why is Imperial power lying on Afghanistan

[peaccenicked]

Maybe living america you have not seen the photos blasted on the front of most british papers. Taleban
on their knees in chains. you are sick if you dont see this unecessary cruelty.

by the way here is my dictionary on imperial
1. belonging to empire or emperor: concerning or involving an empire or its ruler

2. indicating a country's authority: involving or relating to the authority of a country over colonies or other countries

3. supremely powerful: holding supreme power All are subject to the imperial power of the state.

4. grand: very grand or majestic

5. superior: better in quality or larger in size

6. MEASUREMENTS of British nonmetric set of measures: belonging or conforming to the nonmetric system of weights and measures legally established in Britain that includes the foot, pound, and gallon

noun

1. PRINTING paper size: the largest of the traditional U.S. and British paper sizes. The U.S. imperial measures 584 x 838 mm (23 x 33 in.) and the British imperial 559 x 762 mm (22 x 30 in.), untrimmed.

2. relative of an emperor or empress: a person belonging to an imperial family (formal)

3. HAIRDRESSING small beard: a tuft or point of hair grown on the chin or below the lower lip. This style was made fashionable by the French Emperor Napoleon III.

4. ANTIQUES trunk for luggage: a chest fitted into the top of a coach to store travelers' bags, or the part of a coach's roof where this chest fits

5. MONEY old Russian coin: a former gold coin of Russia worth about eight rubles

6. BEVERAGES large wine bottle: a wine bottle containing the equivalent of eight standard bottles, used for red Bordeaux


[14th century. Via French from Latin imperialis , from imperium "rule, empire" (see empire ).]


(Edited by peaccenicked at 7:29 pm on Jan. 26, 2002)

[Guest]

This is Imperial Power. The prisoners are being treated the same way any maximum security felons are treated. They are not being harmed, they even have a muslim priest to give them spiritual advice. The picture that you saw on the front of your paper was right after they were being moved from the plane to the compound. They had blindfolds so the could not get an orientation of the base. They had gloves and earmuffs because C-130's are old planes and the cargo area is not heated. There is no torture going on. All the gear they had on during transport is removed once in teh compound. The US never thought it was problem and thats the only reason they released the picture of the being transported.

[Guest]

an. 24, 2002 -- While combat still happens in Afghanistan, the international humanitarian relief effort has averted a disaster in that country, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said Jan. 24.

When the Taliban controlled Afghanistan, millions of people were in danger of starvation. Millions of Afghans voted with their feet by fleeing to surrounding countries to escape war, drought and persecution, he said to reporters in a midday press briefing. AFRTS Radio Report: Secretary Rumsfeld says humanitarian operation in Afghanistan is one of the largest ever
AFRTS TV Report: SECDEF: Coalition forces key in Afghanistan humanitarian relief


Even before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States, he said, Americans were the largest contributors to the international efforts to feed millions of Afghans. Since that time, even as America brings the Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists to justice, U.S. efforts have been aimed to bring humanitarian aid to the Afghan people.

Rumsfeld said the Afghan humanitarian assistance program is possibly the largest in history. He said it would not have been possible without the military action to attack the Al Qaeda and depose the Taliban regime that sheltered the terrorists.

Aid deliveries also would not have been possible without government and nongovernmental relief agencies, he noted.

DoD was directly responsible for getting aid to hungry Afghans when they were most vulnerable -- when fighting first broke out on Oct. 7. From then through Dec. 22, Air Force C-17 transports flew 162 sorties and dropped 2.5 million humanitarian daily ration packets, 816 tons of wheat and 73,000 blankets.

"We helped to establish a security environment in which various international relief organizations have been able to conduct operations," he said.

U.S. and coalition forces have opened 11 major convoy routes from surrounding countries into Afghanistan. They've cleared nine airfields for use for humanitarian missions -- Faizabad, Bagram, Herat, Bamian, Shindand, Shebergan, Changhcharan, Mazar-e Sharif and Kandahar.

"This has facilitated the more rapid movement of humanitarian aid and supplies," Rumsfeld said. It opened up much of the areas most vulnerable to starvation.

Rumsfeld used two maps of Afghanistan to show the difference. Red on the maps meant people receiving none to half the daily food requirements, green meant people receiving between 76 percent and all the requirements, and gray reflected in-between areas. On the map from December 2001, nearly all the red is gone.

Rumsfeld said this does not mean there aren't still isolated, hard-to-reach pockets where people cannot receive humanitarian aid, but government and nongovernmental agencies are working to supply them.

Coalition forces have also provided medical aid to the country. Jordan, Russia, Spain and South Korea have provided hospitals and medical assistance in Afghanistan.

He said he is also encouraged by the progress the interim government led by Hamid Karzai has made since it took office in December. At the federal level, all positions have been filled and 16 of 30 provincial governors have been named.

"It's clear a good deal has been accomplished," Rumsfeld said.

[peaccenicked]

Torture? Where did Robert Fisk mention torture.
Shakled hooded chained.
The PR job was so good and you are still dependent
ideologically on Rumsfeld
Why not go to Stratfor.com. It might not be as right wing as you but it is more inteligent and less fooled by US propaganda

[peaccenicked]

US gives less in general and only where it suits foreign policy objectives. From UN report.
"The US and Foreign Aid Assistance

The US being the wealthiest, strongest and most influential nation, it is worth seeing how their actions or inaction affect other nations. One notable area is regarding the issue of debt and poverty. Being a major part of the IMF, World Bank and even helping to formulate the UN over 50 years ago, their actions can be felt around the world.

For example, many around the world have, for many years, criticized the U.S. for cutting back on its promised obligations and responsibilities, and furthermore, when it has provided aid, that it has been tied to its own foreign policy objectives.

Cutting Back on Promised Responsibilities
The US, especially during the Clinton Administration, has tried a different approach to the issue of poverty, aid, debt etc. The common phrase heard is that third world nations want trade, not aid. While this is an important point, that people would rather do things themselves than always rely on handouts, it is also criticized by many as an excuse for the US to cut back aid that has been agreed and promised at the United Nations.

The United Nations has long defined an Official Development Assistance (ODA) aid to mean 0.7% of the GDP of the wealthy nations. The roughly 22 members of the OECD (Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development) are the wealthiest nations. However, almost all have constantly failed to reach this 0.7% target. For example, USA's aid, in terms of percentage of their GDP is already lowest of any industrialized nation in the world. This OECD chart shows that for 1999 in terms of raw amount of dollars in aid, it is the second largest donor, after Japan, but when looked at in terms of percentage of its GNP, it is the worst of the 22 donors. Those charts and such data from their web site have also been reproduced here as a table. Information for 2000 has also been added. You can sort by GNP or raw dollars to see how various nations rank. But at the same time, one must note that most nations, not only the US, do not meet their agreed obligations.

Official Development Assistance (ODA) for 1999 and 2000


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Click on column headings that are links to change sort order
ODA in U.S. Dollars
(Millions) ODA as Percentage
of GNP
Country 1999 2000 1999 2000

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. Denmark 1,733 1,664 1.01 1.06
2. Netherlands 3,134 3,075 0.79 0.82
3. Sweden 1,630 1,813 0.7 0.81
4. Norway 1,370 1,264 0.91 0.8
5. Luxembourg 119 116 0.66 0.7
6. Belgium 760 812 0.3 0.36
7. Switzerland 969 888 0.35 0.34
8. France 5,637 4,221 0.39 0.33
9. United Kingdom 3,401 4,458 0.23 0.31
10. Finland 416 371 0.33 0.31
11. Ireland 245 239 0.31 0.3
12. Japan 15,323 13,062 0.35 0.27
13. Germany 5,515 5,034 0.26 0.27
14. Australia 982 995 0.26 0.27
15. Portugal 276 261 0.26 0.26
16. New Zealand 134 116 0.27 0.26
17. Canada 1,699 1,722 0.28 0.25
18. Austria 527 461 0.26 0.25
19. Spain 1,363 1,321 0.23 0.24
20. Greece 194 216 0.15 0.19
21. Italy 1,806 1,368 0.15 0.13
22. United States 9,145 9,581 0.1 0.1

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Net ODA flows in 2000 (PDF format)
Notes: The U.N. ODA target set is 0.7 percent of GNP. Most nations do not meet that target. (See previous link for details.)


Year 2000 didn't see that much significant difference from 1999, as the OCED noted. On the whole, ODA has been declining in recent years, even though the United Nations reports that it is "rather ironical that ODA should be experiencing a steady decline even as conditions are improving for its greater effectiveness". See this UN pdf document for the source of that quote but also more about trends and issues in financing development, etc. See also this section from the UN Economic and Social Development's Financing for Development part of their web site for some other issues with ODA and the 0.7% target.

See also, for example, the well-regarded Reality of Aid project for more on the reality and rhetoric of aid. This project looks at what various nations have donated, and how and where it has been spent, etc.

In their 2000 report (Earthscan Publications, 2000, p.81), looking back at the previous year, the Reality of Aid 2000 reported in their U.S. section that "71.6% of its bilateral aid commitments were tied to the purchase of goods and services from the US." That is, where the U.S. did give aid, it was most often tied to foreign policy objectives that would help the U.S.

[Imperial Power]

Peace that article is completly unrelated to the Afghanistan prisoners? Am I to believe you think It's cruel to keep prisoners in chains? Secretary of State Colin Powell has asked for the prisoners to gain POW status, but I'm guessing that doesn't excuse them from wearing chains seeing as they're prisoners.

[Moskitto]

If they're prisoners they have to have cages or chains (obviously, DUH.) The thing is, isn't it a bit medieval and barbaric to use both?

I'd say cages are more humane, cages you can actually walk around like, they don't do up chains so tight that they get reduced circulation. Yeah cages are better.