Late August Hollaback

Comments, comments, comments! :)

I have to admit that I LOVE excerpting from people's raw comments, and I just happened on a string at the Globe and Mail, so I'm pretty pleased!!! The title of the article was: "Were Afghans Brave Enough?"

So hey all, here we go again:

"That's a pretty condescending headline from G&M. I bet a lot of Afghanistanis are more brave then most Canadians used to the comforts of modern living.

What is it with using purple finger print to mark ballots anyways? It's not like they're going to check finger prints when counting ballots, nothing but a media ploy to drum up support for this illegal occupation of Afghanistan."

"There is nothing like a good rigged election to create a Democracy. If the desired result is not forthcoming, then fudge the counting.

As a last resort, if the desired result is not achieved, then the power's won't recognize the elected government.

Anybody who believes the official result of this election, must believe in tooth fairies.

Durgan"

"Did it ever occur to anyone 'round here that people might have stayed away from the elections out of loyalty to the Afghan resistance against foreign occupation?"

"Why should they vote if no real choice was offered?"

""Were Afghans brave enough?" To do what, risk their lives to "win a victory for democracy" and vindicate the foreigners currently meddling in their country? There are no conditions for democracy in Afghanistan:

1) The election was held in the middle of a war, so only parts of the population were able to vote and others were not free to vote.

2) Intimidation and coercion did not only prevent people voting. Because of tribal and family loyalties, large numbers--perhaps most--of the 80% majority rural population voted as directed by tribal and family heads. Basing the vote's legitimacy on a percentage of the population voting is meaningless in this context.

3) The government is not truly representative; it is a political chimera. Foreigners make all the major financial and political decisions for the government, which is just a figurehead covering a foreign occupation. If the government were left on its own, it would collapse within a week.

4) There is no legal system outside the capital; local warlords and tribal leaders are the ultimate authority throughout the country.

5) Democracy cannot be imposed from without, on a population that doesn't understand it, didn't ask for it, and is incapable of studying it due to an 80% illiteracy rate. Democracy must grow from the ground up.

So the question is not "Were Afghans brave enough?" (how patronizing!); it is "Why were Afghans put through this expensive, futile exercise--deadly for many--when it will have no effect on the ongoing war and cannot bring the people the benefits they were promised?"

"Agree with the election/deployment or not...fine...

...they were braver than anyone in this country who cannot be bothered to get off their a$$e$ and vote. "

"What a silly, patronizing headline once again demonstrating great ignorance about Afghanistan. The West continues to think that Afghanistan is a country similar to Western countries and that democracy will flourish once people can vote. Nothing could be further from the truth - but our political masters won't tell us that. Instead we hear foolish rhetoric like, "We don't Cut and Run" and "We'll stay until we achieve Victory". I for one, am tired of the stupidity, lies and deceptions that we are fed on a continual basis by the media and our Dear Leader. It would be helpful if the journalists read a bit of history and knew a bit about the culture of the area they are trying to write about. Then, perhaps their articles would make some sense."

"This election is not about Afghanistan, it's about making us feel good about our involvement. It's about optics, and tricking the citizens of NATO allies into believing that supporting one warlord over another is "worth it"."

"Are they brave enough to vote a CIA agent of 30 years picked by NATO again? Its about as free and fair as Burma's election, but it does legitimize the puppet government doesn't it?"

"Brave enough?

I think brave likely the wrong word entirely.

Interested would be the right word.

Were Afghans interested enough to vote?

After all, what have Afghans got after seven years of Amereican destruction and occupation?

Many thousands dead, often in idiotic Ameerican bombing runs on villages.

The economy still pretty much a backward wreck.

A crooked president placed in office by American power and even guarded by American praetorians.

New laws that aren't that far from what the Taleban would bring.

The return of a mass murdering warlord, General Dostum, a man previously used by the United States to murder thousands.

War extending into neighboring Pakistan.

Drugs flowing as they never did under the Taleban.

And, despite all the hype, women still pretty much wear the burka. "

"Support our troops! Bring them home!"

"Tea Party in Afghanistan

My five-year-old daughter, Paige, had a tea party this morning. At a table outside her playhouse, there sat before tea cups her guests: a stuffed monkey missing an eye, a naked Barbie, an orange Cabbage Patch Doll, and a G.I. Joe; all sitting at attention while Paige prattled on with adult pleasantries and poured imaginary tea. Behind her I watched CNN, and witnessed yet another tea party, the Afghan election, brought to us this morning by the usual suspects: our neocons, militarists, profiteers and political poltroons.

Whereas its charming to watch our children playacting in mimicry of adults and their social foibles; it is beyond despicable to watch adults playacting in Afghanistan in cynical mimicry of some political ideals to hide and divert us from their murder and mayhem, mostly for profit, careers, and dumb dogmatism.

The facts of this "election" betray its pure fantastical, make-believe character. NPR reported fully stuffed ballot boxes in Kabul when the polling stations were barely opened. The NYT characterized the turnout as a "trickle", and almost totally bereft of any females. Typically, in Garmser, a city of 80,000, a grand total of 1,683 men were seen to cast votes. Election observers in Khadahar, the location of biggest NATO military installation outside Europe, reported constant rocket attacks.

What a pity that our soldiers have died in support of this delusional tea party. What a disgrace that it is allowed to continue, for the tea we Canadians are now asked to sip in support of this war is the blood of innocent Afghans, sweetened with the tears of the bereaved on both sides of the world, and made creamy with our profits to be earned, careers to be made, and vile dogma to be served."

"Point 2: I'm not sure it's confusing to you. Read the article: Much of it is about how the West has thwarted democratic movements in A-stan when these didn't align with the American geo-political objectives (cold war and other...) "

"
8/21/2009 10:20:45 AM
Comrade Canuck: In 2004 and 2005, Afhgans heard all the promises about the things you mention, but none of it came true. Instead they saw just how corrupt a democratically elected government can be, and how little it can actually do to meet their very real needs. As Chico Marx of the Marx Brothers once said: "Who are you going to believe, me or your own two eyes?"

It remains to be seen whether enough "people of Afghanistan, given the choice between a marginal democracy, or a Taliban dictatorship, have chosen to participate in democratic elections." It has been widely acknowledged by the U.S. and British governments and the UN that increasing numbers Pashtun Afghans in the south and east have been voting over the past few years to opt for the Taliban style of government--not enthusiastically, but as the lesser of two evils compared with the democratically elected one in Kabul.

If a significant percentage of the population has voted against the current democratic system--or at least the results of it--you end up with a serious political divide in the country, with the central government largely elected by the non-Pashtun population. What then is the next step? I have no idea, except that the war will likely become even more intense. "

"That is a terrible headline."

"Brave enough? Fledgling democracy?

God! That is Canadian self-rightous, sanctimony at its finest! These proud people have lost a 100 X 100 more people than our total 130. And patriotic Afghans are dying proudly on both sides inside THEIR country for 30 years. Many brave southern Afghan men helped us win the Cold War. Today many of these same patriotic, rural Afghans love god and hate us pseudo-Christian Canadian invaders no less than they hated invading Russian athiests. Sorry, but its true. Gees, I'd fight any foreigners who invaded Canada. And Afghans can't afford 1,000,000 body bags. They bury their own same-day into their dirt. THEIR dirt. They are not fledglings, nor cowards!"

Quick note here- ALL of these comments on casualties have been posted by different commentors, and there are a number of them in a row.

"I'm on the edge of my seat: will it be the American-controlled alliance of druglords and war criminals; or will it be the other American-controlled alliance of druglords and war criminals?

Either way, one can be sure that US/NATO forces will fully respect the democratic wishes of the Afghan people...

In July 2002, following an American bombing raid in which Afghan officials say 44 people were killed, including many celebrating a wedding and many children, the Afghan president protested to the U.S. military authorities, and urged them to be more careful in their targeting to prevent any more civilian deaths.

In May 2006, Afghan President Hamid Karzai summoned the commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, to demand an explanation in the deaths of at least 16 Afghan civilians during airstrikes at Taliban militants in the south.

In December 2006, a tearful President Hamid Karzai lamented that Afghan children were being maimed and killed by NATO and U.S. bombs and by the terrorism brought on by the war.

In May 2007, after heavy aerial bombing by the American military had recently killed 40 to 60 Afghan civilians[56], including women and children, wounded about 50 more, and destroyed some 100 houses[57], President Hamid Karzai summoned top foreign generals and diplomats to his palace to reiterate years of complaints...

In June 2007, after the deaths of more than 90 civilians in 10 days[60], President Hamid Karzai accused ISAF and the US-led military coalition in his country of "extreme" and "disproportionate" use of force. In his protestations, the Afghan president said that the foreign military forces in his country had to start working in accordance with his government's wishes..

(continued)

"In August 2008, President Karzai ordered a review of foreign troops after his administration said 96 civilians were killed in an air raid by the U.S.-led coalition in western Herat. Already more than 500 civilians had been killed during operations by foreign and Afghan forces in 2008...

In September 2008, President Karzai protested the continued killing of innocent Afghan civilians by the foreign troops in his country when he addressed the UN in New York...

On November 5, 2008, Afghan President Hamid Karzai pleaded U.S. President-elect Barack Obama to put an end to civilian casualties in Afghanistan as villagers said U.S. warplanes bombed a wedding party, killing 37 people, including 23 children and 10 women. Karzai again demanded an immediate end of civilian-killing air strikes by U.S. warplanes...

On December 18, 2008, Afghan President Hamid Karzai again spoke of asking the United States to cooperate with his government in their military operations in his country.

In April 2009, after American-led military forces killed 5 civilians, including two children and an unborn nine-month-old baby... Those killed were the wife, brother, son, and daughter of an Afghan army colonel, as well as the unborn nine-month-old baby of his cousin's wife..."

Afghan civilian casualties - Wikipedia

So, as you can see, democracy in Afghanistan isn't just some empty exercise. It's not just window-dressing on an invasion and occupation by US/NATO forces. Unlike the Taliban, we REALLY CARE about what the Afghan people express through their ballots."

"How REAL DEMOCRACY works in Afghanistan:

"U.S. air strikes are emerging a major irritant between Washington and Kabul, prompting local lawmakers to make noises about passing stricter rules-of-engagement for NATO forces."

Noises?? The Afghanistan Lower House, the the Wolesi Jirga, has passed numerous resolutions demanding an end to these murderous air strikes years ago.


July, 2008:

"KABUL — The Afghan parliament condemned Monday
civilian casualties in US-led air strikes after Afghan
officials said more than 40 people were killed in two
recent raids, including one that struck a wedding."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/message/30955"

"Recently, the "democratically-elected" President Karzei also demanded an end:

"WASHINGTON (AFP) – Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Friday demanded an end to US air strikes, which he said killed as many as 130 civilians and were infuriating the public."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090508/
wl_afp/afghanistanunrestuscivilians


...telling all who would listen that the Taliban are not in the villages of Afghans, to which the Pentagon immediately refused, stating that commanders could not fight "with one hand tied behind our back."

and as for the people of Afghanistan:

"May 08 2009 "The Independent" -- "Herat" -- Shouting "Death to America" and "Death to the Government", thousands of Afghan villagers hurled stones at police yesterday as they vented their fury at American air strikes that local officials claim killed 147 civilians."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/
asia/afghans-riot-over-airstrike-atrocity-1681070.html "

"When the soviets invaded Afghanistan in the 80's they too had "elections". Problem is the Americans were the first to decry these elections invalid uner international law because the country was "occupied". Thank God we are "liberating" it and thus circumventing the laws."

" 8/21/2009 12:27:05 PM
From todays Associated Press:

"A top election official, Zekria Barakzai, told The Associated Press he estimated 40 percent to 50 percent of the country's 15 million registered voters cast ballots - far lower than the 70 percent who voted in the presidential election in 2004.

"A low turnout and allegations of fraud could cast doubt over the legitimacy of the vote and raise fears that followers of defeated candidates might take to the streets.

"Low voting in the ethnic Pashtun south would harm Karzai's re-election chances and boost the standing of Abdullah, who draws his strength from the Tajik minority. Turnout in the Tajik north appeared to be stronger, a good sign for Abdullah.

"U.S. officials had hoped for a wide turnout as a symbolic rejection of the insurgency."

It is reasonable to assume that the greater proportion of the 40%-50% turnout was in non-Pashtun provinces, meaning that only a tiny minority of the 40% Pashtun population majority likely paticipated in the election.

If it turns out that the insurgency is preferred in the Pashtun regions, the election will have served only to embolden the insurgents and to drive more Pashtuns into joining or supporting the insurgency. This will be especially true if candidate Abdullah, formerly part of Tajik warlord Ahmed Shah Massoud's Northern Alliance, emerges as the winner.

One has to question the wisdom of holding an election in the midst of a civil war, when the election outcome could easily (and predictably) strengthen the anti-government side in the war, undermining the whole democratic process. But then again, what could be more democratic than the voters voting on whether to use the democratic political system?"

" 8/21/2009 12:44:26 PM
The video that accompanies the article features John Manley, who is identified as an election observer... In the article he is said to be working for the National Democratic Institute. If, as seems likely, the NDI is a PR front, Manley's job would be to help sell the election as respectable. CTV, who provided the clip, naturally went for the high profile target. That's how the game is played. "

"1.Interesting how the story is cast in terms of a battle between (relative) "good", "Afghanistan's fledgling democracy" and "evil", "insurgent violence"; hence the patronizing "brave" in the headline and a narrative focusing on the extent to which Taliban "intimidation" undermined (or didn't) the process.

But as one BBC correspondent notes, many voters may have "stayed at home because of disillusionment", because "the changes they had expected have not happened - unemployment is still high and poverty still endemic."

2. Harper's statement that Afghanistan is a country "without any real history of democratic governance" suffers from selective historical amnesia and fits nicely with the West's depiction of a backward, stone-age country for whom the first and only hope is great and white.

Another perspective: "In the period after World War II the country was moving steadily towards a constitutional democracy. The 1964 Constitution was every bit as democratic as the U.S. Constitution."

For more historical context, click the link below (and note the section of the 2001 Bonn Conference):

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13611
"

"Comrade Canuck asks: "If so many did not want democracy and do not understand democracy, then why are so many of them risking their lives to vote?"

Look at it from Afghans' point of view. Foreigners have made the democratic system the only way to participate in government outside the tribal body (which is not democratic in the Western sense); they have no choice but to vote if they want to have any influence at all. Misinterpreting such coercion as enthusiasm for democracy is a mistake. If I invade your town, depose your current government and tell you you have to sing a little song in order to participate in choosing those who will have enormous power over your life and death, you will quickly develop "enthusiasm" for singing.

Comparing Afghan voter turnout to Canadian turnout is inappropriate and misleading (no one knows the Afghan turnout yet), since the final Afghan percentage could very well count as a referendum on the democratic system altogether.

Remember, the 2004 vote was a trial of the system, and most Afghans were willing to give it a chance after 30 years of war and chaos. But the results for them have been extremely disappointing, especially in the south. They have been given no reason whatsoever to believe that democracy will stop their lives from getting worse, never mind improving them. Canadian "voter apathy" and "protest voting" are different matters altogether."

"How REAL DEMOCRACY works in Afghanistan:

"U.S. air strikes are emerging a major irritant between Washington and Kabul, prompting local lawmakers to make noises about passing stricter rules-of-engagement for NATO forces."

Noises?? The Afghanistan Lower House, the the Wolesi Jirga, has passed numerous resolutions demanding an end to these murderous air strikes years ago.


July, 2008:

"KABUL — The Afghan parliament condemned Monday
civilian casualties in US-led air strikes after Afghan
officials said more than 40 people were killed in two
recent raids, including one that struck a wedding."
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/message/30955





Recently, the "democratically-elected" President Karzei also demanded an end:

"WASHINGTON (AFP) – Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Friday demanded an end to US air strikes, which he said killed as many as 130 civilians and were infuriating the public."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090508/
wl_afp/afghanistanunrestuscivilians


...telling all who would listen that the Taliban are not in the villages of Afghans, to which the Pentagon immediately refused, stating that commanders could not fight "with one hand tied behind our back."

and as for the people of Afghanistan:

"May 08 2009 "The Independent" -- "Herat" -- Shouting "Death to America" and "Death to the Government", thousands of Afghan villagers hurled stones at police yesterday as they vented their fury at American air strikes that local officials claim killed 147 civilians."
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/
asia/afghans-riot-over-airstrike-atrocity-1681070.html "

"I'm disgusted by the way the author impugns the courage of the Afghans. It's not cowardice that kept the people of Afghanistan away from the polls - it was a realistic recognition that the election mean nothing and that Karzai and his cronies were going to fix it so why bother?

If you want to slur the Afghans call them cynics, not cowards"

""the article features John Manley, who is identified as an election observer... In the article he is said to be working for the National Democratic Institute."


LOL! What a charade! What a farce!

The NDI is Madelaine Albright's contribution to humanity to make up for having said that the death of a 100,000 children was "worth it" in the imposition of trade sanctions against Iraq.

These NGOs are nothing but PR machines used to stamp smiley faces all over the bloody trail of American imperialism throughout the world. Go to their website and read the laughably slanted ex post facto propaganda for democracy.

When you've got one ho sweating for another, its hard figuring out who is being pimped. "

"I agree with much of what you say regarding the likely future: the U.S. will not stop its escalation of combat against the insurgency, emboldened or not though the insurgents may be by the election outcome. The problem, as has been acknowledged by many, including General Petraeus, commander of the U.S. Central Command, is that there is no military solution to the political divide in Afghanistan.

I suspect that escalated, open-ended military conflict will work against a negotiated solution, since the insurgency is now acknowledged as being home-grown and therefore not susceptible to being decapitated by military means or having its supplies of weapons, resources and fighters cut off--two of the major means of overcoming an insurgency.

Given that the insurgency is expanding, it is not difficult to see a tipping point in the not-too-distant future, when the endless conflict, disenfranchisment and insecurity cause a general uprising among Pashtuns. At that point, the foreigners would simply be on the non-Pashtun side in a renewed civil war, and all pretense of creating a "national" government would be over.

An unhappy projection indeed, but we have to be realistic based on the trends."

Lest we forget the latest ABCNEWS-Wash Post poll:


51% of Americans think the Afghan War is "not worth fighting".

"Afghanistan's presidential election comes at a time of waning U.S. support for the war there: More than half of Americans now say it's not worth fighting, a first in ABC News/Washington Post polls, and support for reducing U.S. forces is up sharply. Just 42 percent, moreover, think the United States is winning the war in Afghanistan; 36 percent say it's losing. And Americans by nearly 2 to 1 are not confident tomorrow's election will produce a government that can rule the country..."

http://abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/Afghanistan/comments?type=story&id=8363179 "

"Here's a link to an AP article about US military efforts in this area. The article is now hosted on.... Fox News (!). "Pentagon Spending Billions on PR to Sway World Opinion", Fox News, http://tinyurl.com/b9w35o"

"A clue as to what an incredible farce this all is:

Returns are reported in terms of percentages versus hard numbers.

Hence, rather than say Karzei leads his opponent by a vote of 6 versus 4 votes, at a station when 30,000 votes were expected, it is far better to breathlessly report that Karzei is leading by 10%."

"Afghans are just tired of war and uncertainty, they want peace and democracy that do not stand in odd with their culture. it is amazing to see how people are voting for the second time (and some of them for the first time) in their history. How people were voting and how democracy was flourishing in the US around 1780s, or elsewhere? Taking into that there was no security threat at that time."

""Observers worry election turnout was too low for results to be legitimate"

Translations: If NATO's preferred candidate loses, the election was illegitimate. "