Afghanistan: A Tale Of Never Ending Tragedy

It was said that, under the Taliban, a person (male) could walk the length and breadth of Afghanistan without fear of robbery. But of course, THAT is not the American Way......

---
"We can have a democracy or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of the few. We cannot have both."
- Justice Louis Brandeis

It is so difficult to get any in depth understanding of the Afghan situation. While this is a well presented argument based on sources and personal experiences, Prof. Ryan's ideological position as an avowed "leftist" undermines his creditability for those of us who tend to reject the strict ideological approach. (He has previously promoted the Manning thesis of a polarized form of politics based on two parties: one on the right and one on the left.}

The fact that the situation in Afghanistan becomes so "murky" illustrates the difficulty in taking clear ideological positions.

The best way to get an in-depth feeling for Afghanistan is to read its history. That exercise will tell you that the NATO mission is definitely doomed. Then look at the evil we are doing with depleted uranium and the killing of civilians.

What more do you need for an in-depth feeling?

---
Michael

Maybe you should go there or live there or listen to commentary from those who actually have; rather than just relying on an ideological viewpoint that coincides with your own.

You (and I'm using the global you - I'm not picking on anyone in particular here, so please take no personal offense) complain of the radiological waste of DU weaponry and the only examples of actual studies brought forward on this site were from a discredited UK study conducted right outside a UK nuclear facility. DU weaponry is used to breach bunkers and heavily armoured vehicles. DU was only used in very limited amounts since there were very few viable military targets. Rumsfeld was quoted as saying after the first week of bombardment that they had "run out of targets". Cluster munitions was much more heavily used - the infamous "daisy cutter" and the larger MOAB - the latter on the cave defenses.

You claim that someone could walk the width and breadth of Afghanistan without fear of robbery under the Taliban. I would have liked to see any woman try that unescorted. Or for that matter, any man who thought that was possible while the Northern Alliance was still fighting in the north. I don't know what pipedream the person was witnessing who made that statement originally.

You make claims that Afghanistan was attacked soley for a pipeline. But by this articles own admission, discussions on that pipeline were still being conducted right up until 9/11. And that even though the signatures have been made on the pipeline with Karazi's government, not one inch of pipe has been laid. It might be of interest to note that the pipeline goes through the northern part of the country starting in Turkmenistan and another link from Uzbekistan... not through the south where the fighting is. So if the Yanks were so gung ho about this pipeline and that is why they wanted this war, why aren't they building it post haste? They could have NATO or other proxy troops guarding it and leave the south to the Taliban.

You complain that people should not advocate our military involvement in that country unless they are willing to serve there themselves. And then shout down the voice of the only poster who is actually there as nonsensical because his viewpoint again does not coincide with your own.

What the article is very correct on is that insufficient reconstruction has/is taking place. Both the US, Russia and the West as a whole owes it to this country and her people to help put them back on their feet so they can be self sufficient. What I vehemently disagree with is the means to the end... if anything, we should be pouring in additional resources, not taking them away. If we abandon Afghanistan, the people of that country will not see any semblance of peace for decades.

Studies to monitor the effects of depleted uranium on Afghanis have been carried out by the Uranium Medical Research Center, which has sent several field teams to Afghanistan since 2002 to check the contamination and health conditions around specific locations that are known to have been bombed. Approximately 30% of those interviewed in the affected areas displayed symptoms of radiation sickness, including congenital problems in newborns. In Kabul those who were exposed to US-British “precision bombing” showed extreme signs of contamination consistent with uranium exposure. In Nangarhar every person donating urine specimens tested positive for uranium contamination. The researchers were stunned by the astoundingly high levels of widespread contamination. Their report warned, “The UMRC field team was shocked by the breadth of public health impacts coincident with the bombing. Without exception, at every bombsite investigated, people are ill. A significant portion of the civilian population presents symptoms consistent with internal contamination by uranium.”
Using the same calculation method that the U.K. Atomic Energy Authority employed in their 1990 projection of potential DU consequences in Iraq, the estimated 250 tons of DU from the 2,000 recent air strikes carried out in Afghanistan from March to May 2006 could result in as many as 2,500,000 cancers within the next ten years. The bomb dropped near Capt. Goddard produced 250 pounds of DU that could cause as many as 1,250 cases of cancer in that village within the next ten years. But, the bombing in the initial 2001 invasion could cause as many as 9,000,000 additional cancers within ten years. These horrible estimates tend to support Leuren Moret’s contention that this has been a genocidal plan from the start; this was not a war in Afghanistan, but a war against Afghanistan. And Iraq, and Yugoslavia.


---
Michael

Here is a posting with more information on depleted uranium:<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060706210639293">http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060706210639293</a><p>---<br>Michael<br />

DU, like any heavy metal, is toxic and the danger is made worse because of the radioactivity. DU is very nasty stuff. Anyone who says otherwise, I challenge them to allow their kids to play in a contaminated area. <br><br> <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U93PBZIyqBs">Depleted Uranium Hazard Awareness - US Army Training Video</a>

Capt. Goddard was killed by an RPG. So unless they've been really bulking up in Afghanistan and the Taliban now have DU munitions, there is no way it was DU munitions nor did it weigh 250 pounds.

The "field teams" for the UMRC collected a total of 8 specimens to come to their conclusions. Yeah, you read that right. 8 samples. Read the articles on their site. And somehow they say this is a trend for the entire civilian population and could represent more than a million cases of cancer in the next ten years. Talk about broad strokes. WTF????

They base their conclusions of total exposure on the weight of munitions as being 75% ballast and 20% explosives, (thus a 1000 pound bomb is 750 pounds of DU) and extrapolate based on the total tonnage of weapons used to get their contaminant rates for the country - notwithstanding the fact that the vast majority of bombs are not DU tipped. And you wonder why the MSM has not picked up on this? How about crank science? Jesus, if you want to be taken seriously, start with using some decent numbers instead of cooking your results to the doom and gloom scenarios that have no basis in reality.