US Launches Airstrikes in Afghanistan!

[Liberty Star]

Is Obama executing the very policies he used to criticize during Bush regime?

Is he an opportunist who made those statements for political gain to win election?



Afghans say US bombing run killed dozens

By RAHIM FAIEZ and JASON STRAZIUSO, Associated Press Writers Rahim Faiez And Jason Straziuso, Associated Press Writers – 33 mins ago

KABUL – Bombing runs called in by U.S. forces killed dozens of civilians taking shelter from fighting between Taliban militants and Afghan and international troops, Afghan officials said Tuesday. The U.S. promised a joint investigation.

A provincial councilman said he saw about 30 bodies, many of them women and children, after villages bought them to a provincial capital.

Overall death toll estimates varied widely. Villagers estimated from 70 to well over 100 civilians may have died, according to local and regional officials. But no government official could confirm such a toll.


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090505/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan



Obama: U.S. Troops in Afghanistan Must Do More Than Kill Civilians

Tuesday, August 14, 2007


Asked whether he would move U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism elsewhere, he brought up Afghanistan and said, "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,293187,00.html






Update 1: Afghans are digging mass graves. On the brighter side, at least Braack Hussein Obama is not a dictator like Saddam Hussein:


Estimates of the number of people killed by U.S. airstrikes in western Afghanistan rise as high as 100. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton says the U.S. 'deeply regrets' the loss of life.
By Laura King
May 7, 2009
Reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan -- As the Red Cross confirmed Wednesday that dozens of civilians had been killed in U.S. airstrikes in an isolated district in western Afghanistan, provincial authorities suggested the toll could reach 100. Weeping villagers dug mass graves.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-deaths7-2009may07,0,968285.story

[TER]

pathetic. disgraceful. criminal.

[sevin]

"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there."

A sneaky way to try and make more troops sound like a good thing.

[Bruno]

Obamabots will be make just as many excuses for him as Bush supporters did for Bush.

[Liberty Star]

Obamabots will be make just as many excuses for him as Bush supporters did for Bush.

If they did, they would be just as mentally deranged as Bush extremists who championed preemptively bombing people of other countries or worse. They will be grossly hypocritical on top of that.

[Liberty Star]

Sadly, this is not very unsusal:




Up to 100 civilians feared killed in US air raids in Afghanistan

Ewen Macaskill in Washington
Wednesday 6 May 2009 01.43 BST

The Pentagon yesterday promised to launch a joint investigation with the Afghan government into reports that *dozens of civilians were killed in US air strikes on Monday night.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/06/100-feared-dead-afghanistan-raids


U.S. forces kill 13 Afghan civilians in air strike | International ...
Feb 21, 2009 ... KABUL (Reuters) - U.S. forces in Afghanistan killed 13 civilians, as well as three militants, in an air strike in western Afghanistan this ...
www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE51K1QQ20090221 - 58k - Cached - Similar pages

89 Afghan civilians die in 'tragic' US air strike - Times Online
Aug 25, 2008 ... President Karzai accused Afghan and US led coalition forces yesterday of killing at least 89 civilians in an attack in the western province ...
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article4601497.ece - Similar pages

Video results for afghan civilians air
US air raid kills Afghan civilians - 6 Nov 08
1 min 54 sec
www.youtube.com

US air raid fuels Afghan anger - 27 Jan 09
2 min 47 sec
www.youtube.com

At least 30 civilians die in Afghan battle: official‎ - Reuters Canada

Anger Over Afghan Civilian Deaths Shows Limits of U.S. Air Power ...
Feb 24, 2009 ... The US military is experiencing the limitations of its increasing reliance on airstrikes, which have kindled growing fury over civilian ...
www.nytimes.com/2009/02/24/world/asia/24carrier.html?partner=rss&pagewanted=all - Similar pages

Civilian casualties of the War in Afghanistan (2001–present ...
Out of these, 680 Afghan civilians killed in air strikes by the US-led forces, with U.S. combat aircraft conducting at least 15000 close air support ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_(200 1–present) - 256k - Cached - Similar pages

40 Afghan civilians killed in air strike
Nov 7, 2008 ... A website by the People's Daily newspaper; China, business, world, science, education, sports news and commentaries.
english.peopledaily.com.cn/90001/90783/6529239.html - 31k - Cached - Similar pages

BBC NEWS | South Asia | Air raid 'kills Afghan civilians'
May 9, 2007 ... US-led forces kill at least 21 civilians in an air strike in southern Afghanistan, local officials say.
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6637957.stm - 56k - Cached - Similar pages


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/06/100-feared-dead-afghanistan-raids

Then mentally deficient neocons in media raise the question why they hate our freedoms?

[slacker921]

ha. 6 hours on reddit (http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/8i4qj/afghans_say_us_bombing_run_killed_dozens/), downmodded to 0 points and no comments. The Obamabots don't care and the neoconservatives are just fine with it.

[Liberty Star]

Are Obama's policies creating more terrorists for future generations?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2107743&postcount=1

[james1844]

You Guys, Afghanistan is really off the hook.

When my wife was there last year, the Taliban controlled 3/4ths of the country, three of the four roads out of Kabul and were operating in its suburbs. Movement in the countryside was very, very difficult and aid workers were getting assassinated. By assassinated, I mean machine gunned in the street.

I am frankly surprised that we haven't heard more about the conflict there. The Talibs are a battle hardened rebel army and are used to fighting in that terrain. Prior to Obama sending troops there, the Talibs had fought our army to a standstill. Think about that, the US has the most technologically advanced force in the world, the best training, the best equipment, billion dollar budgets. A bunch of rag tag rebels fought our army to a stalemate. A stalemate. The NAZIS couldn't do that, neither could the Empire of Japan. I don't want to overstate myself, but the fact that we were even stalemated - that should give you pause.

Also, - nobody will tell you this, but The Karzai goverment's two main sources of income are 1) foreign aid and 2) illegal drugs. Its also one of the most corrupt places on earth. You need to pay to get basic services. The police regularly raid the development NGOs looking to shake them down to get bribe money. Also, here is something else nobody will tell you- but for the few years the Taliban ruled Afghanistan, it was the first time peace and order had been established in three generations. Of course, they did it by being brutally oppressive, but it means the average Afghani's loyalties are divided.

I think it will get worse there before it gets better.

The Obama bashing aside, I feel for the President. Hes got no good options in that country.

On another note, I'd like to hear more ideas from our side of the political spectrum on how to deal with that sort of situation. Its NOT enough to say "lets just leave" - we should, obviously, but its not a practical solution in the current political environment.

Thanks,

James

[KoldKut]

...

[Objectivist]

Nostradamus told me yesterday that the evil terrorists would get ahold of a "nuclear weapon" in a third world country and that we would be losing more of our freedoms in a first world country, for our own protection.

I gave him a doggie treat and he wagged his tail.

[Objectivist]

When will Americans get it? Osama isn't there. The only reason to be there is to control the Heroin Industry and Joe Biden wrote drug law for the United States and as a member of an international committee in the 90s, wake up people.

Drug production has risen 1000x since we've been there, the Taliban had about shut down production and now there's enough Heroin for every human on the planet to overdose twice.

http://www.unodc.org/pakistan/en/country_profile.html
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Politics-Economics-Production-Pakistan-Afghanistan-Border/dp/0754630374

[Liberty Star]

The Obama bashing aside, I feel for the President. Hes got no good options in that country.

On another note, I'd like to hear more ideas from our side of the political spectrum on how to deal with that sort of situation. Its NOT enough to say "lets just leave" - we should, obviously, but its not a practical solution in the current political environment.

Thanks,

James

Thanks for adding a very interesting perspective to discussion. The more dumb foreign policies we execute, the fewer good options we will have in the end. In that sense, you have a very valid point. There are good solutions available, sending more troops, bombs and bullets is not one of them.

Talibans are offsprings of Afghan Mujahideens we groomed, bred, armed, trained and radicalized when Aghanistan was made a playground between US and USSR couple of decades ago. Millions of Afghans were killed and we sort of washed our hands off after using them for global jihad against Russians, that was bad policy and radicalized orphans of that war produced crops of Talibans often educated in poor madrassa/religious schoools funded by our allies like the Saudis. Considering the destruction this war has caused there now, we'll have to use the same "victory solution" we used in Iraq; we pay them (or better help with rehabilitation and developement ). In Iraq, we were or still are just paying salaries to Sunni insurgents to give up fighting us and they then joines us, hence "sons of Iraq" were born and war started to look like "victory" to GOP cheerleaders. "Sons of Afghanistan" probably is our only longterm winning strategy left there, we do not have clear puprpose, financial resources, man power or will to engage in and win a protracted war in that part of the world. Carrying this policy on with air raids killing 3 suspected insurgents and 30 innocent civilian people will continue to take things from bad to worse. This is dumb, counter productive policy.

[Objectivist]

Nice LS, I say leave and protect our borders if we are truly worried about a nuke coming here. We have the most advanced Navy in the world and could take out Pakistan from the IO.

There is no reason for us to be there wasting our blood and treasure.

[Liberty Star]

Nice LS, I say leave and protect our borders if we are truly worried about a nuke coming here. We have the most advanced Navy in the world and could take out Pakistan from the IO.

There is no reason for us to be there wasting our blood and treasure.

Leaving would be much better than what we are doing there now.

That said, wrecking another country and execution of operations that result in many innocent deaths and homelessness has consequences; blowback is a valid concept. As long as we maintain a global empire posture and footprint, borders alone can't defend us. We should pay families of civilians killed and those sunni Afghan insurgents who are fighting us just because of occupation in same fashion as we paid off sunni Iraqi insurgents and leave in a mangeable way.

[Liberty Star]

This is slightly off topic question, can Obama be impeached for dilly dallying in the WH instead of doing his job intelligently:


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01394/Sasha-Obama-basket_1394450i.jpg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01394/Obama-moving-sofa_1394472i.jpg

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01394/Obama-3d-movie_1394436i.jpg

[Liberty Star]

When will Americans get it? Osama isn't there. The only reason to be there is to control the Heroin Industry and Joe Biden wrote drug law for the United States and as a member of an international committee in the 90s, wake up people.

Drug production has risen 1000x since we've been there, the Taliban had about shut down production and now there's enough Heroin for every human on the planet to overdose twice.

http://www.unodc.org/pakistan/en/country_profile.html
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Politics-Economics-Production-Pakistan-Afghanistan-Border/dp/0754630374


That would be shocking if factual. I had read that drug growing boomed after Talibans were out of power but 1000 times?