Doug Lerner reports from Tokyo and St. Louis, and points beyond…

In this article:

This NATO logic makes no sense to me:

Ordering airstrikes is a command decision in Afghanistan. A NATO spokeswoman there, Maj. Sunset Belinsky, insisted they would continue. “Coalition forces constantly strive to reduce the chance of civilian casualties and damage to structures,” Belinsky said, “but when the insurgents use civilians as a shield and put our forces in a position where their only option is to use airstrikes, then they will take that option.”

The question I always have is what if insurgents used civilians as shields in, say, Houston?  Would we conduct airstrikes on houses there and to blazes with any civilian victims? Of course not. What the U.S. military is saying is that Afghan civilian life is cheap to them. It’s immoral.

What are we doing there anyway? The original purpose, long since forgotten, was because they thought the Taliban government was shielding Osama bin Laden. That reason is long gone. Now the U.S. is just propping up a notoriously corrupt government and has turned into an occupying force which doesn’t seem to care about “collateral damage.”

I say pull out and let them sort it out for themselves.


Comments on: "Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai Says He Will No Longer Allow NATO Airstrikes On Houses" (2)

  1. yackle01 said:

    One way to stop it is for the United States to get out.End the war now!!

  2. Doug Lerner said:

    I agree.doug

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: