..</span>

    ReplyDelete
  17. thankgodimatheistAugust 14, 2009 at 3:20 AM

    <span><span>Wrong anand! Countries want to do business..want to trade, not make friends! Those countries you mentioned are business partners with Israel but not friends .....Maybe you are but certainly not them..</span></span>

    ReplyDelete
  18. thankgodimatheistAugust 14, 2009 at 3:30 AM

    <span>VZA, I would like to ask Palestinians why they think Americans should sacrifice to help them. </span>
    --------------
    What the hell ??? What kind of thinking is this???Where do you come up with those ideas? This is ridiculous beyond belief! Where did you hear Palestinans saying they want Americans to sacrifice for them??

    ReplyDelete
  19. thankgodimatheistAugust 14, 2009 at 3:37 AM

    Why don't <span>VZA, I would like to ask Palestinians why they think Americans should sacrifice to help them. 
     -----------</span>
    OW!!! Yeah, go ahead. Just do it! Go and ask them who the hell they think they are?

    ReplyDelete
  20. thankgodimatheistAugust 14, 2009 at 3:53 AM

    <span><span>I would like to ask Palestinians why they think Americans should sacrifice to help them. </span></span>
    ----------------
    Nobody asked you for anything anand!!

    ReplyDelete
  21. thankgodimatheistAugust 14, 2009 at 4:02 AM

    <span><span><span>I would like to ask Palestinians why they think Americans should sacrifice to help them. </span></span> 
    ---------------- 
    Nobody asked you for anything anand! Americans just need to mind their own business and not help the Israelis to dispossess the Palestinians..Too hard to understand? Stop making thingds up!!!
    </span>

    ReplyDelete
  22. thankgodimatheistAugust 14, 2009 at 4:23 AM

    <span>VZA, I would like to ask Palestinians why they think Americans should sacrifice to help them. </span>
    -------------
    You haven't been learning much on this blog have you anand? A waste of time for everyone I should believe. Especially in your case!

    ReplyDelete
  23. thankgodimatheistAugust 14, 2009 at 4:24 AM

    <span><span>VZA, I would like to ask Palestinians why they think Americans should sacrifice to help them. </span> 
    ------------- 
    You haven't been learning much on this blog have you anand? A waste of time for everyone I should believe. Especially for you!</span>

    ReplyDelete
  24. flemngAugust 14, 2009 at 4:34 AM

    The great arab fantasy: If the USA would just "go away", we "would take" care of the Israel problem.

    1) The USA is not going to abandon Israel; there are far too many connections, business/econommic, cultural, family and personal, between the two countries
    2) We recognize the seething hatred in many arab countries toward the US because they hold us responsible for Israel
    3) We maintain relations with some arab nations because we must; there is too much oil in the region for us to adopt any other approach
    4) The above is a temporary phenemenon.  As the oil runs dry and other energy sources come on line, we will move on to greener pastures and more friendly enviorns. 
    5) Oh to be aive in 150 years.  The world will be much different

    ReplyDelete
  25. thankgodimatheistAugust 14, 2009 at 5:25 AM

    <span>The great arab fantasy: If the USA would just "go away", we "would take" care of the Israel problem.</span>
    -----------
    No that's not an Arab fantasy. That's YOUR fantasy about the Arabs..Big difference...

    ReplyDelete
  26. vzaAugust 14, 2009 at 7:07 AM

    <span> Also vza, you cannot say they "hate us for our freedoms" and just apply it to Bin Laden and his followers when -</span>


    I never used the line nor am I making a judgment on it one way or the other. It was probably used to make a catchy soundbite for the news. I was simply correcting an error this grad student made in his mea culpa.

    ReplyDelete
  27. vzaAugust 14, 2009 at 7:35 AM

    <span>VZA, I would like to ask Palestinians why they think Americans should sacrifice to help them. </span>

    I don't understand your question, anand. Are you referring to monetary aid we give the Palestinian Authority or the fact that the U.S. contributes a great portion of the money needed for the U.N. refugee programs to function?
    The best thing we could do for the Palestinians is to stop covering for Israel.

    ReplyDelete
  28. anandAugust 14, 2009 at 11:41 AM

    TGIA, freedoms are a large part of why Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda linked networks attack so many countries around the world. It is a true statement.

    ReplyDelete
  29. DancingOpossumAugust 14, 2009 at 11:51 AM

    That's like saying the U.S. is "friends" with China. We were "friends" with France until they dared to suggest that unilaterally invading and occupying a country that represented no harm to us was a bad idea they couldnt' get on board with...then we got "freedom fries" and poo-flinging at the French.

    Israel doesn't have any friends except now-defunct Apartheid South Africa and of course, the U.S. Now, an argument could be made that with friends like Israel, who needs enemies? Perhaps we should borrow a phrase from the brilliant political philosophers of "Sex and the City" to coin a new term for Israel: They're our frenemies.

    ReplyDelete
  30. anandAugust 14, 2009 at 11:56 AM

    Perceptive answer, and in many cases correct. Israel is widely seen as the most reliable and valuable friend any country can have in need (provided you aren't Palestinians.) Therefore, many countries befriend Israel and do business with Israel because they expect Israel to help them back (which Israel has so far been very good at doing.)

    But this is not a complete answer TGIA. There is a lot of sympathy for Israel too. Israel is seen, correctly or not, as a tiny feisty country with 6 million people, surrounded by hundreds of millions of enemies. It is almost romantic. {I am talking about in places like Vietnam, India, Russia, China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.} Almost no one knows the details of Palestine outside of the Arab world. Even muslims who strongly criticize and dislike Israel have expressed their deep admiration and respect for Israel to me (granted none of them were Palestinians.)

    And then there is the terrorism Israel suffers from. People around the world really dislike terrorists and sympathize with the victims. Israel's own confiscation of Palestinian private property is often not understood. Nor is the Israeli role in disrupting the Palestinian private sector, and preventing Palestinian governance and Palestinian security forces. The Israelis use the excuse of poor Palestinian security forces (which does have some truth to it) to conduct military operations in the occupied territories that kill many Palestinian civilians.

    TGIA, see this poll from Pakistan:
    http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/265.pdf
    A stunning 87% of Pakistanis say that all terrorism is never justified. That is much higher than in Israel or the US, or even India. It might be the highest percentage in the world.

    The Ummah (global muslim community) dislikes terrorists more than nonmuslims do. This is why the Palestinians have to fight the false Likud propoganda that a large percentage of Palestinians sympathize with terrorists that attack Israeli civilians with all their might. Palestinians must consistently make it clear that any terrorist that attacks Israeli civilians are Palestine's worst enemies. {I believe most Palestinians quietly think this; but they need to speak out more.}

    ReplyDelete
  31. anandAugust 14, 2009 at 12:06 PM

    VZA, many Americans (almost certainly a large majority) want to phase out US foreign aid to Israel. But very few Americans are willing to do more than that to help the Palestinians out. Maybe this is because of the the perception that Palestinians hate Americans? Palestinians are percieved to be the most anti American muslims in the world. Palestinians are also not percieved as likely to help America out in the future if America ever needed it, whereas Americans think Israel would help America even if America abondoned Israel.

    Actually, the perception that Israel would help their own country out in a pickle, while Palestine wouldn't, is widely held in many countries around the world. Maybe this is because Israel provides <span style="text-decoration: underline;">"HIGH PROFILE"</span> help during global natural disasters and other emergencies. People don't hear about the help Palestinians provide. Maybe because the Palestinians don't advertise it?

    I know most people here are sick of me emphasizing how important improving Palestinians PR is. But it really is important to advance Palestinian interests.

    Almost no Americans (that i know anyway) have any significant understanding or interest in Palestine. If someone such as I would ask them to stand by Palestinians; the natural question that follows is "why should America sacrifice for them?" It is very important to have a good answer for this question. {Cutting off aid to Israel is obivious and Americans get that. But I mean why should America do anything other than just cut off aid to Israel.}

    ReplyDelete
  32. anandAugust 14, 2009 at 12:12 PM

    VZA, I think Palestinians want America to pressure Israel on their behalf, not just cut off aid to Israel. Americans will ask the question, "why should America do that for Palestine?"

    VAA, you give a stab at answering the question. I don't fully agree with you. Israel was an ally of the Soviet block in 1948, and it is the communists that helped establish Israel in 1948. America was if anything tilting towards Palestine and the Arabs until 1961, when the first self declared pro Israeli President, John Kennedy, was sworn in.

    America also didn't cause the 1967 and 1973 wars. However, America was wrong to give Israel aid without demanding that Israel stop all illegal settlements.

    ReplyDelete
  33. VAAAugust 14, 2009 at 2:23 PM

    <span style="">I was simply correcting an error this grad student made.vza</span>
    " They Hate us for our Democracy" ?? .I read the article twice even did a search on that sentence ! and still can't find it , Am I going blind ?  Are you referring to the link v posted ? ..http://mondoweiss.net/2009/08/bernard-lewis-was-my-guide-then-i-went-to-the-middle-east.html#more-8381
    Either way apart from " War on Terror , Axis of evil " . " They hate us for our Democracy " has to be the stupidest words ever spoken by a president , and shall go down in history as such. 

    ReplyDelete
  34. VAAAugust 14, 2009 at 2:46 PM

    <span style="">freedoms are a large part of why Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda linked networks attack so many countries around the world. It is a true statement.anand</span>
    Amongst the thousands of articles analysis not to mention the books published since 11/ 9 ( I know 9/11 in the US ) . They speculate about possible motivations , but not once  Democracy / freedom was mentioned , Anand why don't you enlighten us and give away your credible sources . Please not G. Bush as a reference.

    ReplyDelete
  35. VAAAugust 14, 2009 at 3:26 PM

    People don't hear about the help Palestinians provide anand
    I'd hate to break it to you anand. Palestine is under occupation , Palestinians aren't free to go about in their own country. Could it be the reason.? or perhaps because the most basic life's essentials are forbidden to them.Or maybe because they live on handouts and that's the way Israel's with it's ally like it. Jonathan Cook has something to say perhaps you should tough it and read it.
    Achieving Two States Without a Solution
    <div>http://intifada-palestine.com/2009/07/09/achieving-two-states-without-a-solution/  </div>

    ReplyDelete
  36. anandAugust 14, 2009 at 4:43 PM

    Dancing, US China relations are the best they have been since America became independent, by far. The US and China are friends. They are working together against AQ linked networks, and in helping the Afghans fight the Taliban and their allies.

    France and the US are very close allies. Both militaries and intelligence services work extremely closely together. France has been doing a lot of heavy lifting in Afghanistan since 2001. If the French weren't, the US wouldn't have been able to ignore Afghanistan until 2007. By treaty, an attack on France is an attack on America, and visa versa. An attack on one is an attack on all. We have no choice but to help each other if one of us is attacked.

    ReplyDelete
  37. anandAugust 14, 2009 at 4:46 PM

    VAA, what is wrong with "war on terror" or to state that AQ linked networks attack scores of countries around the world in part because they are against democracy and freedom.

    Don't you think a large part of the reason AQ has tried to hit Indonesia and India so many times is because they are increasingly successful free democracies? I don't understand why the lines are stupid.

    "Axis of evil" . . . yeah that was pretty dumb. Must have come out in brainstorming during one of Cheney's senior moments. Cheney was never the "bright one."

    ReplyDelete
  38. anandAugust 14, 2009 at 4:53 PM

    "<span>Or maybe because they live on handouts and that's the way Israel's with it's ally like it.</span>" Good point, Israeli policies are disrupting the Palestinian private sector.

    Thanks for the article VAA. Netanyahu represents a major challenge to the Palestinian people. However, the Palestinians should take advantage of every opportunity to make money they can. I don't think Palestinians will use their wealth in the future in ways Netanyahu thinks they will. {The article suggested that Israel is trying to create a more prosperous welfare state in the West Bank to help control the occupied territories.}

    ReplyDelete
  39. vzaAugust 14, 2009 at 6:05 PM

    VAA, I was responding to V at 12:26:02:

    <span>Also vza, you cannot say they "hate us for our freedoms" and just apply it to Bin Laden and his followers when - </span>

    In the article on Mondoweiss, the grad student implied that the line, "they hate us ofr our freedoms" was used to describe all Muslims and it was not...it referred to  the terrorists!

    ReplyDelete
  40. vzaAugust 14, 2009 at 6:12 PM

    <span>VAA, I was responding to V at 12:26:02: 
     
    <span>Also vza, you cannot say they "hate us for our freedoms" and just apply it to Bin Laden and his followers when - </span> 
     
    In the article on Mondoweiss, the grad student implied that the line, "they hate us for our freedoms" was used to describe all Muslims and it was not...it referred to  the terrorists!</span>

    ReplyDelete
  41. VAAAugust 14, 2009 at 6:31 PM

     {The article suggested that Israel is trying to create a more prosperous welfare state in the West Bank to help control the occupied territories.} anand

    So that's what the problem is anand,you don't understand what you read .READ IT AGAIN.

    ReplyDelete
  42. flemingAugust 14, 2009 at 6:58 PM

    Anand, what are you talking about?  The USA "ignored" Afghanistan until 2007?  American boots have been on the ground since 2002.  The USA has had the biggest presence in Afghan, and the Afghans are helping us fight alqueda, not the other way around.

    ReplyDelete
  43. VAAAugust 14, 2009 at 7:14 PM

    <span style="">what is wrong with "war on terror" anand.</span>
    Here is one interesting article of many about the subject by <span style="">Zbigniew Brzezinski</span>


    The phrase itself is meaningless. It defines neither a geographic context nor our presumed enemies. Terrorism is not an enemy but a technique of warfare -- political intimidation through the killing of unarmed non-combatants.
    But the little secret here may be that the vagueness of the phrase was deliberately (or instinctively) calculated by its sponsors. Constant reference to a "war on terror" did accomplish one major objective: It stimulated the emergence of a culture of fear. Fear obscures reason, intensifies emotions and makes it easier for demagogic politicians to mobilize the public on behalf of the policies they want to pursue. 
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/23/AR2007032301613.html

    ReplyDelete
  44. vzaAugust 14, 2009 at 7:43 PM

    Hamas is fighting its own "war on terror"!


    Eyewitnesses say hundreds of Hamas fighters and policemen surrounded a mosque where followers of a radical Islamist cleric were holed up.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8202553.stm

    ReplyDelete
  45. anandAugust 14, 2009 at 8:08 PM

    VAA, thanks for your response. I like to call it the war on extremist Takfiris for some of those reasons. The reason "the war on terror" was used was because it was universal and condemned all attacks on all civilians in all countries, declaring them all to be wrong and immoral. Bush also wanted to avoid any connotation that it was a war against muslims or a large segment of muslims.

    ReplyDelete
  46. vzaAugust 14, 2009 at 8:17 PM

    <h1>Uh Oh
    </h1>
    <h1>Hundreds of Islamic schools declare war on terror</h1>
    <p>Nana Rukmana ,  The Jakarta Post ,  Cirebon, West Java   |  Thu, 08/13/2009 7:10 PM  |  National

    http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/08/13/hundreds-islamic-schools-declare-war-terror.html

    ReplyDelete
  47. vzaAugust 14, 2009 at 8:18 PM

    Uh Oh. George Bush did it.

    Hundreds of Islamic schools declare war on terror
    <span>

    Nana Rukmana ,  The Jakarta Post ,  Cirebon, West Java   |  Thu, 08/13/2009 7:10 PM  |  National 
     
    http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2009/08/13/hundreds-islamic-schools-declare-war-terror.html
    </span>

    ReplyDelete
  48. vzaAugust 14, 2009 at 8:20 PM

    <span>Hamas is fighting its own "war on terror"!  I blame George Bush...again.
     
    Eyewitnesses say hundreds of Hamas fighters and policemen surrounded a mosque where followers of a radical Islamist cleric were holed up. 
     
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8202553.stm</span>

    ReplyDelete
  49. anandAugust 14, 2009 at 9:15 PM

    Fleming, this is your American ethnocentric arrogance speaking.

    When the Taliban surrendered in 2001, there were 326 US special forces and just over 100 CIA agents in Afghanistan. The war was fought and won by the Northern Alliance, Pashtun tribal elders confederacy, and other members of the Afghan resistance with about $100 million in American help and close air support (and substantial help from Russia, Iran, India, the Stans and China.)

    We Americans joined a global coalition in Afghanistan. Until Obama, most of the ISAF troops were not American. In fact Rumsfeld and Cheney "gave" the war to NATO. Rumsfeld had an obsession with US troop numbers and tried to keep them below 5,000; and later below 8,000. America didn't send many troops or money to Afghanistan until after Bush fired Rumsfeld in November, 2006.

    Rumsfeld/Cheney blocked US efforts to train and equip the ANA and ANP. {Rumsfeld refused to train the ANP, saying the Afghans should do it themselves, or that other countries should help them.} Afghanistan, a nation of 33 million people and some of the toughest geography in the world only had 3,000 trained ANP at the begining of 2008.

    The entire ANA operations budget for 2006 was $242 million. The US contribution was a joke until November, 2006.

    Even now, the ANA takes more dead and wounded than the entire international coalition put together. The ANP takes three times the deaths and wounded of the ANA.

    ReplyDelete
  50. r.s.August 15, 2009 at 5:18 AM

    Israel stands alone at the UN with the US and Micronesia. The rest of the 185 UN member nations usually vote against Israel. By backing Israel the US routinely defies the entire world, discredits itself, and makes a mockery of the UN.

    ReplyDelete
  51. flemingAugust 15, 2009 at 5:26 AM

    As it should be Anand.  It is THEIR damn country.  Shitty one that it is. 

    Bottom line: WE ARE TRAINING THE AFGHANS.  Not the other way around.  Suddenly is it our fault they dont have a competent army or police force? Not to mention our vastly superior air resources, which are critical to the fight. 

    If we were so unimportant to the taliban's initial defeat, why did it take until we officially entered the fray for it to happen?
    Why didnt the Northern Alliance do it before we even got there?  They couldnt. 

    Your lack of appreciation for the sacrifices this country has made to keep those scum on their heels is disappointing but not surprising. Its clear you dont interact with many "real americans". 

    Ever been outside of California and NY Anand?  Ever played golf in the mountains of NC?  Ever lived in a Kanasas City suburb?  Ever worked in the non-technology area of a blue chip american company?  Ever had a cold beer in an american sports bar?  Ever skiied down a mountain Colorado?  Have you ever spent any time with any real americans who werent worried about offending your precious feelings????? 

    I didnt think so.

    ReplyDelete
  52. r.s.August 15, 2009 at 5:31 AM

    <span style="">Israel Isolated, Alone, and Shunned by the World regarding its settlements</span>
    <span style=""> </span>
    <span style=""><span style="color: #800080;">http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/3759289-israel-isolated-alone-and-shunned-by-the-world-regarding-its-settlements</span></span>
    <span style=""> </span>
    <span style=""> </span>
    <span style=""> </span>

    ReplyDelete
  53. anandAugust 15, 2009 at 8:01 AM

    Flemming, I think the Afghans should do the vast majority of the bleeding and dying to fight Al Qaeda linked networks and the Taliban. I think the Afghans agree that they should.

    What I object to is Rumsfeld's and Cheney's opposition to the US funding the ANA, ANP, and Afghan economic reconstruction between 2001 and November 2006. What I object to is Rumsfeld and Cheney blocking US trainers and advisors, and sufficient special forces from going to Afghanistan before November 2006.

    I also felt that the Bush administration was foolish to block Russia, India and Iran from sending peacekeepers and trainers to Afghanistan for fear of offending Pakistan's and Saudi Arabia's fealings.

    As one informed Afghan observer told me, "we lost 5 years on training the ANA and ANP." I think that is near criminal negligence.

    This next part you, as a probable supporter of the Iraq war, will find offensive. I didn't think America should go off fighting Saddam in 2003. {Supporting the lions of the Iraqi resistance against Saddam short of an outright invasion might have been a credible alternative.}

    Fleming, it is far far cheaper for the US to pay for the ANA and ANP than to send our own troops to Afghanistan. The lag between paying for increased ANA/ANP capacity, and when that capacity is deployed agaisnt the bad guys on the field can be 4 to 5 years, especially since the ANA/ANP raw recruits are almost completely uneducated (academically and socially.) This is why the spurt in spending on the ANA and ANP in 2007 is likely to transform the battlespace in 2011 (as new ANA and ANP units and capabilities come online.)

    If the US and the international community had surged ANA and ANP spending in 2002 instead of 2007, we wouldn't be have needed to surge US troops in Afghanistan in 2007-2009.

    ReplyDelete
  54. GuestAugust 15, 2009 at 2:24 PM

    "I think that is near criminal negligence." Anand

    Oh sure.  Now US leaders should be prosecuted as criminals for NOT spending billions of US tax dollars for training Afghan police and army....right! :)

    Its their shitty little country.  Let it rot.
     

    ReplyDelete

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)