Digg

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

Little hope for Afghans in 2008

news.bbc.co.uk — After two years in which the violence in Afghanistan has become worse, it is hard to see signs of hope in 2008.

Bury

sandanista 323 days ago, made popular 323 days ago

370 diggs
digg it

92 Comments
Who Dugg It?

ReGGsRoom, on 12/31/2007, -17/+6Dugg for someone giving a crap about the world. Oh yah and could you give me the number to call about making money writing reviews on how the ps3 sucks. That would be great.
- HolyCrapYo, on 12/31/2007, -2/+21-800-STFU-HOE
- AntBing, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2Way to jump on the bandwagon! You're a bit late though.
Cryptocracy, on 08/17/2008, -12/+30Anyone who thinks the US invades other countries for "humanitarian" reasons is messed up. We can't even do democracy right here!
- Zeonix, on 12/31/2007, -4/+12Except the war in Afghanistan is a NATO operation.
  - supermanred, on 12/31/2007, -8/+9LOL. It's US, Britian and Canada... NATO my ass.
    - cyberdork, on 12/31/2007, -2/+5Let me give you the combined finger of the following NATO personnel:
      3600 from Germany
      2160 from Italy
      1665 from the Netherlands
      1200 from Poland
      1150 from Turkey
      1100 from France
      665 from Denmark
      500 from Norway
      479 from Romania
      400 from Spain
      381 from Belgium
      224 from the Czech Republic
      180 from Hungary
      170 from Greece
      150 from Portugal
      130 from Estonia
      130 from Lithuania
      100 from Bulgaria
      98 from Latvia
      66 from Slovenia
      60 from Slovakia
      9 from Luxembourg
      9 from Iceland
      
      That's 14626 middle fingers in your face!
      
      The US has 14000 troops under NATO command in Afghanistan and another 12000 under US command 'to hunt for Bin-Laden'.
      
      When taking into account the population of the countries then the Dutch have send the equivalent of 30.000 US troops, the Germans 13.000...
      - robotcommander, on 12/31/2007, -1/+2supermanred is correct in that NATO members hardly put up an equal share of effort and resources into the mission.
        
        You point out troop numbers as a measure of a NATO country's contribution to the mission. Those troop number contributions are MEANINGLESS if the nation state (notable cases are Germany, France, and Italy) places such overwhelming deployment restrictions as to make them useless in actually combating the insurgency.
        
        It is the USA, UK, Canada, Australia, and the Dutch who are deployed in the southern provinces of Afghanistan which are taking the brunt of the renewed Taleban insurgency and is also the reason why they are dying in vastly disproportionate numbers with respect to their NATO "allies".
- AntBing, on 12/31/2007, -4/+7I pledge allegiance to the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC, for which it stands... Seriously, we are not and never have been a true democracy. You've probably said that pledge hundreds of times and you never stopped to understand the words you blindly repeated. That's the real thing the U.S. isn't getting right, education.
  - caferrell, on 12/31/2007, -2/+4Fortunately we are not a "real" democracy. A "real" democracy would never have lasted for 230 years. A pure democracy will always devolve into the abuse of the minority (and that does not necessarily have anything to do with race, gender or sexual orientation) by the majority.
    A Constitutional Republic limits the power of the government so that it cannot be harnessed by the majority to harass and steal from the minority. Thank God that the founders were wise men!
    - Carthagefield, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2"A Constitutional Republic limits the power of the government so that it cannot be harnessed by the majority to harass and steal from the minority."
      
      Meanwhile, back in the real world the following statement is more pertinent: 'A Constitutional Republic INCREASES the power of the government so that it CAN be harnessed by the MINORITY to harass and steal from the MAJORITY'. Tell me of a social order in recorded history that has not evolved to this state (and no, America is not the exception ;-).
      - caferrell, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1Checkmate.
  - cyberdork, on 12/31/2007, -0/+4Well yeah, but according to your definition there is not one single democracy on the planet. I live in the Federal Republic of Germany, it would be new to me that I dont live in a democracy.
    
    Its just funny how Repuglicans deny the democratic foundation of their country every single time the democratic shortcomings of the US are pointed out. But in the next minute they start talking about the lack of democratic elections in Russia or Pakistan etc.
    - yojiffyskippy, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1Well here's a news flash for you. If you live in the Federal Republic of Germany then you don't live in a democracy, you live in a Federal Republic.
      Federal republic - a state in which the powers of the central government are restricted and in which the component parts (states, colonies, or provinces) retain a degree of self-government; ultimate sovereign power rests with the voters who chose their governmental representatives.
  - ElAssoWipo, on 12/31/2007, -1/+4"A pure democracy will always devolve into the abuse of the minority"
    
    I've never heard anyone make that argument in my entire life. The US is a republic to avoid the "tyranny of the masses" or, what the majority of Americans wants.
    
    A republic actually gives more power to the government as opposed to giving the power to the people. That's the whole point.
    
    It's like a fascist government based on a system rather than a person, but the people who run it are changed every 4 years to avoid the system from corrupting itself. Of course, that principle is immediately destroyed once you introduce a secretive agency, the IRS, the DEA and other permanent government institutions that impact the system.
    
    You're not a republic either. That term would be applicable to a country like France, which is inherently different from America.
    
    You have your own distinct system. Some call it a corporate republic, some call it the lobby system. There's no official word for it yet. But when we study the American system, we can no longer call it a republic. And it's not a democracy.
    
    A minority has been controlling your government for almost a hundred years now. Corporate interest. Your government is not about its citizens, it's about its corporations. The people who have the greatest influence on any kind of public decision making in America are corporate lobbies. A rich corporate lobby can make the government change its views and its policies. A massive citizen protest does nothing.
    - yojiffyskippy, on 12/31/2007, -2/+1You're both partly correct, the system was devised to avoid "tyranny of the masses" over the "minority" which stated differently means the "abuse of the minority" by the "masses".
- mirunit, on 12/31/2007, -2/+2If you really believe the United States to be so bad, then by all means leave. The system is the way the system is in the United States, much like other areas of the world have their own deeply entrenched systems. There are problems other people face you would not even dream could be problems in the US, and problems the US faces that other nations would never dream of having. Everyone has their own sets of problems, there are politicians in every nation - the United States is really not that bad in the larger picture; it is just more entertaining for some people to think it is.
  - BossKey, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2On the flip side, all those who believe that our actions in Iraq and Afghanistan have been successful are welcome to move their families to these new, American-liberated, and comfortably pacified bastions of freedom and democracy. Oil, American freedom...it's paradise!
    - mirunit, on 12/31/2007, -1/+1Where exactly did I say 'sucess'. There is much work to do and the overall execution was flawed.
    - yojiffyskippy, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1Even if the actions were successful, living in Iraq and/or Afghanistan will never be as good as living in the US. Maybe "never" is too strong of a word, but it certainly isn't going to change in the next few 100 years.
      - BossKey, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1If nothing's going to change in the next 100 years, then we were there dropping billions of tax dollars into the sand...why again?
- Rich711, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1Because everyone knows we invaded Afganistan for their oil... oh, wait, they dont have oil, it must have been for their cashmere. Yeah, we invaded them to support the Pashmina Industry with enough cashmere to fill the demand Oprah created. "No Blood for Cashmere!" Damn you, Ralph Lauren!
  - Carthagefield, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pip ...
    ^Something that prior to 9/11, the Taliban refused to comply with.
    Besides which, the occupation of Iraq was always the primary goal of the "War on Terror" initiative, despite what FOX has led you to believe. Subduing Afghanistan merely provided a platform for its activities in the Middle-East, as well as pacifying a post-9/11 American public that had been indoctrinated to believe that Osama Bin Laden/Al-Qaeda/Taliban and by extension Afghanistan, were responsible for the attacks.
ryanward, on 12/31/2007, -8/+11It's a republic, not a democracy. That would be your first problem.
- terrordome, on 12/31/2007, -8/+7A republic can be a democracy. They are not mutually exclusive.
  - masterm1nd, on 12/31/2007, -2/+7The US is a democracy, but more specifically it is a representative republic or constitutional republic.
    - supermanred, on 12/31/2007, -1/+3No, it's a Republic NOT a democracy. The MINORITY control the country and its political parties. YOU have no chance of EVER becoming President. You can't just put your name in and start campaigning, you would have to get permission from a political party, of which the US only has two that their media considers REAL parties. In a true democracy there are no such barriers to running for office and there are not only 2 parties.
      
      It's neighbour to the North, Canada is a constitutional monarchy NOT a democracy.
      
      democracy |diˈmäkrəsē|
      noun ( pl. -cies)
      a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives : capitalism and democracy are ascendant in the third world.
      • a state governed in such a way : a multiparty democracy.
      • control of an organization or group by the majority of its members : the intended extension of industrial democracy.
      • the practice or principles of social equality : demands for greater democracy.
      ORIGIN late 16th cent.: from French démocratie, via late Latin from Greek dēmokratia, from dēmos ‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule.’
- Arkavus, on 12/31/2007, -4/+5We are actually a Democratic Republic.
  - jmpeagle, on 12/31/2007, -0/+4we are actually a Federal Democratic Republic or Federal Representative Democracy. We are a union of states, like Mexico, Canada, Germany, and Russia as opposed to the systems of France, UK, etc...
laterthandawn, on 12/31/2007, -1/+3I'm not all that hopeful about much in world politics in 2008. Things are going to get much worse before they get better (aka: until every single one of us puts the greater good before the minor trappings of our daily lives).

Bummer? Yes. But the sooner we realize it, the sooner we start to set things right.
ronpaul20008, on 12/31/2007, -9/+9who cares... the poppy crops are at an all time high, the oil pipelines are up, and we have iran completely surrounded..... things couldn't be better.
- Rotzooi, on 12/31/2007, -3/+8Who knew Dick Cheney is a Digger! Hi.
  - Carthagefield, on 01/01/2008, -1/+2Why have you dugg him down? It was a sarcastic sentiment, aside from the fact that it pretty accurately reflects three of the consequences of the invasion, which all *coincidently* benefit the American Far-Right's Agenda.
omgwthlol, on 12/31/2007, -6/+2i see you
Ryan0617, on 12/31/2007, -2/+3Is it just me or did the editor write 'Taleban' wrong plenty of times?
- MJG2007, on 12/31/2007, -2/+4It's just you. Nearly every article I ever read from the UK spells it that way. For some reason the US spells it Taliban and the UK spells it Taleban.
  - AdmiralJimbob, on 12/31/2007, -1/+2I'm from the UK, and I've never seen it spelled Taleban in my life.
  - omgwthlol, on 12/31/2007, -0/+2im from uk and ive nevr seen it spelt taleban
    - DasCrackbaby, on 12/31/2007, -5/+2I'm from the US
      t
      ~~~~
      ~~~~
      ^ That is 8 Muslims praying to Jesus.
nstabl, on 12/31/2007, -2/+1this guy is afghan..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yT8TG1SxJM
DangerCollie, on 12/31/2007, -4/+3You're doing a heck of a job, Georgie.
ohpleasereally, on 12/31/2007, -1/+1too bad poppy production in Afghanistan can not be legitimized and used for morphine production. Also, one has to wonder where all this aid money is going or if it is actually getting there in the first place.
freedomintruth, on 12/31/2007, -6/+2Well, you can't create an islamic paradise without breaking a few eggs! [/sarcasm]
rsh28630, on 12/31/2007, -1/+4There are two recent works of fiction that cast Afghanistan in human terms: "The Kite Runner" and "A Thousand Splendid Suns" are both books by Khaled Hosseini with the former in theaters now as a film. It's very easy to lose perspective that wars impact people on an extremely personal level even when those individuals are not directly involved in battle. In non fiction - for those interested - "Charlie Wilson's War" by George Crile (also a current film) tells a story from one side while "The Hidden War" by Artyom Borovik reveals a different view. "The Places In Between" by Rory Stewart adds still another vision.

The point is, the more you read of this country and its people, the greater your likelihood to get beyond the propaganda and see Afghans as individual human beings tragically caught up in a turbulent swirl of history.
InorganicMatter, on 12/31/2007, -8/+4I'm so glad America went in there to remove "them thurr bad guyzzz" and stabilize the region...
amightywind, on 12/31/2007, -2/+7There would be plenty of hope if some country in NATO other than the US increased their troop levels. You can't expect the Taliban to just give up. You have to kill them to the man. Media stories like this echo the fervor of the surrender monkeys who wanted to give away Iraq. All we need is a General Petreaus to emerge in Afghanistan to bust some heads.
- yodaj007, on 12/31/2007, -5/+2General Petreaus? Pfffft. If you want work done in Afghanistan, and you want it done right, there are many better candidates to send:
  
  The Terminator
  Judge Dredd
  Mary Poppins
  The Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles
  Kurt Russell
phenry50BMG, on 12/31/2007, -2/+2I'm sure the CIA is quite happy with the progress over there. They now have a country under their control whose poppy production has boomed since the US invasion. More heroin to sell and keep their coffers full for more nation _building_. (spit)
yodaj007, on 12/31/2007, -4/+2My parents gave me a blue afghan for Christmas. I hope it can keep me warm.
Roger_Ramjet, on 12/31/2007, -3/+3Here's a radical idea, rather than promoting defeat, why don't you losers promote VICTORY?!
ClickSnd, on 12/31/2007, -0/+4I am here in Afghanistan right now. You all have no idea how much of a positive impact we have had on the populus. Had we not come here at all, the Taliban, AQ and HiG would still have an iron grip on villages. You don't hear the stories of entier provinces and districts running out insurgent commanders looking for recruits. Or when talking to the ANSF guys, how they are all proud to be serving thier country to protect thier families.

What the hell do you think is going on here? Do you think that we are giving a full combat load to some grunts and telling them not to come back until they fire it all?
springboks, on 12/31/2007, -0/+1You can also add to that list. Little hope for:

Pakistan
Kenya
(I'm sure there's at least a dozen more).
- mos6507, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1Add Mexico when the oil depletion really takes hold.
- Stevanoski, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1Cuba, Columbia are a few I would add.
Rich711, on 12/31/2007, -2/+4Was there ever any hope for a bunch of people who arrest men for shaving off their beards and cane women for going outside their house alone?

So now instead of people being decapitated and stoned to death for offenses that civilized countries like to call freedoms there is violence from the people that want to go back to legal decapitating and stonings.

How many women were killed in Arab nations this year for not behaving like property? Or gay teenagers on only one adults testimony? Or people who wanted to worship differently or didnt want to worship at all? How many tourists were attacked or killed for being familiar with Muslim law but NOT that cities local imam's translation of the Koran?

Do those deaths count as violence or only when Americans sent by a President you don't like do it?
lee1199, on 12/31/2007, -1/+2Personally I was against the Iraq war for all the obvious reasons but the Afghan war is a different matter. Firstly there was universal support especially after the Taliban refused to hand over OBL, also there was a sizable Afghan element who wanted UN support to help get rid of the Taliban, the Northern Alliance.Then within a matter of weeks the Taliban had been driven out, this was the time to flood the country with aid and reconstruction when we still had credibility with the Afghan people, but no, we made the monumental mistake of Iraq!!.This has acted as the best recruiting sergeant for every disaffected young man in the mo slim world, its been a disaster.
- mos6507, on 01/01/2008, -1/+1People are too simple-minded to be able to separate Iraq and Afghanistan. That's the tragedy of it all.
Stevanoski, on 01/01/2008, -0/+1Especially if a Democrat wins carrying a white flag with him.
warnomorenomore, on 02/17/2008, -0/+0Check out this article on the Afghan war:
The Afghanistan War: Illegal, Unjust, Murderous, Unwinnable
http://digg.com/world_news/The_Afghanistan_War_Ill ...
Login or register to add a comment

Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.

Little hope for Afghans in 2008

Login or register to add a comment