Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiUS Wants 20,000 More Troops to Fight Taliban
British and American soldiers to shoulder brunt of surge's next phase
The commander of Nato forces in Afghanistan will ask for 20,000 more international troops as part of his new strategic plan for the alliance's war against a resurgent Taliban, The Independent has learned.
![[British troops in Helmand province recently. Last month was the deadliest for UK forces since the Falklands war. (Photo: The Independent).]](http://www.commondreams.org/files/article_images/afghanistan-2_4.jpg "afghanistan-2.jpg")
The demand from General Stanley McChrystal will almost certainly lead to more British soldiers being sent to the increasingly treacherous battlegrounds of Helmand, the Taliban heartland, despite growing opposition to the war.
General McChrystal, tasked with turning the tide in the battle against the insurgency on the ground, has given a presentation of his draft report to senior Afghan government figures in which he also proposes raising the size of the Afghan army and police force.
But the request for troop reinforcements will come at a time of intensifying public debate about the role of the Nato mission. Last month saw a record number of troop deaths and injuries in a conflict that has claimed more than 200 British soldiers since the start of the US-led invasion in 2001. British losses rose sharply last month with 22 deaths, making it the bloodiest month for UK forces since the Falklands war. August has been the deadliest month for American troops in the eight-year war. Most of the deaths have come from lethal roadside bombs that Western troops appear unable to combat effectively. For the first time, the American public now views the fight against the Taliban as unwinnable, according to the most recent opinion polls.
The conduct of the Afghan government has not helped the mood on either side of the Atlantic. While US, British and other foreign troops are dying in what is supposedly a mission to rid Afghanistan of al-Qa'ida militants and make the country safe for democracy, the incumbent President stands accused of forging alliances with brutal warlords and overseeing outright fraud in an attempt to "steal" the national elections, the results of which are still being counted.
Last week, General David Petraeus, the head of US Central Command, intervened against a backdrop of heightened debate about the UK's military role. He stressed that the objective of the war was "to ensure that Afghanistan does not again become a sanctuary for al-Qa'ida and other extremists".
According to General McChrystal's draft plan, the number of Afghan troops would rise from 88,000 to 250,000, and the police force from 82,000 to 160,000 by 2012. These increases are higher than expected, with previous suggestions that the totals would be raised to 134,000 and 120,000 for the army and police respectively.
The US commander will, however, ask other Nato countries to send further reinforcements and will travel shortly to European capitals to discuss the issue. It is widely expected that the UK will send up to 1,500 more troops. At the same time, a force of 700 sent to help provide security for the Afghan elections last week on a temporary basis will become a permanent presence.
Following the withdrawal from Iraq, British military commanders, backed by the then Defence Secretary, John Hutton, had recommended in the spring that up to 2,500 extra troops could be sent to Afghanistan. However, following lobbying from the Treasury, Gordon Brown agreed to only the temporary deployment of 700. Criticism of the decision by senior officers has led, it is claimed, to Downing Street changing its stance.
General McChrystal, who replaced Gen David McKiernan as Nato chief in Afghanistan earlier this year, was originally due to produce his strategic report this month, but decided to wait until after the Afghan presidential election. According to Western and Afghan sources he is continuing to take soundings from various quarters and the finalised document is due out after it becomes clear whether or not a second round of voting is needed to decide the outcome of the poll.
As part of an initial troop surge overseen by General McChrystal, the US has already committed to boosting its forces from 31,000 to 68,000 this year. However Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan was told by commanders in Afghanistan last week that those numbers would not be enough for what is being viewed as defining months of fighting to come.
In his meeting with Afghan officials, General McChrystal is reported to have stated that the extra troops would be needed to enforce a new policy of maintaining a presence in the areas captured from insurgents. This will provide security for residents and allow reconstruction and development.
Other Nato nations have the option of focusing on the training of Afghan security forces. However, say American officials, failure by Nato countries to "step up to the plate" would mean the shortfall would be covered by the US.
Diplomatic sources have also revealed that plans are being drawn up to sign a "compact" between Afghanistan and the US which will reiterate Washington's commitment to the security of Afghanistan while the Afghan government pledges to combat corruption and reinforce governance. Unlike previous international agreements over Afghanistan, the compact will be bilateral, without any other governments being involved. The timing of the agreement is due to coincide with a visit by Mr Karzai to New York, if, as expected, he emerges the election winner.
107 Comments so far
Show AllTaliban are beaming armies of millions through their stargates.
Terran total resources must be surrendered to the Pentagoons NOW.
The actual number is 200,000-- but by breaking it down into ten easy 20,000 installments, it's too affordable to pass up!
And what's a few thousand here and there? The sheeple will hardly take notice.
· Yr Obd't Servant
That will not be nearly enough.
Let’s face the obvious fact that the US is now the fourth Reich of the 21st century; the inhuman use of massive weapon technology, unlimited funding (debt), and a privatized occupation force unparalleled in history. The sole aim this fourth Reich is the total economic control of vast untapped resources, financial centers and political control throughout the entire world using military might and terrorism. I am in total agreement with Webwalk on this discussion board. The US corporate-military industrial complex is in the business of global chaos and disaster capitalism. As Webwalk indicated in his/her excellent piece, expanded wars will be with us for years to come. The Project for a New American Century is still in operation.
We need to find a way to destroy this fourth Reich before NorthCom becomes operational in the US. If we are too late, we will all be paying a price for our ignorance.
The Default Military Dispatch:
In use since Thermopylae (480 B.C.)
"Another 20,000 should do it!"
Afghanistan 8 years ago, maybe. Bin Laden was there. Now, who knows. Bush let this become back burner to Iraq. Now Obama wants more troops for what? And we're also going into Colombia and not getting out of Iraq. In the words of Dickens, "Everything has changed. Nothing has changed.".
this is what the USA's Pentagon , so-called orwellian "DEFENSE" department and leadership calls:
"FULL SPECTRUM DOMINANCE"....
since "dominance project" over other nations always inspires resentment from other nations and people...it follows that WAR becomes necessary to realize "full spectrum dominance" ...
WAR, WAR , WAR on ALL FRONTS...
The following video is very bad news, but also an excellent and important analytical report by Pepe Escobar. Likely many people will or would be surprised about the cold, dark, ... reality that he describes; very dark. If what he describes is how events will be or "evolve", say, then it'll certainly be all the more strongly obvious that this whole war on Afghanistan was all based on BS, bunk, .... I think he's right, and definitely believe that he's certainly not kidding. He's definitely serious and the possibility that he's mistaken is awfully small, or remote.
"The Afghan chessboard
Pepe Escobar commentary: The real meaning of the Afghan elections"
(7:40), TheRealNews, Aug 26 2009
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AN5a9WomVqs
I have followed Pepe Escobar's reporting for years now, primarily through Asiatimesonline...among those by others.
I am quite certain now that his reporting and all these other news -- real news -- confirm what I always told friends for years , even since before the s0-called "war on terror":
I always believed and have been convinced that seen from a macro-historical context..patterns...
the USA "leading" the west - has NEVER stopped to LUST for the riches of the EAST.
it is enough to recall:
"it is so unfair!!!...that a country has ALL those natural resources..something OUGHT to be done about it"...MAdeleine Albright refering to Russia after the USSR collapsed and there was no effective government to hold things together and so...open russia to economic assaults by "interested parties"...namely: the western powers led by the USA in the name of "privatization and democracy"...and in fact..the GREAT PRIZE with which to apply the Washington Consensus/Milton Friedman "Disaster Capitalism"...aided and abetted by the Russian Oligarchs.
it is also enough to know that this was just a "next phase" after ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI's "i am please to inform you , mister president (carter) that we have just given the USSR (really --Russia) her OWN Vietnam"
it is also enough to know that several years ago - there was a pentagon document that appeared briefly on the web, i stumbled on - that disappeared thereafter , from the 1990's when russia had collapsed and was being eaten alive by western corporations and privateers before Putin kicked them out: went something like:
"the collapse of the USSR has rendered russia's forces so weakened ....that it is NOW POSSIBLE to Conceive of LAND INVASIONS"......
go back to history..even as far back as England's OWN battles and rivalries with other "western" empires, such as austria, prussia, france...as far back as the 18th century.
what was the ONE BIG PRIZE for ALL of these western nations? even with HITLER?
RUSSIA!!!
to control russia meant to control the ENTIRE resource conduits overlooking the whole EURASIAN landmass...
I have always thought the USA's ultimate game is to encircle russia - then possibly to control her AND HER UNBELIEVABLE RICHES - by first controlling the surrounding central asian region ...
and THEN of course this can ensure CHINA is "isolated"...which ALSO means TOTAL control over the rest of asia.
this is the USA's grand Imperial Project that it has NEVER abandoned since the 18th century intrusions into asia - and elsewhere of course.
it is just that TODAY - technology and global demands have INDEED shown how important that EURASIAN landmass - connected by Central Asia IS in terms of geostrategic and energy terms.
REMEMBER a few things:
beyond turkmenistan, kazakhstan, afghanistan, pakistan..etc...where the USA PRETENDS to fight "terror"...
RUSSIA alone -- possesses the worlds greatest concentration fo Uranium, FRESH WATER, running rivers, fisheries, largest UNTAPPED DIAMOND resources, and plenty other natural resources, including temperate zone forestry...as well as of course that unbelievable huge landmass straddling europe and asia.
the USA has GRABBED LAND and resources as far back as the Genocide against Native Indians.
WHY WOULD IT CHANGE today?.
with that said... although it is just my opinion..it is hard to overlook a PATTERN:
where the USA has been the nation most vociferous towards its citizens and others about "threats to our way of life"...for generations....
its geographical location alone: between two of the largest oceans - renders it practically IMPOSSIBLE to conquer by any one nation or "threat"..despite isolated "attacks" such as 9/11..there is NO nation on earth that could possibly MASS enough troops, armaments, ships, navies, even one thousand miles away from US beaches to launch or even "prepare" an "invasion" , much less to OCCUPY the United States...and its two big neighbors - canada and mexico - are for all purposes SUBJECT countries.
AND YET _ it is the UNITED STATES that habitually calls upon THIS justification, this paranoid excuse of "being under attack because they hate our freedoms"...or would BE "under attack"
UNLESS it invades, occupies, meddles in the affairs of OTHER regions FIRST ...where in reality -- the CONTIGUOUS locations of the supposed "threats to the USA"..russia, china, iran, venezuala...etc. etc. make those countries the USA calls "threats" - such as Iran, Russia, China, (because they don't bow to US dictates) -
FAR MORE VULNERABLE for invasions or intrusions into their borders BECAUSE of the neighborhoods they occupy....
an example of course is the AF/PAK INTRUSIONS of the United States AND NATO into those very neighborhoods which , because of their proximity to the s0called "threats" or "rivals" TO the USA and "the western way" (russia, china, iran..) and the way THAT actually is MORE destabilizing or more of a headache to those very countries THAN THOSE countries ARE TO the USA .
so , in reality - WHICH country has REALLY been THREATENING OTHERS IN their own neighborhoods FAR AWAY from ITS own borders?
it isn't RUSSIA or China or IRAN or Venezuala
"threatening the American way of life"........it is the USA THREATENING THOSE countries and THEIR way of life by planting ITSELF in THEIR neighborhoods...
BECAUSE of the Riches they possess.
and THEN - the USA - thousands of miles away from any of THESE - drops in IN THEIR regions and within their borders to "prevent" THEM from being "threats to the USA".......
when all along - it has been the opposite..SINCE the 18th century the moment the USA began to build its "naval" abilities to go abroad and bring its WARS
exactly as General Smedley Butler , US MARINES, 1933, described:
"our foreign policies have ALWAYS been geared towards gathering as much of the world's resources unto OURSELVES at the expense of other nations....and for our Economic and Cultural ASSAULT".
this is like a Rapist that keeps shouting he has to do what he has to do because "i might get raped".....but in reality -- the only purpose he has IS -- to RAPE.
and so - he goes around to different towns, far away even, doing his deeds SERIALLY..HABITUALLY..raping and raping and raping....
"I have participated in the RAPE of a dozen latin american nations....I was the High Class Muscleman for our Big Banks, Big Finance, Big Corporations and our BIG BOSS...our supernationalistic Capitalism ...and our War and Money Rackets.....Al Capone has nothing on me...i could have taught him a trick or two...his RACKETS were only in Chicago and a few other american cities...MINE was in THREE CONTINENTS...we are a nation of Racketeers".
GEneral Smedley Butler, US Marines, 1933 speeches.
The US is occupying Afghqanistan for 2 primary reasons,
1. It's incalculable strategic importance by virtue of it's location,
And 2, We are going after Pakistan's nuclear weapons via special ops, hundred of teams, being dropped where the triggers and warheads, respectively are located. With Inda the Arabian Sea Iran and the US Military surrounding them, we'll be positioned for the op.
And as befits conquerers we rape the women and steal anything of value, oil, hash, all that is good; national rape.
However I think Russia would assist Pakistan, they'd turn it into a debacle w/o ever showing themselves. Intel, weaponry positoned at drop-points; massacres.
I don't think we are welcome....
Obama is an Asshole. But we learn. A few jumps he'd know it's hard.
And with God's Blessing I would lovingly, w/ joy pack his chute FOR him because I care.
And what fun to watch! Penance for play golf w/ Wolf as Blood spills & spills!
If General McChrystal really wants to "win" then he should join the Taliban.
The US can never win this Biblical sized fraud cooked up in Texas and Israel.
This Ponzi scam can only continue by tossing endless blood and treasure at it.
The real reason that the U.S. is involved in a military intervention in Afghanistan is:(surprise) PETROLEUM. The third largest natural gas deposits in the world are in Turkemanistan. The Western oil companies would like to build a pipeline through Afghanistan to India, while bypassing Iran and Russia. So Afghanistan is to be controlled. (Karzie is a former member of the board of Chevron.)But sending U.S. troops to die for oil companies is politically unacceptable. Obama is no different than Bush since he is conducting an illegal war based on a lie.
Drugs are a better reason. A pipeline will forever be vulnerable to someone popping a hole in the thing. Even in North America we have people willing to shoot holes in the pipelines in Alberta.
Besides with the onset of global warming, you can build those pipelines north to new ports built in northern Siberia. Then ship the stuff from there...
The USA wants to Control the pipelines. The USA can only control pipelines in countries the USA Controls thus the ethnic cleansing of Pastuns and Control of Pakistan.
Siberia is controled by Russia. But the corporations do want global warming to facilitate Artic mineral and oil extractions.
The above posters forgot to mention Russia's vast oil and Gas reserves.
The USA wants to Control the pipelines. The USA can only control pipelines in countries the USA Controls thus the ethnic cleansing of Pastuns and Control of Pakistan.
Siberia is controled by Russia. But the corporations do want global warming to facilitate Artic meneral and oil extractions.
The above posters forgot to mention Russia's vast oil and Gas reserves.
I have to say at this point I'm not surprised this President is doubling down on Afganistan. So far he has done so little right and so many things wrong, why should this be different?
He sweems to be in an isolation booth.
Are the corporate Merchants of Death still pulling Obama's strings? This reminds me of General Wastemoreland or the West African story about Anansi and the Tar Baby.
THE USA at the height of ITS war AGAINST vietnam that just wanted ALL foreign imperialists OUT ....
had 500,000 US Soldiers....what did it get?
DEFEAT..and mind you, economically - it became the TURNING POINT for the US economy:
from being the world's main CREDITOR..it slipped into becoming the continuing World's Biggest DEBTOR.
now:
Obama escalates and even "prepares" for more war fronts:
Honduras , colombia - to "oversee" venezuala and latin america...in addition to Afghanistan , Pakistan (which the USA NOW accuses of "modifying US SUPPLIED AND MADE missiles to pakistan" -- uh, what DID america EXPECT?) ...
from a starting point of being the world's biggest debtor and being a BANKRUPT nation that just got its economic "model"
EXPOSED worldwide for being a SHAM of MAKE BELIEVE "wealth generation" and has largely been DISCREDITED.......
where does obama and pentagon and america REALLY think it's going to end?
VICTORY FOR AMERICA?
they are truly delusional........
But at least since 1980 with the ascension of Reagan, it has seemed the INTENT of the rulers of the US (at least the Republican branch) to run up the deficit and the debt, as a tactic to bankrupt the government to discredit government spending and justify gutting social welfare programs like Welfare and Social Security.
You have an interesting theory concerning the beginning economic downfall of America which we are now seeing starting during the American War in Vietnam. It has always seemed curious to me that all that massive amount of money spent on Vietnam War didn't seem to effect the economy at that time but you may have something here as that being the beginning of the easy credit bubble. Would you care to expand on your theory?
an observation that i am sure many have already made is:
here the USA stands today, despite still being the world's greatest power, as a nation that is in hock to so many creditors - is basically bankrupt but trying to resuscitate a system of finance and economic model that becomes more and more removed from the reality of ordinary people, and by THIS only manages what is perceived or promoted or imposed as "prosperity"..."recovery".....etc...
and yet - all the signs, especially in the USA's growing obsession with "security" which it spreads in part as "endless war" , and opening up MORE theatres for war , while seeding more future conditions for MORE war - all tied to its system of Economic warfare (general smedley butler , us marines, 1933, described it COMPLETELY..."to make the world safe for OUR supernationalistic capitalism and our CULTURAL and ECONOMIC ASSAULT") ..
are exactly was President Eisenhower warned as his last warning and advice to his fellow americans:
"beware of the undue influence of the corporate,military,industrial,congressional COMPLEX...."
which he also tied to :
"we shall surely BANKRUPT OURSELVES in the quest for absolute security".
the USA - basically wishes to "SECURE" its PRIMACY and even DOMINANCE - but in the process is bankrupting itself.
You can easily make your points without distorting and reinventing quotations.
It undermines your effort.
I am quoting them from readings long ago - so they are paraphrased. but i think that the central point is made.
Eisenhower, for example DID talk about the "industrial, military. corporate/congressional complex" and their "undue influence".....
in other cases i have mentioned: General Smedley butler, US marines..DID talk about the USA's "war and money racket" ...its "big banks, big corporations, big finance -- all in service to our Big Boss -- our Supernationalistic Capitalism"
so -- what is your problem? that I did not recall them VERBATIM?.
sorry -- i wasn't trying to claim it as my theory...that would be too advanced for my limited knowledge.
i just recalled that observation from reading over the years..some writers had pointed it out , tracing a correlation between the USA "shifting" from creditor to debtor - at about the same time-frame as the vietnam war. ...and that by the end of it - the usa decisively entered "Debtor nation" status.
The debt of Vietnam was one factor at that time in the economic decline, but another big one was stagnation of wages while corporate profits rose, starting in the 1970s. This is because we started seeing serious decimation of unions by the ruling class. Wildcat strikes in the 1960s paved the way for the ruling class to do something to keep workers from getting too uppity and gaining strength. The way they tried to destroy unions was with immigration. Another way was to begin to outsource jobs. And when wages on the working class stagnate, capital moves vertically - so the wealthy accumulate more.
Then the invention of Reagan and Thatcher took place - neoliberalism that strips revenue from the government and consolidating wealth in the upper tiers with tax cuts.
The bogus trickle down theory stipulates that when wealth accumulates upwards, it will be invested in production, thereby creating more jobs for the working class ("trickling down"). That doesn't happen. What DOES happen is that their money is invested in increasingly complex paper asset schemes, similar to Ponzi schemes. That creates the financial stock market bubbles and hence the crashes, like Black Tuesday back in the early 1990s.
I think you can get the picture from this how shaky capitalism is and how they have to keep injecting different half-assed schemes to keep their plates in the air. The problem at this point is that nothing they are trying is sustainable or workable (i.e., bogus stim bills claiming to redistribute wealth and create jobs).
The only things that I can see that will get us out of this is a massive uprising by the working class when things get sufficiently bad and unemployment and foreclosures go through the roof, OR a practical Keynesian solution that actually does redistribute wealth, like shortening the work day, full employment and some serious redistribution of wealth, like with nationalized programs for health care, day care, transportation, etc.
Right now the capitalists have no intention of giving us the latter. I suspect they are prepared militarily for the former.
This is a really skeletal overview of what's been happening, IMHO. You get the gist of it and obviously there are other governmental forces at work through all of this (deregulation, military spending, cutting back social programs, all while cutting taxes).
EXCELLENT explanation! thank you.
Interesting postings.
Good points about the "guns and butter" days of Johnson and Nixon. You could put the start of our economic troubles at that time, but would you consider it could have really started with Ronnie R and the beginning of the removal of safeguards from our system. These led directly to the S&L disaster? Capitalist economies without the safeguard removed under RR and Clinton plus the removal of oversight under Bush become Robber Baron economies I believe. I believe thats what we have now.
I am beginning to feel that the only good I can do in the world is on a very local level: like "Second Harvest" stuff, knitting slippers for nursing homes, etc.
On first seeing this article my response was, "Hasn't it registered with Obama yet that Afghanistan can't be 'won'?" Then I read the headline again and realized that the increase in troops prob. has very little to do with O.-- the military industrial complex is at work here. Then one more depressing thought came to me:
Obama won't be assassinated; he'll be removed from power by a military coup like Zelaya.
The next thought was: only a coalition of more sane countries can stop us now. Then I read a teeny headline that said "Norway refuses asylum to Palestinians."
It's confusing, because Obama once made a fake antiwar speech while a Senator. But Obama really is fostering this particular war. He campaigned on it, promising to attack Afghanistan and Pakistan. People forget that.
So, have no worries about assassination by the military here, Pippilin. Obama's tight with Wall Street and the Pentagon on this war. They're of like minds.
-TIA
War is hell gentlemen lets go for it! Blood and guts all the way gentlemen, slaughter our way to glory, and let the body parts fall where they may so long as there not ours gentlemen.
Now let me see, we have this year given 2.3 trillion free money to rich bankers in addition to the 12 trillion in loans from Treasury, all of which adds to the nation debt if high finance goes belly up. Then there is 1 trillion to our power hungry military, 2.3 trillion to a sick and corrupt medical industry, manufacturing industry shipped off to China, millions and millions evicted from their homes, and drugs here, there and everywhere.
So when everything goes bankrupt, and those 2.3 million young laboring men we have locked in prison get starving hungry, and a couple thousand other things blow up in our face...
It is long past due time for all NATO member countries to review that organization's original purpose and mission as set forth in the provisions of the North Atlantic Treaty which relate to "stability and well-being in the North Atlantic area."
There may arguably have been some miniscule initial justification for supporting U.S. retalliation as a fellow member state against its alleged "9/11" attackers, but, if so, it has no application whatever to the ongoing devastation of the entire country, drone attacks on Afghan civilians and expansion into neighboring states.
It should be noted that UN Resolution 1386 (2001), which initially authorized NATO's intervention in Afghanistan as the "International Security Assistance Force", recognizes "that the responsibility for providing security and law and order throughout the country resides with the Afghan [sic] themselves."
Ask yourself why China and Russia, with their long-term vision and SCO objectives, not only refrain from any UN Security Council veto against NATO involvement, but actually continue to support extensions of the authorization period.
If the U.S. chooses to continue expending its own "cannon fodder" and financial indebtedness in puruit of USA Incorporated's goals, it has no rightfull call whatever on extended NATO support and any such call should be turned down flat by all other member states.
Yes and when our two biggest nuclear enemies encourage us to continue killing people, maybe just maybe, they want us to be hated by all people.
Such is an empire blinded by glory as comes to an end.
No, not hated. Pitied perhaps. But definately weakened by a war that never ends. After all, you don't want another Vietnam. So your leaders will keep on fighting an unwinnable war until you're totally broke. Then Russia and China can bicker about who's the superpower of the world...
The vast majority of ignorant and apathetic sheople are too busy being dumbed down by this complicit corporate media, with their feckless inane programing and 24-7 Orwellian Newspeak, to be concerned or to truly understand the ongoing Middle East hegemony and the horrid death and destruction of the innocent Afghan people.
Remember, it was the Taliban who attacked us on September eleventh, two thousand and one. Or was it Iraq? No, it was . . . it was the . . . ?
I suppose sending more of our brave credulous troops into the Afghanistan meat grinder could be called "Change?" Yeah, for the worse! While lining the already bloated pockets of the War Profiteers.
Taalam Acey tells it best
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unntwxaF_LQ
But capitalism is the freedom to compete for excessive wealth, and functions most profitably when things are geared toward quick profit. Destroy Iraq quick, get their oil quick and stick you profit in off shore banking quick. For a bubble and burst economy, now that is perfection in capitalism.
Important stuff:
http://rethinkafghanistan.com/
http://www.malalaijoya.com/joya_election_independent.htm
http://www.asiafoundation.org/resources/pdfs/Afghanistanin2008.pdf
One important consideration is that the war in Afghanistan, and the war in Iraq, are not simply about Afghanistan or Iraq. Planning is underway for a much wider war. "NorthCom" and "AfriCom" weren't recently established in order to carry out reductions in US military operations worldwide, but the "real" "enemies" are seen as China, Russia, Europe, "Islam", and upstart would-be powers like India and Brazil. Not to mention stirrings of popular sentiment anywhere, that threaten to spread a challenge to our right to rule anywhere, as in Latin America over the past decade.
The long-term US strategy is to attempt to ensure endless worldwide economic domination via corporate rule, enforced by global US military supremacy. This is really not secret, and it isn't only PNAC documents and such, there are public Pentagon and US Space Command documents (among others) that reference the real strategic purposes of US policies and actions.
This "war against a resurgent Taleban" is just a small piece of the puzzle of a "grand" US strategy, in which the US will use its military supremacy to defeat any plans by Russia and China to become "our" "equals" or surpass the US in power and glory.
Its not just that we are stupidly falling into an "imperialist graveyard" in Afghanistan - Obama and his strategy team see themselves playing a much longer-term "game".
And with the global financial melt-down and "crisis of capitalism" that they are currently trying to finesse with a few tens of trillions of strategically invented dollars, the success of the Euro (recall that Saddam announced Iraq was switching from dollar-denominated oil to euro-denominated oil, and coincidentally then the US invaded - similar threats by Iran to stop denominating oil in dollars...), the threat of a new China-Russia currency through the Shanghai Cooperation group, the BRIC collaborations that are developing, etc etc etc, there are REAL IMMEDIATE CHALLENGES to US economic supremacy, and the strategy teams are considering all options.
i had slim hopes that Obama had a chance of playing a Gorbachev role in the US, of opting against a strategy to seek to uphold hegemony against the tides of history, but it would appear clear at this point that Obama will not entertain such options for the USA. He intends to "lead" his teams in their efforts to uphold and expand US military and economic hegemony over the Earth.
The fact that former national security advisor (under Carter) Zbigniew Brzezinski turned up as an early Obama campaign advisor suggests that your cold-war-like scenario might be the objective of these wars. Brzezinski had crazy ideas about enlisting political Islam to destroy the USSR. He bragged about arming the mujahedeen in Afghanistan to provoke a Soviet invasion.
Obama has said that he admires people in the U.S. government who maintained that cold war.
As president, Obama hasn't distinguished himself from Bush in terms of foreign policy. But he did campaign on attacking Pakistan and Afghanistan - the one promise he's kept.
Obama's no Gorby at all. Remember glasnost ("openness")? Not here.
-TIA
You forgot to add that we really need Pipelinestan for our oil corporations to be profitable.
Just one more reason to say absolutely NO to any additional troops in Afghanistan or anywhere else.
Agreed that (whatever the real-world feasibility of specific pipeline projects as debated on yesterday's thread) the strategic location of central Asia for exploitation and transit of fossil fuels (and other key "resources") is part of the "why" the US is there, relating to jockeying for global supremacy over "our" rivals...
Also the key strategic location of central Asia for preparing and carrying out global military action in the event of larger wars with global rivals...
One add: in reality, Northcom's purpose is not just (ostensibly) defense of the Continental US. It's other purpose is to respond to any popular uprisings in America's hinterland. The starving and broke will have lots of guns and ammo, after all.
Excellent post. I have always maintained that the U.S. would do better to let go of their outdated obsession with running the world and instead *participate* in it. The business of having "enemies" all over the place is no longer beneficial. Our policy should bend away from war, and towards trading with everyone, regardless of their politics-- except perhaps the most egregious human rights abusers (which would not include Cuba!). The U.S. should concentrate on getting its own house in order, concentrating on domestic matters: protective tariffs, strengthening industry in the U.S., strengthening our infrastructure, improving education, and increasing taxes on the wealthy.
Look at Dave Lindorff's piece from yesterday about Afghanistan as Obama's Vietnam, for perspective on this. Obama has signed his own political death certificate by ramping up this nightmare from which he wants no escape. As Abendland says, he's totally locked in to the imperatives of empire, mainly the perpetual war imperative. He's proving to be just as much a warmonger as Bush. Impeach the asshole.
Unless we're there for the oil and gas routes, I don't see staying in Afghanistan. Even if we stay, there comes a point where the killing and destruction doesn't get us to our goals.
How oil crazy are we?
Oil and gas are the last things on our mind. The only reason we are there is to bring them peace, justice and freedom. That's the American Way!
You might be there for the plentiful supply of Heroin. After all, what else does Afghanistan export? The only way an oil/gas route would/could be built there is if you killed off all the inhabitants, otherwise the taliban fighters will just cut the pipes. Just like the Iraqis have been cutting the pipes that export their oil...
Afghanistan exports possibly the best hashish in the world. You can find it quite plentiful in Amsterdam.
That's why we went after the Taliban after the Russians got pushed out. The Taliban in the '80s and '90s put an end to opium production in Afghan. They basically went to these farmers and said "if you grow anything but opium, any regular crops, you can keep your land and live on it and farm it as you want. If you grow opium, we'll kill you."
And they managed to get opium production down to something like 3% of the total crops in Afghanistan.
Pissing off the U.S. something major. Drugs are the biggest cash cow in the world. Washington is well aware of that.
Yah, but the profit margin is higher on heroin. If you want to pay for your troops to fight the taliban, you need that profit.
Who would you say is getting the most profit from the heroin trade? It appears that you are suggesting that the Afghan army is paid by profits from heroin trade. The media tells us that Afghanistan is the biggest producer of heroin in the world. The Taliban stopped this trade when it was in power but I have heard that they are now accepting it as a way to raise money? Undoubtedly some NATO troops are taking advantage of the opportunity to indulge and also make a few bucks as I understand happened during the American War in Vietnam - - we probably won't hear about this until much later. Ummm, CIA, Air America effect, interesting thought. The Afghani's being Muslim don't drink alcohol but they are way crazy and wild on hash - - interesting people. I am not knowledgeable on this matter but I can tell you that in '72 one could buy soft black hash for pennies a gram - - I'm not exaggerating.
The major profiteers (from the usa) of the heroin trade is the CIA, just like in the previous wars. The War on Some Drugs is used to bolster the bottom line of the CIA and to give a subsidy to organized crime. That's not to say that there aren't some locals who are getting rich selling heroin and hash to the west (and east) but the major profits go to those who can get the drugs furthest with the least cost. The taliban is said to have cut the drug trade off, but I'm not sure that is a realistic claim. The price of heroin on the street has not gone up (which would indicate a drop in supply), and the quality of the drug available is more potent now than it has been since the 60s (which argues that there is a glut of the drug on the market). [I don't do heroin, never liked the shit. My source for the cost and quality is an old friend who became a male whore] I remember buying lots of Afghani hash back in the 80s, the stuff was everywhere, and all of us potheads argued that we were helping the Afghans fight the commies by smoking some fine shit. We knew that the us gov't was the ones who were profiting from the drug trade, don't know why that was never reported in the us media (ok, yah we did know why. Nancy Reagan said 'just say know')
I remember a documentary about addiction in Afghanistan, this was back in the 90s, and one line always struck me as bizarre; one heroin addict bewailed the fact that the prophet had only banned alcohol, but not the poppy. I thought at the time, as allah wills, if god wanted the boy to quit then the boy would quit; right?
I think you must be right - - the profits are too big and the transport for CIA types is also too easy. Sounds a bit like that Denzil Washington movie American Gangster. I don't suppose this will get out for another 30 years.
One wonders if the "insurgents" in Iraq and in Afghanistan are working together, coordinating some of their activities. Seems plausible when one looks at the headlines these days. Iraq "insurgency" has flared up just as Obama wanted to move some Iraq troops to Afghanistan. Of course Iraq and Afghanistan are separated by Iran. I don't want to get into a discussion of military tactics but this could be another example of the Hopelessness of the American war effort. There used to be talk about the US running out of troops for the war effort but I don't see that mentioned anymore. I can only shake my head in wonder and despair.
The US won't run out of troops as long as 1) Unemployment is high. 2) Serving in the military remains one of the few ways for many immigrants to become citizens. 3) Serving in the military is an alternative to jail for some people convicted of crimes.
Colonel Andrew Bacevich - retired and now a professor of history - who had considered himself a "conservative" and served loyally to the US army eventually describes his experience of many decades in this way:
that he gradually realized that the US standing Army is really a corporate war machinery using patriotism as its calling card...
and he added in interviews that "the amazing thing to me - is it took me more than 50 years to arrive at my convictions and conclusions today"...that the USA army , serving the interests of its corporatocracy is really what he called the USA's "EMPIRE OF BASES"....to promote those interests.
Blackwater and these other psyops private companies are employing the poor from other countries, not just from the U.S. Private "security" contractors are an international group of employees.
Remarkable how in the White House it looks as though there is no free will: the determinism of Empire works there like an iron clad law of nature.
Obama is totally SUBJECTED to the necessity of Empire.
Just like he promised during the presidential campaign.
Where are all the Obama dolts who argued last year that he was anti-war? Oh yeah . . . they were mostly corporate PR hucksters just posing as progressives. Mission accomplished.
20,000 more War Criminals to crush the Pastun Tribal resistance to corporate imperialism.
Thats what Mchrystal " The Butcher of Fallujah" wants.
We have no idea whats going on in Afghanistan, the USA kept secret the dropping of more bomb tonnage on Laos than in all of WWII. What do you think the USA's top assassin Mchrystal is doing?
Everyone who enables a criminal war is a war criminal; no excuses possible.
Travesty here, but I think (hope, pray) the folks in the UK and Italy will not be pleased, and will let it be known. As a USAn, I've given up all hope after Obama. Am I crazy? The death toll is consistently rising.
This can't be happening; somebody please wake me up.
I wish I could wake up and find this was a dream as well. Unfortunately, I feel we have still only seen the overture. The rest is coming.
If there is one thing that Americans can agree on is not providing health care for all but starting wars so that they can be patriotic and "support our troops". Iraq and Afghanistan wars will still be raging 10 years from today and nobody will be shouting at town hall meetings about the cost of the war and its profiteers. Mark my words.
I'm not sure you can continue to pay for these wars. They aren't profitable, you're not looting the countries of Iraq nor Afghanistan of gold, oil or food. The economic engine of the usa is running on fumes, even with the boneheaded way the fed bailed out the people responsibe for the crash.
Brought to us by the "antiwar" candidate.
Obama was never anti-war. He was in favour of keeping the Afghan war going, in spite of the fact that it was not a necessary war. Both candidates were in favour of war, one of them wanted to expand the fight to Iran, one wanted to limit it to Afghanistan. Both were delusional about being victorious.
True, but he was quick to use some statement he made in his past about how wrong it was that we invaded Iraq. I think he milked that for quite a while. Of course, his positions gradually flip-flopped as he got closer and closer to the White House during the election.
I for one could not believe people could vote for him after hearing during the debate that he would be escalating war over there. He came right out and said it and people still voted for him.
Wasn't the alternative worse? How good of a job do you think McCain't would have done as president? Sure, I suppose you could have voted for a third party... But without some electoral reform, one which fixes some of the problems with the 'first past the post' system we use now, I wouldn't hold out hope for them.
It would have been nice if Obama was a liberal rather than a conservative. But a real liberal would never get elected to the presidency in this day and age. The ownership of the media would never allow them to get that close to the reins of power.
Sounds like Vietnam all over again. According to many credible intelligence reports, there are approximately 40 million Pashtuns that sympathize with the Taliban, but just like the whore press never mentioned the millions of Vietcong that were sympathizers with the communists and Hoh in the north, they are not telling the Americans the truth again. The whore MSM promoted Vietnam and helped to murder 50,000 of our brave and patriotic but brainwashed soldiers, not to mention some two million communist sympathizers. From my perspective, the only way to stop this insanity, is to expose the egregious, shadow government that really runs American foreign policy. O BOMB A: you can bomb the world to pieces, but you will never bomb it to peace!
The British have yet to kill Gunga Din and will keep on giving it a go.
genicon
The only way Obama can stop the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan, is to be willing to accept the possibility of ending up like JFK, RFK, MLK.
If Obama could stop the killings of thousands by sacrificing his life I would encourage him to do so.
But of course that is wishful thinking, only a fervent rejection of all that is war will result in the ending of this or any war.
That's something Obama will never have to worry about. Right-wingers don't kill their own. Plus there would never be not a drop of the decency, honesty and idealism of JFK, RFK or MLK in Barack Obusha in one trillion years.
[Right-wingers don't kill their own.]
I'm not so sure about that. The rhetoric used by righties about Obama is geared to drive someone to assassinate him. I'm not sure Obama ever really had a chance to turn the course of the usa away from the disaster of the neo-con making(indeed if he really ever wanted to change that course). Say what you will about the man, if he is assassinated the reaction to that from the minorities in the states will be explosive. Seems to me that the rightwing commentators want to incite the same sort of thing that Charles Manson once tried to bring about; a race war.
The Glenn Beck crowd is too stupid and unprepared to carry out the assassination of a president successfully, even though I'm sure they dream about it constantly.
A successful assassination of a president requires the means and backing of powerful forces on the Right, and the last thing the Right wants now is to see Obama gone, darn it they put him in power, and he's the best thing going for them.
[A successful assassination of a president requires the means and backing of powerful forces on the Right]
Really? Garfield was assassinated by a lone gunman. A very nutty gunman from what I read online. Lincoln was assassinated by a plot, one that had nothing to do with powerful forces on the right. McKinley was assassinated by an anarchist who had very few ties to the powerful classes of his day. Kennedy was assassinated by a lone gunman, in spite of the fanciful theories of his being killed by cubans, the mafia or the rightwing of his day.
Of the four successful assassinations the one most relevent to what the Beck crowd wants to recreat would be the McKinley one. That shooter was supposedly influenced by an anarchist speaker...
That is of course only talking about us presidents. There have been other assassinations in history, most of them (when successful) result in really bad things happening. When a Russian Tsar (Alexander II) was assassinated in 1881, his goal of building a representative government in Russia was destroyed. The reestablishment of Tsarist Autocracy led to the Revolution of 1917 and the rise of Lenin...
In 1914, a Serbian gunman linked to a group of terrorists shot the Archduke Ferdinand. The result was the First World War.
God, I hate the word Assassination. It's a bugger to spell...
Saturnalia,
The lone Gunman theory was never proved on JFK and here is what the cover-up does not tell you.
Two men were seen in the "snipers nest"
The second Oswald was being looked for by State Dept and FBI while Lee was still in Russia.
There was Lee Oswald who was killed by Ruby and Ruby recorded that nobody will find out why he was put in a position to do it because of the involvement of Higher-ups. He wanted to get out of Texas so he could talk but Allen Dulles who knew Oswald was a counter intel false defector would not allow it.
There was a look a like double Oswald taken out the side door of the Texas theater by Dallas cops while Lee Oswald was taken out the front door.
Oswald's CIA handler was a friend of Bush, and the Texas Oil CIA group of assets and Domestics contacts, George Demohrenshildt.
He also knew Oswald was a patsy and wrote about it, but was found dead from a shotgun blast to the head right before he was to be interviewed by the congressional investigator in 77. He wrote CIA Director Bush months before his death for help about the net around him and death threats he assumed was FBI, Bush just wished him luck.
All this had to be covered up for Bush to get elected to anything and continue the coverup which is still goin on with this "lone gunman theory".
More than 3 shots were fired.
Since I was in Texas that day and I was told of the plot before it happened, this stuff confirms what I saw that day and more.
A good book of many on Bush's role is Family of Secrets by Russ Baker.
Your computer has more than the Official version. If you are interested, Google it.
I knew I shouldn't have mentioned JFK. There are many conspiricy theories about that event, but no proof yet exists that it was not just one man who was a good shot. Perhaps when the archives of the usa are opened to scrutiny that evidence will be found, until then however, there was one gunman.
I am urging that all the files be released.
You're talking about assassinations in the stone age, I'm talking about the present. With night vision, GPS, snipers, etc. it's much more difficult today to trump the Secret Service, especially if you want to keep the shooter and his masterminds unidentified.
I don't see the lunatics who listen to Glenn Back or Michael Savage capable of it.
[I don't see the lunatics who listen to Glenn Back or Michael Savage capable of it.]
To a point I agree with you, but still think that Beck and Savage would rejoice if Obama was assassinated because of what they've been talking about.
The stone age was over 7000 years ago, all the assassinations (god I hate the word) I mentioned happened within the last 150 years. When Mckinley was shot the secret service was more worried about the big black guy behind the shooter than the shooter himself.
Anwar Sadat was shot by a member of the Army, who was also a member of an Islamic terrorist group. I'm not sure if you can call them 'right wing' or 'left wing', but we should agree they're wingnuts as they want to build theocratic states...
With assassinations the shooter doesn't often plan to get away. They expect to be caught, if they wanted to prevent the state from finding out who was involved, they'll have poison with them.
Saturnalia August 30th, 2009 1:02 am...........Lawd, forget the "official stories" and do some research and thinking on your own.
Which official stories do you disagree with, and why? I'm far more familiar with the results of the assassinations in other countries than the usa. But those aren't the only examples I could have chosen; Sadat, Ghandi and many other people have been killed by assassins.
There aren't conspiricies that exist to explain every event. It might be nice if there were, but crap happens.
I wouldn't describe JFK or RFK as decent, honest, or idealistic. Let's keep the magical thinking out of the discussion.
But you're right - the ruling class doesn't "do" assassinations any more. They don't have to - anybody who makes it to the White House is completely vetted for the gig by the wealth-holders.
Compared to Obama, yes, JFK or RFK had decency, honesty and idealism. But I didn't say JFK or RFK were 100% decent, honest, or idealistic.
"Decent, honest and Idealistic" is not magical thinking.
If you got a beef with JFK, RFK and Ted, it is too late. I have respect for others feelings and for those who got killed who were a threat to the War pushers and fear mongers. Respect for the good things they did is not "magical thinking" it is the spirit and common feelings that will help unite us for peace.
I just wanted to point that out because you offended my feelings.
If you are gonna give us a lecture now on why you don't like JFK and his Brothers, this is not the appropriate time.
"I just wanted to point that out because you offended my feelings."
Oh dear!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"If you are gonna give us a lecture now on why you don't like JFK and his Brothers, this is not the appropriate time."
Sorry, Jim. But your declaration is impotent (and rather Bush-league - "now is not the time to criticize: fill in blank")
So you really love JFK? Vietnam was a great war, right? And the Bay of Pigs, well, that was just freedom on the march. Besides, who cares about those minor issues... The Kennedy's all had great haircuts.
"I have respect for others feelings and for those who got killed who were a threat to the War pushers and fear mongers. "
What a lovely fantasy! Please do yourself a favor, and go and read any of Chomsky's numerous responses to this subject. It's a complete fairy tale to imagine that JFK was killed for ending Vietnam when the historical record clearly shows he was escalating it.
CHOMSKY: "While history never permits anything like definitive conclusions, in this case, the richness of the record, and its consistency, permit some unusually confident judgments. In my opinion, the record is inconsistent with the withdrawal thesis throughout, and supports a different conclusion. In brief, basic policy towards Indochina developed within a framework of North-South/East-West relations that Kennedy did not challenge, and remained constant in essentials: disentanglement from an unpopular and costly venture as soon as possible, but _after_ victory was assured (by the end, with increasing doubt that US client regimes could be sustained). Tactics were modified with changing circumstances and perceptions. Changes of Administration, including the Kennedy assassination, had no large-scale effect on policy, and not even any great effect on tactics, when account is taken of the objective situation and how it was perceived. "
http://web.archive.org/web/20000815235701/http://www.connix.com/~harry/chom-jfk.htm
And spare us mentioning RFK and MLK in the same sentence. Are you even aware that it was RFK who signed off on wiretapping MLK on the basis that he had ties to communists? And isn't it nice that Ted Kennedy carried on his brothers assault on civil liberties by voting for and then reauthorizing (2006) the Patriot Act?
Jim, your love of the Kennedy Klan exists in the same realm as people's love for Michael Jackson or Princess Diana. Grow up.
pudepoh,
You didn't read what I said, I never said he was killed for ending Viet Nam and you are the only one I have heard to tell that whopper.
Chomsky does point out some important things though and I am Glad you gave me the article to read.
What Chomsky does not mention in his article on just Viet Nam is that JFK was getting the MIC pissed at the fact that he just ended the nuclear confrontation with Russia over the Cuban Missile Crises which made it more likely that you would be able to twist what I said about JFK since that War would have ended everything.
A huge blunder for peace in Nam was tacitly going along with the coup in Nam and a few days before JFK's assassination, Chomsky does not mention, JFK recorded his regrets of going along with that. Diem was killing Buddhist demonstrators and was very corrupt which made it hard for him to support Diem's wanting to negotiate with the North.
But that is what he should have done anyway.
Another thing Chomsky does not mention is that nobody said JFK was going to withdraw without victory. This is the main Straw Man Chomsky's article creates because nobody is saying that.
It was a gradual wind down of troops that was his withdrawal plan but he also being a politician thought he could not commit to that publicly before the election. His adversaries like Bush in Texas and Goldwater accusing him of being a Commie tool coward for not going all the way in Cuba and Viet Nam.
I wish we had a president who knew Empire and a never ending War economy must end.
It seems all presidents want to win war instead of ending War. That does not work because ending them is a double win.
Ending War is harder than you think and we can learn much from his mistakes. I hope Obama learns from his too.
Peace, if you can find it.
"You didn't read what I said, I never said he was killed for ending Viet Nam and you are the only one I have heard to tell that whopper."
First, sorry for misinterpreted this quote as applying to JFK
"If you got a beef with JFK, RFK and Ted, it is too late. I have respect for others feelings and for those who got killed who were a threat to the War pushers and fear mongers. Respect for the good things they did is not "magical thinking" it is the spirit and common feelings that will help unite us for peace. "
Although, you should have been clearer, it DOES seem like you are including JFK RFK and Ted in this. But since you have offered clarification I apologize.
Second, Oliver Stone believes JFK was killed for trying to end the Vietnam War. It's actually a popular theory.
"which made it more likely that you would be able to twist what I said about JFK since that War would have ended everything."
Not following your logic here (or your accusation of twisting your words).
"Another thing Chomsky does not mention is that nobody said JFK was going to withdraw without victory. This is the main Straw Man Chomsky's article creates because nobody is saying that."
I think you are a little confused here. The "strawman" argument (which it is) is an actually argument being made (around the time of the film JFK) to which he is responding. By yes, I agree, and Chomsky would too, that "nobody said JFK was going to withdraw without victory." That is actually central to the argument against JFK being killed for trying to get out of Vietnam.
"It was a gradual wind down of troops that was his withdrawal plan but he also being a politician thought he could not commit to that publicly before the election."
This is a really uselss point, since you've acknowledged that would happen ONLY AFTER VICTORY. In any war there would be "a gradual wind down of troops "
following victory.
"I wish we had a president who knew Empire and a never ending War economy must end."
Hey, we agree! Isn't it funny to think that the closest we came to an acknowledgment of that situation was Eisenhower's farewell speech. It took a former military man to tell the truth (much like Smedely Butler).
"Ending War is harder than you think and we can learn much from his mistakes."
Ending the Vietnam would not have been hard for Washington, any more than it would have been hard for Hitler to end the Holocaust (and the proof is that it wasn't when we did it). However, it is extremely hard for the people to end a war controlled by the elites.
"I hope Obama learns from his too."
I hope you learn that saying that makes EXACTLY as much sense as saying it about Bush.
Apology accepted,
My point was just that since Viet Nam was in the larger picture, part of the cold war with Russia, JFK by making progress with Russia on peace was in a better position to end the War later. The withdrawal plan was very weak but it was at least a slow start in the direction. Well never know for sure what would happen if he lived.
No problem since we agree on peace whether it is easy as you say or not, lets keep workin on it. Hope is not enough unless it combines our anger with the courage to do something.
Great post.
Yea, the "liberals" just can't handle getting reality checked about their fantasy figure icons. On some blogs, the Kennedy is already being referred to as "EMK." Stick a spork in me now, for chrissakes.
It's all magical faith-based thinking, as far as I'm concerned. Put your faith in some liberal capitalist. The same folks did it with Obama. They had spittle dribbling down their faces just talking about Obfraud during the campaign. It's okay with them to have a wealthy class and a ruling class of capital owners as long as the working stiffs get thrown a bone now and then. Why? Because these people would rather identify with the ruling class than with immigrants, workers, the poor, the exploited. It doesn't even occur to them that they have more in common with these groups than they do with Obama, Ted Kennedy (sorry, "EMK!"), or the CEO of Citibank. They just want to believe they have a shot at that life someday.
Magical thinking.
I just got booted off another site for daring to criticize Ted Kennedy in the "live blogging the funeral" thread. LOL!
"I just got booted off another site for daring to criticize Ted Kennedy in the "live blogging the funeral" thread. "
I would have booted you off too for not having the grace to shut up when the time is right and not being smart enough to know when that is.
This is not the appropriate time. I beg to differ. This, above all, is precisely the time. It's time to confront the legacy of these warmongers, and for people to face up to the reality of who they really were and what they really accomplished. If you care in the least about the ideals that JFK and RFK supposedly stood so, then this is the time to defend them. Those who defend the corporate power that Ted Kennedy represented are trying desperately to stifle debate and eliminate the criticism. We must not let them.
Obama is supposedly paying tribute to Ted Kennedy at his funeral. But his real tribute to the family that brought us Vietnam is his announcement that he is escalating another illegal, immoral imperial war. And it will end in the same way, if not worse.
So your down on Obama, so am I, but if Obama pays tribute to MLK according to your crap that makes him a war monger too.
Your argument makes no logical sense because it reasons also if Obama refused to respect the Kennedys, that would mean Obama was OK for you.
You start with your sophmoric "beg to differ" and then are offensive and show no common decency and your spin an JFK is Bull.
JFK started out as a cold warrior, but he learned first hand about the CIA's lies and how the MIC was leading the world to a nuke war with Russia. You need to read and learn. I recommend you read The Unspeakable. His efforts to end the cold war, was making progress and he was goin against the War Mongers and it got him killed.
And i believe that in 1968 RFK was sincere in his change of allegiance and his work with leaders of the Civil Rights movement and the poor peoples movement to create a truly inclusive USA instead of working strictly on behalf of the rulers...
i have not yet read the recent book on JFK.
Yes Webtalk... it is the best one so far with documents and letters not so much on who shot John, the coverup makes that a guess, but why he was killed.
Thank You.
Ditto.
The idea of invading Afghanistan was one of Bush's more brilliant ideas (that is sarcasm folks in case you can't guess). It was stupid to try and fight terrorism with a war to begin with and something only an incompetent moron would think of trying. Continuing on with that war that no one believes we can win is even more asinine. Haven't we wasted enough of our wealth on one of Bush's ignorant schemes???? How many young men and women are going to die before they get the same idea the Russian's got in the 80's. It's a complete waste of time, money and lives. It's going to bankrupt us the same way Afghanistan did the Russians. I will continue to keep the bumper sticker on my car 'Support the Troops Bring them Home'
And most importantly, it will stop the murder of a million Iraqis - and counting - whose only sin is that they were Muslims. It usually amazes me how killing of those others rarely, if ever, pricks our conscience when we talk about why we should stop these senseless wars crimes.
it's no waste of time to the military industrial complex, though..... big profits to be made.... the nasty-spirited philosophy evidently being, live it up now for tomorrow we all suffocate under the weight of this stupidity, so eat or be eaten, suckers..... i wish 'inform the troops we cannot bring them home because they ARE home....EARTH is our home....EVERYONE is a relative.... no exceptions' would fit on a bumper sticker, myself. anybody with white contact paper and sharpies, though, could probably furtively decorate neighborhood hummer bumpers with such, though, eh? careful, though--you could wind up with more severe punishment for such offense than the corporate thieves and war criminals holding our planet hostage ever could.
Stupid? Do you think after all the billions that he and his partners in the military & industries made in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush thinks the idea was stupid? That's generations of wealth and comfort for all families involved. Bush thinks that's pretty brilliant, you can drop the sarcasm.
I agree with honest Abe--We do NOT want our children to die for your schemes--get the f%$# out of other peoples land you murdering bitches. If we do not see a wind down immediately--we are going to wind up and bitch-slap you between your greedy contemptible eyes. You got that war mongers?
Please remove the first word from the title of this article. Us or we do not in anyway at any time want more troops in Afghanistan.
Obama, Rahm, the democrats and the MIC wants more war. Us, we the people, find you all disgusting and repugnant. Our government is quite morally bankrupt. Bail that out A..holes.
exactly what i thought when i read that first word also..... a pretty audacious assumption.... as if we had a democracy going on in this godforsaken place, for crying out loud.
Matangicta by "this godforsaken place" I assume you mean the USA.
I agree with Abe, if the headline was honest it would say the morally corrupt Military, Industrial,Congressional, complex wants 20.000 more troops for Afghanistan!