Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Quagmire, Phase 2: The Invasion of Pakistan
The United States has just invaded Cambodia. The name of Cambodia this time is Pakistan, but otherwise it's the same story as in Indochina in 1970.
An American army, deeply frustrated by its inability to defeat an anti-American insurgent movement despite years of struggle, decides that the key to victory lies in a neighboring country. In 1970, the problem was the Ho Chi Minh Trail in Cambodia. Today it is Taliban and al-Qaida bases inside Pakistan, which the United States has been attacking from the air for some time, with controversial "collateral damage."
George W. Bush has now authorized independent ground assaults on Taliban and al-Qaida targets in Pakistan's Tribal Territories, without consultation with Pakistan authorities. These already have begun.
This follows a period of tension, with some armed clashes, between American and Pakistani military units, the latter defending "Pakistan's national sovereignty." Pakistan public opinion seems largely against "America's war" being fought inside Pakistan.
Washington's decision was made known just in time for the seventh anniversary of the 9/11 attacks that opened the first phase of the "war on terror," after which "nothing could ever be the same." We no doubt have now begun phase two.
The eventual outcome of the American intervention in Cambodia in 1970 was Communist overthrow of the American-sponsored military government in that country, followed by genocide. The future consequences in (nuclear-armed) Pakistan await.
There is every reason to think they may include civil protest and disorder in the country, political crisis, a major rise in the strength of Pakistan's own Islamic fundamentalist movement and, conceivably, a small war between the United States and the Pakistan army, which is the central institution in the country, has a mind of its own and is not a negligible military force.
In Afghanistan, American and NATO forces have been complaining for many months that victory over the Taliban was impossible so long as there were secure Taliban bases in Pakistan's largely inaccessible Tribal Territories.
Pakistan's former president, Pervez Musharraf, was told by his American allies to clean the Taliban out of the Territories or the U.S. Army and NATO would do it for him. U.S. presidential candidate Barack Obama made the same threat. John McCain concurred. Musharraf had been looking for a negotiated arrangement with the tribesmen.
Pakistan's military intelligence services created the Taliban while they were collaborating with the CIA to form the mujahadeen that drove the Soviet Union out of Afghanistan. Many in the service still support the Taliban as a useful instrument against India, and to keep Afghanistan out of the hands of more dangerous enemies.
Musharraf was forced out of office. The U.S. brought in exiled former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto, expected to be cooperative. She was assassinated, presumably by Islamic extremists. Her widower has been elected to take her place and declares himself an enemy of terrorism. However, the United States has already taken the matter into its own hands.
In the Vietnamese case, the American military command held that it could win the war by invading Cambodia to cut the so-called Ho Chi Minh Trail, along which supplies and arms for the Viet Cong Communist insurrection were being transported. The argument made was that cutting this route would starve the Viet Cong of supplies.
Initially, the unhappy Prince Sihanouk of Cambodia, desperately trying to keep his country out of the Vietnam War, was persuaded to turn a blind eye to U.S. bombing of the trail. A military coup followed in 1970, installing an American puppet general. B-52 saturation bombing ensued, without the desired military effect, but killing many Cambodians.
The joint U.S. and South Vietnamese "incursion" to cut the trail came in April 1970; it simply pushed the supply operations deeper into Cambodia. Richard Nixon said he acted to prove that the United States was not "a second-rate power." "If, when the chips are down, the world's most powerful nation acts like a pitiful helpless giant, the forces of totalitarianism and anarchy will threaten free nations and free institutions throughout the world."
The native Cambodian Khmer Rouge subsequently defeated the American-backed military regime in Phnom Penh. Genocide followed, the "killing fields," on which the United States turned its back, condemning the triumphant Vietnamese Communist government when it later invaded Cambodia to stop the killing.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
89 Comments so far
Show AllI don't know about Mccain but Obama has already supported bombing Pakistan. Who's controlling Obama to say yes to bombing Pakistan?
Good. We've finally managed to get the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites to work together in Iraq (not!)so it must be time for the Pakistanis and Afghans to work together with a little help from their friend-- the US and push the majority Pushtuns (aka, the Taliban) out of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Trouble is we pushed the Pushtuns out in the first place, with our alliance with the warlords of the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan and they want back. And rather than include the Pushtuns in a board-base government coalition, we decided to fight them.
The Karzai government in Afghanistan is both too anti-Pushtun and too pro-Indian for the Pakistanis to abide by. (Remember, Hindus in India and Muslims in Pakistan have had difficult times). And all these sticky religious/nationalist conflicts come to bite the US in its behind in the "tribal areas." We think we're fighting terrorists, they think we're fighting their religion and nationality. But the Bush team pushes on, They, after all, create their own reality, so they claim. For America now, the clarion call is to forget this religious/nationalist background and just bomb the hell out them. Unfortunately, this will only create more animosity towards us and keep this region a hell-hole for many years to come. .
Dr Wu, the last of the big-time thinkers
And we can balance it all out by selling nukes to India! Great! After all, its about our only export anymore!
Nice article.
But even in the modern era, this is Quaqmire Phase 3 at least.
Phase 1 ... Afghanistan. Seven years after 9-11, we are still there. If we have a clear mission, I've never heard it. There is talk about 'winning', but I never hear what that means. No talk at all about getting out or how we might get out.
Phase 2 ... Iraq
So Pakistan is at least Phase 3. Apparently by a nose since the Bush admin seems to have blocked the Israelis from attacking Iran. That's no great victory since Obama has promised to help the Israelis attack Iran and uses the same rhetoric about a fictional nuclear weapon being something we can't tolerate. So, Pakistan appears to be Phase 3 by being maybe since months ahead of Phase 4 in Iran.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
I had a friend, a bush supporter all the way. When 9/11 happened, they told me at the time of the invasion of Iraq, that it was the beginning of the second crusade. That "winning" they talk about means when the last one of them is dead.
This region (is it called Baluchistan?) is not ruled by Pakistan. Why then, are we calling it Pakistan? It has been demonstrated that the Pakistani Military can not exert its ways in this region.
The rampant Lawlessness inside of Pakistan is amplified manifold here. It is the way of the country. Law can not be imposed on a certain section of the populace.
The whining coming out of Pakistan is simply to demonstrate that it still wields some power over its people. It does not.
It is a nation about to implode on its own.
Love
Zero
Hi Zero--You'll want to refer to this map paying attention to the shaded/diagonal lined region known informally as Pashtunistan, and also this map that tells you where the FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Area) and NWFP (Noth West Frontier Province) are. I suggest you bookmark them for future reference when reading about events there. The hosting site for these maps has many others that are very helpful for that and other world regions.
You are missing some important facts. The region under discussion is autononomous under the Pakistani constitution which explicitly says that the Pakistani army must remain outside its boundaries. The government of Pakistan, theatened with the anihilation of the country by the US was forced to violate the constitution and enter this area. It isn't Pakistan that is at fault, it is the work of the United States..........Your ignorance is blinding you.............Also, you are not being nice.................lizard
Maybe the generals will get tired of this nonsense and attack from the Beltway. Since our corrupt Congress will not impeach then perhaps a short coup is in order.
agent provocateur?
Worse clueless astrologer.
Or a long one. Most of the military (grunts, anyway) are on the citizens' side this time. Now, what to do about he mercenaries
Take away their paychecks.
The House of Representatives controls the nation's purse strings. So, the Dem majority could do this anytime they wanted.
Don't hold your breath waiting.
And for the record, Obama has already said that we won't stop the use of mercs.
If you want this to change, the Dems are not the answer.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
If the TRUTH about 11 Sept 2001 was ever known by the US military, there WOULD be a coup. It would probably last about 3-4 months before control was returned to the civilians. It would take that long to capture all the real criminals behind 911 here and in Israel. Then, hang them from street lights, and on the Mall in Washington DC. Problem solved.
You should be ashamed to speak in such a violent way. You are an example of the problem faced by people of good will, aggressivity and impulsivity. Get civilized..........lizard
You do not get to be a General unless you support the NWO. The TLC has been appointing our Generals for 30 years. There will be no military coup.
If anything, maybe there already has been a coup, perhaps not a military one, maybe in 1963, and we just don't know it, and this is the result.
Obama has promised to bomb Pakistan way back early in his campaign, nothing new about that. The liberal Obama fanatics have difficulty acknowledging the fact that Obama will lead the US down an even worse quagmire than Bush. Obama wants to go to war with a country that really does have WMDs - and that is way more stupid and idiotic than going to war only under the pretense of finding WMDs.
Unfortunately, most of Obama fanatics have their eyes closed - well, they'll open up soon enough, if he does become the leader of the war.
http://almusawwir.org/resistance/
"The United States has just invaded Cambodia. The name of Cambodia this time is Pakistan, but otherwise it's the same story as in Indochina in 1970."
With one huge difference. Pakistan has the bomb. You can bet they're busy building more.
Obama, the most liberal Senator according to Repugs, must rattle the saber to get the sheeple's votes though Repugs accuse him of being an appeaser for saying he would talk to our "enemies". But his bashers will be glad to know that thanks in part to them, McCain/Palin are ahead in the polls.
Start digging in.
The bomb makes all the difference. The attacks are just to ratchet up the chaos to justify going in and grabbing the muslim nukes.
"....grabbing the muslim nukes."
To clarify, you mean the US taking Pakistan's nukes? If that is what you meant, uh-uh, won't happen.
Pakistan is even more secretive (paranoid?) in its security surrounding their devices than the US. Pakistan's designs are modularized, and the modules stored in different secret locations throughout the country. The US doesn't not know the whereabouts of these modules, and if they did, at best the US could capture only a few components that would be quickly reconstructed....and then deployed.
Pakistan has long-known about US xenophobia for muslims (nearly 30 years), and have been preparing for it. They are much, much smarter and tougher than their Indian neighbors.
First off, I love the blatant lie that Obama will do something other than what he says. The big money that runs this country has put hundreds of millions of dollars into Obama's campaign. Its a joke to even think that he won't do their bidding.
In fact, after all the phony bull the Obama camp spread about him being assasinated, the one thing that would most likely get him killed would be if he double crossed the people who've just paid hundreds of millions to get him elected. People at that level who invest that level of money are not to be triffled with.
Plus of course, you know exactly what the first thing the Dems will do after the election. Start running the next election. They'll be fundraising for the midterms and Obama will start fundraising for re-election immediately. Do you really think he's going to shaft the people who've funded this campaign by not doing what he's said he'll do at the same time he's calling them up and asking them to fund the next campaign?
And, I love the way the Dems use exactly the same tactics as the Republicans. Remember back when the nation was turning against Bush and the White House derided everyone who criticised him as Bush-basher. Now the Dems do exactly the same thing.
There's never any facts in this junk. Just a blank assertion that we have to elect the pro-war, pro-corporate Obama over the pro-war, pro-corporate McCain. Why, they never say. Because of course, it makes very little difference.
The people who poured hundreds of millions into the Bush campaigns really run the country. This time, they clearly shifted to Obama (can you even picture a Republican running on public financing?). Ain't nothing going to change.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
First off, I love the blatant lie that Obama will do something other than what he says. The big money that runs this country has put hundreds of millions of dollars into Obama's campaign. Its a joke to even think that he won't do their bidding.
In fact, after all the phony bull the Obama camp spread about him being assasinated, the one thing that would most likely get him killed would be if he double crossed the people who've just paid hundreds of millions to get him elected. People at that level who invest that level of money are not to be triffled with.
Plus of course, you know exactly what the first thing the Dems will do after the election. Start running the next election. They'll be fundraising for the midterms and Obama will start fundraising for re-election immediately. Do you really think he's going to shaft the people who've funded this campaign by not doing what he's said he'll do at the same time he's calling them up and asking them to fund the next campaign?
And, I love the way the Dems use exactly the same tactics as the Republicans. Remember back when the nation was turning against Bush and the White House derided everyone who criticised him as Bush-basher. Now the Dems do exactly the same thing.
There's never any facts in this junk. Just a blank assertion that we have to elect the pro-war, pro-corporate Obama over the pro-war, pro-corporate McCain. Why, they never say. Because of course, it makes very little difference.
The people who poured hundreds of millions into the Bush campaigns really run the country. This time, they clearly shifted to Obama (can you even picture a Republican running on public financing?). Ain't nothing going to change.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Obama rose in the polls because he creating the (false) impression that he represented change.
But, now that the American people are starting to pay attention, he's failing to deliver on that hope. Obama has laid out absolutely nothing to the American people to say exactly what sort of change he'll bring. In fact, he's basically promising another four years of the same old same old.
Thus, Obama is now falling in the polls.
And like in 2000, the evil Dems will try to blame the left for their own political incompetence.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
War hero and soccer mom trumps uppity black muslimish and retread anytime..........................lizard
McCain and Palin represent America better than Obama and Biden. That is why they are ahead, not because of opposition to Obama. Sad as it may be, they represent the spirit of the American people and it would be logical if they win............lizard
Well it all worked out in the end, we just had the Miss universe Contest held in South, uh l mean North, uh l mean Vietnam and Miss Venesuela won with Miss Colombia first runnerup. Now if those two can get along, why can't we all just get along?
Phase 4: Georgia
Phase 5: South America
Phase 6: Iran
Phase 7: et al
Good thing the U.S. has a bottomless supply of soldiers and a similarly bottomless pit of riches with which to fund its adventures.
Could that be why the big money is behind Obama? Because they need a "liberal" to bring back the draft and supply endless soldiers for their dirty wars?
This is all political theater designed to elect John McCain and his six gun sidekick. As Obama swallows the bait and attempts to out gun McCain he appears ever more foolish and pliable. Obama just needs to begin a campaign of Fix America First. A divided internally weakened country cannot project a strong foreign policy. National Security is as much internal as it it external. The American People are suffering and the economy is in shytsville, yet John McCain and the Pit Bull Republicans want to continue down the road of American Bankruptcy by fighting more foreign wars. Obama is about Obama and not the American People or he would be pressing this argument forcefully. As of today I do not see Obama as a serious candidate.
Fix America First. I agree. And I do see Obama as serious candidate. That is, he has a 50% chance of being the next president. It would behoove all progressives to write to the Obama campaign and tell him in no uncertain terms what we think about his militaristic talk about Afghanistan and Pakistan. He is more pliable than McCain and he needs to be plied by the left.
That's funny, hamster. Obama is my senator. When he called for attacking Pakistan the first time, I called to complain. The local office I called told me that I had to call the campaign office!
So I did. They started blah, blah, blahing about protecting America. I told them that I was not willing for millions of other people to die so that I could be safe. She said she'd pass it on.
How'd that work out?
I hadn't heard that term before "six-gun sidekick" (as in Calamity Jane?)to refer to Ms Palin. Apt, very apt.
Fix America first indeed, a slogan Green bioregionalists and paelo-con isolationists can get behind. More oppostion against he corrupt globalist "centrist" centralist corporate center is always good IMO.
It is interesting to me that a lot of the comments here on CD attack Obama, as though he is the more dangerous of the candidates. It may be true that he is less of a peacemonger than many of us might wish, but there is no way in hell that he is anywhere near the Loose Cannon from Arizona when it comes to warmongering. Boom Boom McCain is still fighting the Vietnam War, and he wants to win it! And like most Americans, his sense of geography is pretty screwed up. Vietnam, Pakistan, Cambodia, Iraq, whats the difference?
If Boom Boom is elected, we will be in another war within 6 months, tops.
War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength.
By "less of a peacemonger," you appear to mean "less enthusiastic of a warmonger."
A trivial detail to some, but to crazies who don't like spreading death and destruction at all, it seems to matter.
I love this constant assertion from the Dems that Obama is better than McCain. It never comes with any supporting facts. Its always just made as a blind assertion that we are supposed to believe on faith.
Here's why.
- Iraq. At best, Obama, McCain and Bush all propose the same plan. All say they'll rely on the advice of the generals. All say they'll withdraw the troops. In fact, the plan Bush is negotiating with Maliki will bring the troops home by 2011, while Obama promises to keep troops in Iraq through at least his first term.
- Iran. Obama, McCain and Bush all use exactly the same rhetoric about making sure that Iran doesn't acquire their fictional nuclear weapon. All ignore both the CIA and the IAEA when they say their is no evidence of a nuclear weapon program. All say 'all options are on the table', which is language that has explicitly been used to threaten nuclear strikes on Iran. While in Israel, there were reports that Obama basically promised to attack Iran in his term if Bush didn't before he left.
- Afghanistan. Here, Obama seems to be a much larger warmonger than Bush or McCain. Bush and McCain seem happy to keep this a small scale war. Obama is saying he wants to escalate it. Basically, it sounds like any troops Obama pulls our of Iraq will go to Afghanistan.
- Pakistan. Obama, McCain and Bush are all on the same page here. Obama was making warmongering statements about attacking into Pakistan as early as late last year in the Dem debates. Bush is now executing that policy, and both Obama and McCain are avoiding any criticism.
- Georgia. Obama has adopted very similiar language to what Bush and McCain have been saying. Obama seems willing to accept and spread the lie that Russia started this war. Obama and the Democrats all seem very supportive of the idea that a billion dollars of our tax money should go to Georgia to rebuild their toy army.
- Military spending. Obama is promising massive expansions here. He's promising to expand the Army and the Marines. He's promising to spend on more training and new equipment. Add this to the above list of places where Obama plans to fight and expand wars, and this is very ominous.
So, now please explain to me exactly how Obama is better than McCain? Don't just say it as if it were some gospel that came down from the heavens. Explain precisely why this is given the policies that Obama supports.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
PS ... I forgot at least one. Obama and the Democrats fully support the expansion of NATO up to the edges of the old Soviet Union and now inside those old borders by including Georgia and the Ukraine. This is a direct provocation to the Russians.
Palin might be using strong language threatening war with Russia. But Obama and the Democrats fully support all of the policies that are creating the tensions that seem to be leading towards such a war.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
Good post, Samson.
They make the same assertions about Gore. "Can anybody doubt that if Gore was President, we wouldn't be in Iraq?"
Yeah, me. And ain't I a somebody? Gore was onboard with the starving sanctions and the intermittent bombing of Iraq throughout the 90s. I read that he pushed Clinton into bombing Iraq when Saddam supposedly tried to assassinate Bush 41.
The sainted Jimmy Carter laid it out in the 70s. The Middle East is part of our sphere, and would be defended if "our" oil was threatened.
Do I think that if Gore was President and Saddam was making oil deals with China and France, and looking to trade oil in euros instead of dollars, that he would have invaded?
Yes, I do.
I believe Mr. Pfaff is imprecise when he writes "Pakistan's military intelligence services created the Taliban while they were collaborating with the CIA to form the Mujahadeen that drove the Soviet forces out of Afghanistan." Close, but no cigar.
According to the painstakingly detailed chronology in Steven Coll's award winning book "Ghost Wars", the CIA began a lengthy working relationship with the Pakistani ISI to arm Islamic militants to attack Soviet forces in Afghanistan during the Carter administration. Billions of US dollars went into this not-so-secret clandestine anti-Soviet insurgency campaign during the Reagan years (the plot line of the Tom Hanks' movie, "Charlie Wilson's War"). These "Afghan freedom fighters" fought the Russians and the pro-Soviet (anticlerical) regime in Kabul alongside international jihadists that flocked there to wage religious war throughout the 1980's. Osama bin Laden was part of the foreign Arab jihadi contingent that eventually, through attrition and the advent of Stinger missle technology, forced the Soviet forces to finally withdraw.
The pro-Communist Kabul government survived awhile longer but eventually fell, and Afghanistan entered a prolonged period of civil war during the 1990's that pitted the Northern Alliance warlords against southern, Pashtun tribal warlords with the civilian population caught in the crossfire. Thousands of refugees fled south into camps in northern Pakistan. With the departure of the Soviets, the United States abruptly cut off the flow of arms and clandestine financial aid to all of the mujadaheen factions warring among themselves in Afghanistan and in the northern border provinces.
The Pakistani ISI created the Taliban out of that chaotic setting - long after the Soviet forces had been chased out.
The Taliban were popular with grassroots Afghans because their group advocated implementing Sharia religious law as a substitute for the never ending warlord factional feuds. Pakistan's agenda in supporting the rise of the Taliban was assurance that there would be a Pashtun province on Pakistan's northern border (rather than a regime aligned with the Northern Alliance tribes). The Taliban in turn would be beholden back to the Pakistani ISI for the spy agency's past and continued support.
Thus, it is accurate to say that once upon a time the CIA did run a black ops insurgency war in the Hindu Kush in league with Osama bin Laden, but the Taliban were never a CIA cooperating entity. Also, it is accurate to say that the Pakistani ISI was deeply angered by the cut off of CIA cash flow the moment the Russians departed, and the ISI later often used its leverage with the Taliban to stymie repeated Clinton administration efforts to take down Osama bin Laden and Al Quadea's base camps in Afghanistan and in the northwest border region.
Pfaff's analogy between the Cambodian incursion of 1970 and the Predator drone bombings and special ops forays in 2008 is apt, and most disturbing. Remember too that the Pakistani ISI was doing the bulk of the translating work for the CIA of the intercepted NSA "chatter" in the weeks immediately preceding the 911 attacks.
You add it up. Daniel Pearl died trying, and a lot of other folks have died since.
Bill from Saginaw
Bravo to Bill for recognizing what far too little out there acknowledge or even know about: the multi-faceted chaotic tribal nature of Afghanistan & the murky involvement of the ISI. I would add that the Taliban were popular with Pashtun Afghans only, as they were a Pashtun body whom practiced some of the more extreme examples of Pashtun chauvinism in Afghani history (like the massacre perpetrated by the Taliban immediately after their capture of Mazar-I-Sharif). The Taliban are bad news for Uzbeks, Tajiks, & Hazaras for ethnic and religious reasons. If the West wants to get serious about defeating the Taliban, they would be well advised to aid their mortal enemies as much as possible and let them do the dirty work. They actually have a better idea who the players are and have a lot more motivation to wipe them out. It will also remove the Taliban's main propaganda victory of "fighting the foreign invaders," as that is always a losing proposition in Afghanistan.
Hear! Hear!
Far too often, what we see and debate in the US is a cartoon like simplicity that hides the real complexities.
One key point is the Pashtun nature of the Taliban. Pakistan has long favored Pashtun governments in Afghanistan because that tribal group of people spans the border into Pakistan. The opposition in Afghanistan tends to be warlords with ties to Russia and Iran, and Pakistan views these groups taking power in Afghanistan as a threat to their security.
At least, that's what I gather from reading over the years. None of that is from personal experience.
----------------------------
"To know, and not to do, is not to know"
www.samsonsworld.blogspot.com
You are wishing continued civil war on people here, nate.
The US has a policy already of aiding dissatisfied ethnic minorities in places that it wishes to destabilize.
This is not a good thing for the people of the area.
Stop all arms shipments, military trainers and funding and let the people work it out.
Almost everyone wishes to live in peace, and most people do unless there is money in waging war.
May I point out that this in no business of the US or Americans?...Should the rest of the world get organized to prevent Americans from being who they are? The American mentality isn't pretty, and affects the world adversely in a way that Pakistani mentality does not. Yet I don't think the US should be attacked to prevent the religious right wing movement from taking over. Do you?........................lizard
Why no mention that Obama asserted the same strategy months ago? Dweedly Dee or Tweedle dum - makes no difference. The domino's are being lined up to carry Ameri[k]a deeper into war for the next thirty of forty years on behalf of the military industrial establishment that both candidates are owned by. That assumes nuclear is not part of a response. Otherwise, the end may be nearer then we think. Assuming that is still something any one does these days.
Top twenty reasons the US should further invade and occupy the entire “Middle East” (western Asia) –
The inhabitants of these lands are tired of their massive oil burden and would like to have it taken off their hands.
The Air Force needs fuel to drop its bombs to get its fuel.
Russian deterrence is a distant memory and tiny little China is but a mere speck on the map.
No one in their Right mind can imagine Baghdad without a US flag planted smack in the middle of it.
Or Tehran.
Or Islamabad, etc.
All sane people agree — World War III is to die for, as Big Business would make a royal killing.
This is by far the best use of the US National Guard. Helping people in times of flood, hurricane, and tornado — laudable as that may be – is but a distant tertiary concern.
Once again — Whose oil? Our oil.
As Dr. Pangloss says, “If you truly want the best of all possible worlds, you have to bomb for it.”
......
http://apragmaticpolicy.wordpress.com/2007/04/06/tropetopia-xiii-the-pangloss-score-ii-the-us-conquest-of-the-middle-east/
All sane people agree — World War III is to die for,
Actually I think this is WW IV...III was the Cold War (we won that one)
The fact that Russia can invade a sovereign nation and the US can't do anything about it is proof that American didn't win the cold war, in fact it didn't win anything, except a huge debt. China today own us.
I am not sure why folks say things like Osama Bin Laden was involved in 911. I expect to see this in mainstream media, but not on a site like this. If you wonder what I mean by making this statement, please visit the FBI website at http://www.fbi.gov and search on Bin Laden.
More curious to me is how a government agency like the FBI can for over 6 years now post something like this on their site, and we still here how this "boogy man" is causing all this ruckus.
Lastly, I agree with the points on the article where it is not making statements based upon mainstream media lies. I think Russia is more to worry about than Pakistan however.
I am not sure why folks say things like Osama Bin Laden was involved in 911
Um...maybe its because they (al queda) came out and took credit for it?