This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001–2021) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies |
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Post-September 11 anti-war movement is writtern in a POV editorial orriginal reasearch fasion. I belive that this partly steams from the title which sets the article up to present an editorialised content.
To solve this problem I want to propose merging the content of the article into this page and the following pages Anti-war, Protests against the invasion of Afghanistan, Opposition to the 2003 Iraq War, Protests against the 2003 Iraq war and The Left and war and then deleting Post-September 11 anti-war movement.--JK the unwise 13:18, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hamid Karzid and Afghan's feminist and anti-Taliban movements opposed the US and British led NATO opperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Apconig (talk • contribs) 19:51, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that U.S. and Afghan authorities want to build a pipeline is not disputed. But the idea that the sole reason for the attack on Afghanistan was to build a pipeline, and not to fight al-Qaeda and their Taliban sponsors, is a view only embraced by a lunatic fringe who have no real evidence to prove this is the case. No maintream observers think this is true. In fact, the only way it can be true is if you believe that the government was involved in or complicit in the 9/11 attacks to provide an "excuse" for the war. It should be characterized as a conspiracy theory.
The length of the war is highly irrelevant. The fact that there have been past wars in Afghanistan is not relevant to an article that deals only with the 2001 war. 69.133.126.117 (talk) 16:24, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This article runs afoul of wp:quote in nearly every section. I will be trimming the use of quotes extensively. Bonewah (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Consult Template:POV, template usage notes. Tag applied in April contravened every one of the template's usage notes. Removing as indicated by Template:POV. Similar misuse of Template:OR and essay template, removing as indicated by Template:OR.
Length observation reviewed. The readable prose length is still within guidelines, and as the guideline states for a subject involving so many factors, "the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading time". 65.94.87.133 (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respect, Nick, I think you are wrong to try to remove the image of the foreign soldiers conducting a house raid, and I ask you to reconsider.
This article is about the opposition to the war, and, in most significant part, about the reasons for the opposition. On the other hand, it very specifically does not deal with the protest marches against the war, and includes only a very brief mention in passing for completeness, since there is already a full-fledged and dedicated article for that, Protests against the War in Afghanistan (2001–present), (which you know about since the image of the protest march that you are trying to substitute in was taken from there and is redundant here.)
Nor is this article about the Peace movementorpeace activistsoranti-war organizations, all of which have their own articles. This article tries to explore the opposition to the war in a more substantial way for readers than simplistically, superficially, and hence dismissively, portraying opposition to the war as simply another bunch of protesters marching with placards.
The house raid image you seem to want to censor out depicts a central source of opposition to the war - if not the central source of opposition - in Afghanistan and in the rest of the world. Here is just a tiny sampling of the issue's high prominence and central relevance to the topic:
"Many cite civilian casualties and house raids as the main reason for their opposition. Recently in Logar, armed locals blocked the highway into Kabul for hours, in protest of a night raid where US forces killed one and detained three others. According to local reports, the nearly 2,000 protestors burned tires and chanted anti-US slogans."
(from Many in Afghanistan oppose Obama's troop buildup plans)
"Afghans repeatedly point to a variety of social and political grievances that account for their opposition to the government: ... abuse by local and international security forces, involving mistreatment by local police or army as well as by international forces during village and house raids, the killing of civilians through aerial bombardment, and illegal detentions."
(from Rethinking the Afghanistan Mission)
In recent months Karzai has adopted "an increasingly adversarial posture toward NATO and American forces deployed here, denouncing what he has called heavy-handed bombings and house raids that have caused civilian casualties, offended cultural sensitivities and undermined popular support for the war that routed the Taliban in late 2001."
(from Afghan Leader, Showing Impatience With War, Demands Timetable From NATO)
"The ministers demanded a status of forces agreement, which would stipulate that the authority and responsibilities of international forces be negotiated, and they said that aerial bombing, illegal detentions and house raids by international forces must be stopped."
"Heavy-handed bombing raids and house raids, which are seen as culturally unacceptable by many Afghans who guard their privacy fiercely, and the detention of hundreds of suspects for years without trial at the Bagram air base and Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, have stirred up Afghans’ strong independent streak and ancient dislike of invaders."
(from Afghans Want a Deal on Foreign Troops)
"... from house raids and air strikes, to problems in the classroom and civil service, they believe they are the main victims of a war deliberately targeting their very way of life."
(from Pashtuns increasingly see war on Taliban as war on Pashtun way of life)
"In the spring of 2006 Kabul’s imams decided to speak out against all this and more. Officials were lining their own pockets and alcohol was easily available, they said. They were also angry at the house raids conducted by foreign soldiers in rural areas and accused them of molesting women during the searches. Most said the time for jihad was approaching and one announced that armed resistance was now the answer."
(from Afghanistan: Chaos Central)
The report, released in Kabul by the Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission, questions U.S. and NATO air strikes and nighttime searches of civilian houses.
"Afghan families experienced their family members killed or injured, their houses or other property destroyed, or homes invaded at night without any perceived justification or legal authorization," the report says.
(from Coalition forces slammed for 'abusive' raids, air strikes in Afghanistan)
"Civilians described how these groups, often called ‘campaign forces’, used disproportionate and indiscriminate force, throwing grenades or firing into homes without provocation during night-time house raids."
(from Afghanistan: End the war to end the killing)
"Immediately end aerial bombing, house raids, and other offensive tactics which harm civilians and increase anti-U.S. sentiment."
(from FCNL to Obama: No More Troops to Afghanistan! Invest in Diplomacy & Development)
"That crisis is one of extreme poverty and hunger, and cannot be alleviated with guns, aerial bombardment, house raids, arbitrary detention, and mistreatment of detainees."
(from Afghanistan Needs Food, Not Bombs)
This recurring issue of raids of Afghan homes was brought up yet again in the news just two weeks ago when Afghan President Hamid Karzai complained about them, again, in an interview in the Washington Post:
"Karzai was emphatic that U.S. troops must cease such operations, which he said violate the sanctity of Afghan homes and incite more people to join the insurgency. A senior Afghan official said that Karzai has repeatedly criticized the raids ..."
"The raids are a problem always. They were a problem then, they are a problem now. They have to go away," Karzai said. "The Afghan people don't like these raids, if there is any raid it has to be done by the Afghan government within the Afghan laws. This is a continuing disagreement between us."
(from Karzai wants U.S. to reduce military operations in Afghanistan)
Nor is POV an issue. Even the U.S. military recognizes and acknowledges that the house raids are a central source of opposition:
"NATO's top commander, Gen. David McKiernan, said that all house raids will be conducted with Afghan troops in the lead and only with the permission of the homeowners."
(from Afghan civilian death toll undermines U.S. support)
"This is what Afghan war commander General Stanley McChrystal promised this summer: fewer civilian casualties, fewer of the feared house raids, and a more transparent detention process."
(from Obama’s Secret Prisons) 174.93.213.52 (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Malalai Joya military occupation comment is representative of the cornerstone view held by opponents of the war, both in Afghanistan and in NATO countries, that this is a foreign military occupation. She is notable as one of the first and only female parliamentarians in Afghanistan, and as one of the key Afghan voices of opposition to the war. Rather ironic how many supporters of the war try to sell it as giving Afghan women a voice, but then try to silence their words the moment they speak up.
Elections that "have touched on" the war is actually a very far cry from being able to vote on the war. In so many countries, voters have had no ability to vote on the issue because the main establishment parties offer them no choice. In the US, for example, the choice was McCain or Obama who repeatedly promised to turn Afghanistan into the main war and to send even more troops. Same non-choice in Canada, Australia, the UK, etc. The elections end up being decided on numerous other issues (economy, healthcare, etc.) because voters are presented with no viable options on the issue. There is seriously no shortage of news articles about how leading parties in all these elections went of their way to avoid making the war an election issue.
From just two weeks ago:
"For an electorate concerned first about the economy and unemployment, the war in Afghanistan barely registered as an issue in congressional elections this year. In a Pew Research Center poll just before Election Day, 5% of voters cited Afghanistan as the most important issue in determining their vote, compared with 39% who named jobs, 25% health care and 17% the deficit."[1]
70.51.33.9 (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, with all due respect, your edit to strike out the word taxpayer is not objective or justified.
First you claimed the term is 'imprecise'. It is in fact very precise and very straightforward.
Collins English Dictionary, Complete & Unabridged 10th Edition states that a taxpayer is "a person or organization that pays taxes or is liable to taxation".
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law states that a taxpayer is "a person (as an individual or corporation) that pays or is liable for a tax".
You then claimed that "govt revenue comes from more sources than just 'taxpayers'". Just what non-insignificant government revenue sources are you referring to that doesn't come from taxpayers, and what percentage of total government revenue is it?
Virtually all government revenue is ultimately paid out of the pockets of the tax-paying citizen. Have a look at Federal Revenues by Source. It makes clear that "most federal revenues come from individuals".
Starting with just income tax and payroll tax alone that's already 85.8% of federal revenue. Now throw in excise tax (sales/consumption tax - ie. the tax that you pay when you buy something) 3%, estate tax (tax you pay when you die), gift tax (tax you pay when you receive a gift) 1.1%, custom duties (tax you pay when you buy something imported from outside your country) 3.5%. That's now already 93.4% of all government revenue.
What does that leave? Corporate tax of 6.6%. Well, corporations are taxpayers too. They too suffer the consequences when a government overspends or misspends and then has to raise taxes, because they too are taxpayers. The corporations and businesses of our country, as taxpayers, also bear the cost of the war.
(If you take the time to think about it, individual taxpayers end up paying for that too when they buy products or services from corporations. The taxes your ISP pays, your cell phone company pays, your grocery company pays, etc. are all ultimately paid by you and the other individual taxpayers. Whatever a corporation pays in taxes is passed on to its customers in the form of the prices they pay. In the end, it's virtually all borne by the individual taxpayers.)
Spending on the war, military spending in general, and government spending in general, doesn't come from some vague, unspecified magical source somewhere, as you and others seem to assume. It comes from taxpayers.
The use of the term taxpayers is very precise, necessary (as your misconception proves), highly relevant to the article topic, and reflective of the cited sources. 174.93.216.34 (talk) 18:54, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article claims suicide attacks were "virtually unheard of in Afghanistan prior to the 2001 invasion" yet this is factually untrue. For instance, Massoud was killed by al-Qaeda suicide bombers... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.221.46 (talk) 15:15, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The criticism are all fine and well written enough but there is absolutely no counter-arguments not even disputing the more conspiratorial criticisms or far fetched blow back theories etc(like blaming the Soviet War on USA). Shouldn't there be counter arguments. Alot of section could also be shortened. For example you have polls displaying opposition to the US involvement even though mots display support. You mention the increase of suicide bombing but don't mention that US invasion has helped the return of millions of refugees and and massive reduction of violent deaths etc. That is what I mean bu counter arguments. They are desperately needed.88.104.220.55 (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please add to Draft:Pacifism in the United States. Thanks. M2545 (talk) 14:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This article has been tagged with multiple issues for years now. I have made a major bold edit. If editors feel I've gone too far, please revert (ideally bit by bit rather than in toto) or discuss. I will post on the war's page in case any of the deleted material should be moved there. BobFromBrockley (talk) 16:42, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]