John Randolph Hardison Cain's Journal

Backlog 2009/10/26 - 2009/12/03

2009-12-04T06:00:00.000-08:00

Posted: Oct 28 2009, 08:00 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

This is an email I sent to Rep. John Barrow on 2009-08-27

QUOTE

United States has the right and the responsibility to pursue those DIRECTLY responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but United States does NOT have the right to occupy Afghanistan and wage war there for 8 years. That is the primary reason U.S. policy has failed in Afghanistan. We are told that the U.S. military and the U.S. foreign policy establishment got it wrong for 8 years, but now has it right. Why should we believe that is the case? A counterinsurgency campaign could take another decade to succeed, and the Chairman of the JCS says we are only at the beginning. Congressman Barrow, we have sunk nearly $1 trillion in up front costs in the war in Iraq and pursued a counterinsurgency campaign there since Jan 2007. We are told that the surge succeeded, but I don't believe it. United States military cannot draw down its forces in a major way and expect the fragile status quo to hold in Iraq. So why escalate and already untenable situation in Afghanistan? I understand you do not make foreign policy, but you do sign off on it when you approve funds to continue the wars in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and now in Pakistan. Recent violence in each of these countries should make clear to you the counterproductive nature of our misguided "War on Terror." I don't really expect you to change your position of going along with the establishment, but consider how wrong Dick Cheney has been over the years. My Congressmen have NEVER represented my interests. Roy Rowland voted to fund the Contras when I and others begged him not to. Dick Cheney backed the Contra war. All the establishment think tanks are backing some sort of escalation in Afghanistan. These same "experts" backed the unnecessary U.S. war in Iraq. We begged Bush not to invade Iraq. He did anyway. Every time a vote to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan comes up, my Congressmen (which has been you for the past 3 terms) continue to vote funding for these failed wars. 45,000 more U.S. troops and another decade of fighting will not turn the tide in Afghanistan, but it will further destabilize Pakistan and risks a regional war. At some point Democrat Representatives including blue-dog Democrats will have to break with the war machine mentality. The negative consequences of a U.S. defeat in Afghanistan will be worse ten years from now. False pride and a fear of humiliation are driving us further into a quagmire. There may be some negative consequences of withdrawing from Afghanistan, but there certainly will be many more negative consequences after another 10 years of more of a failed counterinsurgency war which we cannot afford. Escalating the U.S. war in Afghanistan will lead to a failed U.S. foreign policy and a weakened United States - politically, economically, and militarily. At some point our representatives have to realize there is no light at the end of the tunnel despite what the military, the think-tank academicians, and the political establishment tell us.

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

Only after the last tree has been cut down,
Only after the last river has been poisoned,
Only after the last fish has been caught,
Only then, will you realize that money cannot be
eaten!!!
(Cree Indian Prophecy)

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Oct 31 2009, 06:33 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

Rants and raves [The Augusta Chronicle] Saturday, October 31, 2009

QUOTE

If a U.S. President has the authority to order U.S. troops to invade a country, a U.S. President also has the authority to order U.S. troops to withdraw from an occupied country. President Obama, order the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan! Whether or not you escalate this war, the U.S./NATO mission is headed from an inglorious end. Ending this fiasco now will save American lives and prevent a regional war. If you escalate this war, President Obama, you will be ordering American troops to march deeper into a quagmire. You will earn the enmity of the world and condemnation by history. If you order a withdrawal and end this failed war, you will earn our undying respect and support, Mr. President. History is on the side of peacemakers not on the side of war escalators.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:28 AM

QUOTE

mable8, the only obstacles to a withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan are false American pride & fear of humiliation. We are not "defending our country" by occupying Afghanistan. The U.S. war in Afghanistan, now in its 9th year, is counterproductive precisely because Afghans don't think Americans intend to leave. They see us as occupiers rather than liberators. We are told there are only 100 Al Qaeda in Afghanistan & the Taliban number 25,000. Despite the disinformation being catapulted by pro-war think-tank academics like Peter Bergen who want to escalate U.S. troop levels (Bergen falsely claims that the Taliban do not control any provinces & do not threaten the central government of Afghanistan) the truth is that the Taliban now control 80% of Afghanistan, are knocking on the door of Kabul & can strike inside Kabul almost at will. That is because the Taliban is a broad alliance of resistance fighters who are allied against the US/NATO occupation. 100,000 US/NATO + 2000,000 Afghan govt' troops cannot suppress 25,000 Taliban? That is a 12 to 1 ratio! Doubling U.S. troops will double U.S. casualties & will not result in a U.S. military victory in Afghanistan. Get real, mabel8 !

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sun Nov 1, 2009 5:30 AM

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Nov 1 2009, 06:03 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

Rants and raves [The Augusta Chroncile] Sunday 01 November 2009

QUOTE

Today's Rick McKee cartoon is emblematic of right-wing reactionary media in Augusta including The Chronicle's editorial staff & local radio talk show host Austin Rhodes. They are all daily exercises in stupidity. The radical right is trying to force President Obama to escalate the US war in Afghanistan now in its 9th year. Nobody protested when former President George W. Bush ordered US troops to invade Afghanistan in pursuit of Al Qaeda leaders, to destroy AQ training camps & overthrow the Taliban gov't en route to accomplishing the former because the Taliban provided sanctuary for AQ leaders & hosted the AQ training camps. Former President Bush did not finish the job in Afghanistan before he switched his sights to Saddam Hussein. Bush wasn't interested in nation building or in spending the money necessary to stabilize Afghanistan. The lives of ordinary Afghans have not improved during 8 years of US occupation or under the corrupt gov't of Hamid Karzai. Afghans hate the Karzai gov't even more than they hated the Taliban. Ask Malalai Joya. The war on terror has been counterproductive. Look at how Pakistan college students & respected journalists protested Hillary Clinton's visit

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sun Nov 1, 2009 5:56 AM

QUOTE

jack, I was in college from 1966 to 1970 on a college deferment as were hundreds of thousands of other American "draft dodgers" as you call us. My lottery draft number was 277. There are lots of Chicken Hawks including Dick Cheney who never wore a military uniform. The Vietnam War was unnecessary & a mistake. That is the consensus of historians. You refuse to accept the fact that United States lost the war in Vietnam due to political & military factors. Do you remember the inflation that followed in the wake of the massive deficit spending for the Vietnam war? United States has now been at war in Afghanistan longer than any other war in our history except for the American Revolution. Every penny for the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan & the bogus War on Terror is borrowed. Regardless of whether or not President Obama caves into the American War Establishment, United States will be forced to leave Afghanistan because of a combination of political, economic & military factors. Obama made a huge mistake by labeling Afghanistan "a war of necessity" during the presidential campaign. It is a war of choice & a political war which will be ended through negotiations with no U.S. military victory.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sun Nov 1, 2009 6:44 PM

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

IP: ----------

synergy	Posted: Nov 1 2009, 09:37 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 36,920 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	Dear President Obama: Millions of people around the world and hundreds of thousands here in America marched before former President George W. Bush ordered the U.S. military to invade Iraq in 2003. We begged him not to make a tragic mistake. Many of us foresaw the thousands of American soldiers who have since been killed, the tens of thousands of American soldiers with physical wounds, and the hundreds of thousands of traumatized Iraq war veterans. United States has the right and the responsibility to pursue those DIRECTLY responsible for the 9/11 attacks, but United States does NOT have the right to occupy Afghanistan and wage war there for 8 years. That is the primary reason U.S. policy has failed in Afghanistan. If a U.S. President has the authority to order U.S. troops to invade a country, a U.S. President also has the authority to order U.S. troops to withdraw from an occupied country. President Obama, order the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Afghanistan! Whether or not you escalate this war, the U.S./NATO mission is headed for an inglorious end. Ending this fiasco now will save American lives and prevent a regional war. If you escalate this war, President Obama, you will be ordering American troops to march deeper into a quagmire. You will earn the enmity of the world and condemnation by history. If you order a withdrawal and end this failed war, you will earn our undying respect and support, Mr. President. History is on the side of peacemakers not on the side of war escalators. Please do not listen to the conventional wisdom of the American establishment. They were wrong about Iraq. They have been wrong about Afghanistan for 8 years, and they still are wrong. Please do not let false American pride and fear of humiliation drive this country further into the quagmire of Afghanistan. The war on terror is misguided and counterproductive. You see the backlash against it by the occupied Afghans and by Pakistani college students and respected journalists who fear a wider war as a result of an arrogant American policy. Sincerely, John Randolph Hardison Cain -------------------- Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then, will you realize that money cannot be eaten!!! (Cree Indian Prophecy)
IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Nov 2 2009, 06:47 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

Now it's his responsibility [Augusta Chronicle editorial] Monday, November 02, 2009

QUOTE

If President Obama makes the fateful decision to escalate the U.S. war in Afghanistan even by as few as 10,000 or 15,000 more American troops without a clear plan to end the war and exit Afghanistan nothing else he does during his term in office will matter. Health care reform can wait. Economic reform can wait. The most pressing problem facing President Obama, Americans, and everyone on Earth (2nd only to the necessity for humanity to end war before it ends us) is global climate change. The negative effects on earth's ability to sustain its present population of humans exceeds the number of people killed in all of the world's regional wars. President Obama cannot dither in ending our rapidly expanding wars of choice or in throwing the full weight of American innovation behind solving the pressing problem of man-made global climate change.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Mon Nov 2, 2009 6:14 AM

QUOTE

WhippingPost, quit consuming predigested pap from non reality-based, right-wing sources like Rush Limbaugh. The reality of man-made climate change is accepted fact in the scientific community. Global warming did not "stop in '98". See "Statisticians reject global cooling" http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33482750/ns/us_news-environment Reality, WhippingPost, check into it!

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Mon Nov 2, 2009 6:54 AM

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Nov 6 2009, 07:04 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

12 die in dual shootings at Fort Hood, Texas

QUOTE

Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 7:55 pm

Major Hasan's killing 13 unarmed soldiers and wounding 30 others was a senseless and unjustified act of violence. The U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are also senseless and unjustified acts of violence. One does not justify the other(s). Neither God nor humankind is served by senseless acts of violence. It is incumbent on United States as the most powerful military, political, and economic force in the world to seek peace instead of waging senseless wars. The bottom line is that if United States continues to wage war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan it will not end well for United States no matter what course of action the United States military is ordered to take. The U.S. wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan will not succeed from a moral perspective or from a pragmatic (military) standpoint. The further United States proceeds down the road of war, the more intractable the situation becomes and the worse the ultimate consequences (end results) of these immoral, senseless wars become. I am profoundly saddened by the loss of human life and immensely troubled by the implications of the killings (murders) at Ft. Hood, but I am not surprised.

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

Surprise attack: Deadly shootings at Fort Hood offer grim reminder of war in our own back yard [Augusta Chronicle editorial] Saturday, November 07, 2009

QUOTE

"Hasan lives in the most religiously tolerant country on Earth." This is the faith-based opinion of The Augusta Chronicle editorial staff (ACES) which goes on further to falsely suppose that Maj. Nidal Hasan was harassed not because of his religion but because he was an outspoken opponent within the U.S. military community of US was in Iraq & Afghanistan. That sort of dissent simply is not tolerated by the gung-ho group mentality of military killer bees. I am appalled by the religious hatred I heard on right-wing "Christian" stations today towards Islam & towards President Obama. ACES parrots the faux Christianity & false patriotism of both the religious right & secular war hawk media. 3, 2, 1...attack Obama over the Fort Hood shooting. Yeah, that's the ticket for the disgruntled Republican rabble! Exactly what America does not need is more Islamophobia or witch hunt to purge Muslims from the military. ACES does not offer salve or solutions. This tragic incident may be the most inflammatory situation since 9/11. ACES should call for the US military to examine its long standing policy of reassigning poorly performing individuals to combat zones. The military bureaucracy bears blame.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sat Nov 7, 2009 2:30 AM

QUOTE

The Augusta Chronicle editorial staff claims United States is "the most religiously tolerant country on Earth." The overwhelming majority of Reader Comments to this editorial belie that claim. Today a AP headline reads "After [Hispanic] immigrant killed in NY, others tell of abuse". The economic downturn brought mass xenophobic wrath down on anyone suspected of being an illegal immigrant. That will be dismissed as ethnic intolerance by self-righteous reactionaries, but violence within America does not stop there. After 9/11 there were attacks on people who "looked Arabic". An Indian Sheik was killed because ignorant, intolerant, violent American reactionaries thought he looked like a terrorist. Arab Americans have been persecuted in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. United States is not "the most religiously tolerant country on Earth." Christianity teaches that a true believer should worry about the beam in their own eye before they worry about the speck in another's eye. Where are the moderate Christian leaders calling for tolerance & for Americans not to rush to judgment about what happened at Ft. Hood? The religious right & ACES use this incident for political leverage, hate & war.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sat Nov 7, 2009 9:33 AM

QUOTE

howcanweknow, the perpetrator of the horrible mass murder at Ft. Hood has been apprehended. Faithful Christians and intelligent Americans of good will should not generalize about the killing or call for the persecution of members of the Muslim faith. To do so and to become filled with hatred and desire for revenge contradict the tenets of Christianity. It also is not a smart reaction to what happened at Ft. Hood. America overreacted in the wake of 9/11. It led to unnecessary wars, to the illegal & ineffective use of torture, and eventually to the loss of the world's sympathy and support. We weaken our democracy and our faith when he become like the terrorists, like the criminals, like the religious fanatics and/or like the criminally insane.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sat Nov 7, 2009 9:51 AM

QUOTE

Enjoy your hate fest, CHSDARKHORSE. Too bad it will get you nowhere in America's best interest. Hatred, overreaction, and targeting of Muslims is counterproductive. The attacks on 9/11/01 and the 8 year aftermath of mistakes should have taught you the benefit of mounting rational, effective responses to terrorist attacks.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sat Nov 7, 2009 10:00 AM

QUOTE

Major Hasan's killing 13 unarmed soldiers and wounding 30 others was a senseless & unjustified act of violence. The U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are also senseless and unjustified acts of violence. One does not justify the other(s). Neither God nor humankind is served by senseless acts of violence. It is incumbent on United States as the most powerful military, political, and economic force in the world to seek peace instead of waging senseless wars. The bottom line is that if United States continues to wage war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan it will not end well for United States no matter what course of action the United States military is ordered to take. The U.S. wars in Iraq and in Afghanistan will not succeed from a moral perspective or from a pragmatic (military) standpoint. The further United States proceeds down the road of war, the more intractable the situation becomes, and the worse the ultimate consequences (end results) of these immoral, senseless wars become. I am profoundly saddened by the loss of human life and immensely troubled by the implications of the killings (murders) at Ft. Hood, but I am not surprised. Violence begets violence. Wage peace not war.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sat Nov 7, 2009 10:55 AM

QUOTE

What happened at Ft. Hood is a case of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan coming home. Dahr Jamail writes in the Inter Press Service: "Fort Hood soldiers have accounted for more suicides than any other Army post since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. In this year alone, the base is averaging over 10 suicides each month - at least 75 have been recorded through July of this year alone. In a strikingly similar incident on May 11, 2009, a U.S. soldier gunned down five fellow soldiers at a stress-counseling center at a U.S. base in Baghdad."

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sat Nov 7, 2009 11:09 AM

QUOTE

Before former President Bush ordered the US invasion of Iraq in March 2003 millions of people around the world & hundreds of thousands here in America marched & begged Bush not to invade Iraq. "I get to decide that... you don't" sneered Bush. I wrote a letter to the editor immediately before the US invaded Iraq stating that the job was not finished in Afghanistan. In 2002 Donald Rumsfeld called the U.S. war in Afghanistan "an amazing success". In July 2003 shortly after the US invaded Iraq I began a thread on The Augusta Chronicle bulletin board titled "Get Ready for Traumatized War Veterans". I remembered the returning traumatized Vietnam War veterans. So I am no Johnny-come-lately in expressing my concern for the victims of war. Where is YOUR concern KSL for the 10 service personnel from Ft. Hood who commit suicide every month? Here is the bottom line: It does not matter what the Commander in Chief orders the US military to do in Afghanistan & Iraq. These wars will be lost. Barack Obama, John Kerry, John McCain, Lindsey Graham & every other member of the American Establishment who advocates pursuing the US war in Afghanistan in any form whatsoever are on the wrong side of history

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sat Nov 7, 2009 11:52 AM

QUOTE

"The Fort Carson Murder Spree" by L. CHRISTOPHER SMITH [Rolling Stone] Posted Nov 06, 2009 9:58 AM - Soldiers returning from Iraq have been charged in at least 11 murders at America's third-largest Army base. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story..._murder_spree/2

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sat Nov 7, 2009 5:19 PM

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Nov 12 2009, 05:25 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

If anyone's ill, it's apologists [Augusta Chronicle editorial] Thu 11 Nov 2009

QUOTE

This distorted, hate-filled editorial is another effort by The Augusta Chronicle editorial staff (ACES) to stir up hatred & war fever. The editorial criticizes the Army for doing nothing about Maj. Nidal Hasan's descent into psychosis. The Army was aware as early as 2007 that this individual was increasingly unstable but did nothing. ACES blames the US Army for doing nothing while castigating anyone who criticizes the US military for their conduct of the wars in Iraq & Afghanistan. It takes a mental contortionist to believe that the US military which got it wrong in Afghanistan for 8 years now has it right. That is simply unbelievable. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen, says after 8 years of failed war in Afghanistan "we are now at the beginning" of a long counterinsurgency war. Anybody who believes that sending another 30,000 American troops into this hell hole will fix the problem in Afghanistan, including the unreliable, corrupt government of Hamid Karzai, is not in touch with reality. Today the U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, retired Gen. Karl Eikenberry, warns against a troop surge in Afghanistan. ACES foments lies, religious hatred, xenophobia & war.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Thu Nov 12, 2009 5:16 AM

QUOTE

U.S. drone attacks in Pakistan is terrorism. They destabilize Pakistan and all of South Asia. United States attacked Iraq without just provocation and under known false pretense. United States has no right whatsoever to occupy Afghanistan and wage war their for 8 years. Do U.S. Special Forces kill unarmed Taliban in Afghanistan when they catch them by surprise? Violence begets violence. The American Crusade in the Middle East and South Asia will not end well for United States. We are only at the beginning of a long war of our own making. Demography, geography, resources, and historical imperatives are not on United States' side.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Thu Nov 12, 2009 4:39 PM

QUOTE

augusta citizen, United States has the right & responsibility to defend itself. No superpower has the right to wage wars for hegemony in any part of the world. United States military involvement in the Middle East did not begin after 9/11. It goes back at last to the 1930s in the search for cheap oil in places like Saudi Arabia. United States support for the corrupt royal family in Saudi Arabia is one of the major grievances that Osama bin Laden has against America. The CIA as well as British MI 5 were involved in the overthrow of a democratically elected government in Iran in 1953 when the Iranian President Mohammad Mosaddeq was overthrown because he was about to nationalize Iranian oil. We installed the Shah of Iran. That led to the Iranian revolution of 1979 that Americans well remember. Two brothers, Jon & Chris Boggiano, who are West Point graduates and fought in The Battle of Fallujah in 2004, came to understand that the U.S. war in Iraq is about oil. Access to & control over energy supplies is also behind the U.S. war in Afghanistan where western interests want a pipeline to traverse that country. U.S. hegemony won't happen because self-determination is a fundamental right.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Fri Nov 13, 2009 5:31 AM

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Nov 14 2009, 06:45 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

Manmade climate change is real

QUOTE

QUOTE ("webmasterd")

QUOTE ("JohnRandolphHardisonCain")

Climate change controversies: a simple guide [The Royal Society] April 2007

What a cool site, Climate Change for Dummies. I ask again how will paying a carbon tax to the U.N. change global warming?

JohnRandolphHardisonCain replies:

webmasterd, you are in the same category of scientifically ignorant posters like Lee Benedict and Flipa who are unwilling to learn or admit facts. You are interested in the political consequences of global warming not the scientific evidence. I don't have to answer your question because it is politically charged and not relevant whether or not man-made global climate change is real - which it is - but I will answer your question although Spiderz_web already has.

Since man-made climate change is real, humans must do everything we can to mitigate the effects - many of which are already irreversible. The measures that humans must take are: conservation, develop carbon neutral energy sources, and adapt to the irreversible effects.

United States should lead in the effort to cap carbon emissions because we are the world's number one carbon emitter -soon to be number two after China with 1.3 billion people if we are not already. United States still leads the world in per capita carbon emissions. That means we are inefficient and wasteful in our use of fossil fuels.

China is beginning to eat our lunch in alternative (carbon neutral) energy production including wind and solar. They are or are about to be the world's leaders in both these areas.

It is in America's economic interest to be innovators and adapters of zero emissions technologies. Otherwise we get left behind by economic giants China, Europe, and even India. Our mass transit system, including rail, lags far behind Europe. Money spent on energy efficient infrastructure helps us conserve energy by becoming more efficient and it helps us compete economically. United States is currently set to spend upwards of $300 billion fighting a decade long counterinsurgency / counterterrorism war in Afghanistan. That money would be put to better use upgrading our infrastructure, and it would create jobs as well.

We need more energy efficient appliances, cars, and buildings (homes and businesses). "Go green" means making money as well as mitigating the worst effect of man-made global climate change. This is an opportunity that United States cannot afford to miss.

That is your answer, webmasterd. United States cannot afford to be left behind by China and Europe unless you desire this country to continue its decline into third world status. Remember that the Soviet Union was a military giant and an economic basket case. We shouldn't let the same fate happen to United States.

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Nov 18 2009, 06:12 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

News about Pakistan

QUOTE

The war on terror not only brings political instability to Pakistan, it also brings economic hardship. United States can't throw entire regions of the world into war and chaos ("fighting them over there") without economic and political collapse coming home to roost here at home.

Foreign Direct Investment in Pakistan Fell 53.2% in Four Months

QUOTE

By Farhan Sharif

Nov. 18 (Bloomberg) -- Overseas direct investment into Pakistan dropped 53.2 percent in the first four months of the fiscal year that started July 1, the central bank said.

Investment in July-October period fell to $621.8 million from $1.33 billion a year ago, according to an e-mailed statement from the Karachi-based State Bank of Pakistan. Global funds bought $288.4 million more Pakistani stocks than they sold in the four months, compared with net sales of $173.9 million a year earlier, the central bank said.

Pakistan needs overseas investment to bolster an economy that expanded two percent in the year ended June 30, compared with 5.8 percent in the previous 12 months. The government forecasts gross domestic product will grow 3.3 percent this fiscal year.

Foreign direct investment fell to $3.72 billion last fiscal year, from $5.4 billion in the previous 12 months.

To contact the reporter on this story: Farhan Sharif in Karachi at fsharif2@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: November 18, 2009 03:34 EST

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Nov 18 2009, 06:25 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

Quote of the day

QUOTE

United States can't throw entire regions of the world into war and economic chaos ("fighting them over there") without economic and political collapse coming home to roost here in the American homeland.

- John Randolph Hardison Cain

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Nov 18 2009, 07:28 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

Iraq was central front in the War OF Terror by United States and Britain.

Bush knew. Cheney knew. Rumsfeld knew. Tony Blair knew. Jack Straw knew.

QUOTE

Iraqi prisoners held by British troops in Basra in 2003. Inmates at the high-security Shaibah base say they suffered unlawful physical and mental abuse
British ‘used Guantánamo interrogation methods’

Former prisoners held at base near Basra say captors used sensory deprivation techniques which are banned

Iraqis say British Army used Guantánamo interrogation methods

QUOTE

From The Times of London
November 18, 2009

David Brown

Dozens of prisoners held at a secret British army interrogation centre in Iraq claim they suffered unlawful physical and mental abuse similar to that carried out by the US on detainees at Guantánamo Bay.

Inmates at the high-security compound within the Shaibah base say they were held in solitary confinement and forced to wear dark goggles and earmuffs when taken from their cells for questioning.

The Ministry of Defence came under pressure yesterday to order an inquiry into allegations that soldiers used the banned “five techniques” of interrogation on civilian detainees.

It is investigating allegations from more than 30 former prisoners that they were also prevented from sleeping during days of intense questioning; were forced to adopt painful stress positions; and were refused food and water. Hundreds of prisoners were held at the Divisional Temporary Detention Facility compound run by the Joint Forward Interrogation Team at the Shaibah base, 13 miles from Basra in southern Iraq. After being interrogated while in solitary confinement, many were moved to the “general population” where they were often held for many months.

Lawyers acting for former detainees, who were all released without charge, say that similarities in their accounts show that the mistreatment must have been authorised by senior officers.

Abbas Mowannis Abdul Ali, 34, was arrested in January 2006 when 50 British soldiers forced their way into his house. He says he was forced to wear goggles and earmuffs and was repeatedly forced to adopt stress positions and run in zig-zags to disorientate him until he collapsed.

During eight days in solitary confinement in a tiny cell, he claims guards prevented him from sleeping by kicking his door and loudly playing pornographic films. He also says he received little water or food.

Sami Hatem Jassim was arrested in May 2007 and held in solitary confinement at Shaibah for 38 days. He claims that each time he was seen sleeping or trying to sleep he would be handcuffed, made to wear dark goggles and forcibly walked around for a mile.

Ramzi Sagar Hasssan, 34, a car mechanic, was arrested during a raid on a friend’s house in April 2007. He was held in solitary confinement for 21 days in a cell in which a light bulb was always on.

He said during the first ten days he was interrogated five times a day, and was forced to stay awake during this time. “During the intervals between the interrogation, the soldiers would not let me sleep,” he said in a witness statement. “The moment that I fell asleep they would send me for interrogation. The light in my isolation cell was always on. The soldiers stopped me from covering my face. If I did not uncover my face, the soldier would open the door and take me for punishment.”

Hussain Hasim Khinyab, 35, a carpenter, was arrested in April 2006 and said he was kept in solitary confinement at Shaibah for ten days. He claims he was interrogated on many occasions, each time he was earmuffed, blindfolded and handcuffed before being dragged in a zig-zag fashion by three soldiers.

Sam Jacobs, of Public Interest Lawyers, which is representing the former prisoners, said the similarity of their accounts of detention at Shaibah was compelling evidence suggesting systematic mistreatment. He said the detainees only felt safe coming forward now after the withdrawal of British Forces from Iraq.

“We know [the British Forces] were under pressure from the United States to obtain more information from detainees. The techniques seen at Shaibah are similar to those used by the US in Guantánamo Bay,” he said.

“These techniques must have been approved at the highest level, because they were used so widely over a lengthy period. The only way get to the bottom of what happened — to prevent it happening again — is for an open inquiry.”

Bill Rammell, the Armed Forces Minister, said that all claims would be investigated but that allegations did not mean fact. He said the claims did not warrant a new public inquiry and there was no credible evidence that endemic abuse was a coherent part of the way the military operated.

A Ministry of Defence spokeswoman said: “The ‘five techniques’ are banned as an aid to interrogation and this is now clearly explained to all our personnel during training and before deployment on operations.

“If individuals are found to have abused or mistreated Iraqi civilians they will face severe consequences.”

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Nov 18 2009, 08:39 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

QUOTE ("Barry Paschal")

Wow. I'm not sure this forum is large enough to contain the hubris it takes to list your own words as the "quote of the day."

:shock:

JohnRandolphHardisonCain replies:

Why don't you confirm or refute the quote instead of making your little suckie, snide remarks, Barry? Here's another truth for you to ponder, and yes, the quote is mine and mine along. Now you have two quotes de jour.

Iraq was the central front in the War Of Terror waged by United States and Britain.

Bush knew. Cheney knew. Rumsfeld knew. Tony Blair knew. Jack Straw knew.

Iraqis say British Army used Guantánamo interrogation methods

QUOTE

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Nov 18 2009, 08:42 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

QUOTE ("Barry Paschal")

Wow. I'm not sure this forum is large enough to contain the hubris it takes to list your own words as the "quote of the day."

:shock:

QUOTE

Iraq was the central front in the War Of Terror waged by United States and Britain.

Bush knew torture was used. Cheney knew. Rumsfeld knew. Tony Blair knew. Jack Straw knew.

Iraqis say British Army used Guantánamo interrogation methods

QUOTE

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Nov 18 2009, 07:30 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

Bush knew about these crimes of torture. Cheney knew. Rumsfeld knew. Don't expect United States to flourish when its government participates in crimes of torture and does not hold those responsible accountable.

EXCLUSIVE: CIA Secret 'Torture' Prison Found at Fancy Horseback Riding Academy

QUOTE

ABC News

ABC News Finds the Location of a "Black Site" for Alleged Terrorists in Lithuania

By BRIAN ROSS and MATTHEW COLE

Nov. 18, 2009 —

The CIA built one of its secret European prisons inside an exclusive riding academy outside Vilnius, Lithuania, a current Lithuanian government official and a former U.S. intelligence official told ABC News this week.

Where affluent Lithuanians once rode show horses and sipped coffee at a café, the CIA installed a concrete structure where it could use harsh tactics to interrogate up to eight suspected al-Qaeda terrorists at a time. A full report on the can be seen on ABC's World News with Charles Gibson tonight.

"The activities in that prison were illegal," said human rights researcher John Sifton. "They included various forms of torture, including sleep deprivation, forced standing, painful stress positions."

Lithuanian officials provided ABC News with the documents of what they called a CIA front company, Elite, LLC, which purchased the property and built the "black site" in 2004.

Lithuania agreed to allow the CIA prison after President George W. Bush visited the country in 2002 and pledged support for Lithuania's efforts to join NATO.

"The new members of NATO were so grateful for the U.S. role in getting them into that organization that they would do anything the U.S. asked for during that period," said former White House counterterrorism czar Richard Clarke, now an ABC News consultant. "They were eager to please and eager to be cooperative on security and on intelligence matters."

Lithuanian president Dalia Grybauskaite declined ABC's request for an interview.

ABC News first reported that Lithuania was one of three eastern European countries, along with Poland and Romania, where the CIA secretly interrogated suspected high-value al-Qaeda terrorists, but until now the precise site had not been confirmed. Read that report here.

Until March 2004, the site was a riding academy and café owned by a local family. The facility is in the town of Antivilai, in the forest 20 kilometers northeast of the city center of Vilnius, near an exclusive suburb where many government officials live.
A "Building Within A Building"

In March 2004, the family sold the property to Elite, LLC, a now-defunct company registered in Delaware and Panama and Washington, D.C. That same month, Lithuania marked its formal admission to NATO.

The CIA constructed the prison over the next several months, apparently flying in prefabricated elements from outside Lithuania. The prison opened in Sept. 2004.

According to sources that saw the facility, the riding academy originally consisted of an indoor riding area with a red metallic roof, a stable and a cafe. The CIA built a thick concrete wall inside the riding area. Behind the wall, it built what one Lithuanian source called a "building within a building."

On a series of thick concrete pads, it installed what a source called "prefabricated pods" to house prisoners, each separated from the other by five or six feet. Each pod included a shower, a bed and a toilet. Separate cells were constructed for interrogations. The CIA converted much of the rest of the building into garage space.

Intelligence officers working at the prison were housed next door in the converted stable, raising the roof to add space. Electrical power for both structures was provided by a 2003 Caterpillar autonomous generator. All the electrical outlets in the renovated structure were 110 volts, meaning they were designed for American appliances. European outlets and appliances typically use 220 volts.

The prison pods inside the barn were not visible to locals. They describe seeing large amounts of earth being excavated during the summer of 2004. Locals who saw the activity at the prison and approached to ask for work were turned away by English-speaking guards. The guards were replaced by new guards every 90 days.

Former CIA officials directly involved or briefed on the highly classified secret prison program tell ABC News that as many as eight suspects were held for more than a year in the Vilnius prison. Flight logs viewed by ABC News confirm that CIA planes made repeated flights into Lithuania during that period. In November 2005, after public disclosures about the program, the prison was closed, as was another "black site" in Romania.
Lithuanian Prison One of Many Around Europe, Officials Said

The CIA moved the so-called High Value Detainees (HVD) out of Europe to "war zone" facilities, according to one of the former CIA officials, meaning they were moved to the Middle East. Within nine months, President Bush announced the existence of the program and ordered the transfer of 14 of the detainees, including Khalid Sheikh Muhammad, Ramzi bin al Shihb and Abu Zubaydah, to Guantanamo.

In August 2009, after ABC News reported the existence of the secret prison outside Vilnius, Lithuanian president Grybauskaite called for an investigation. "If this is true," Grybauskaite said, "Lithuania has to clean up, accept responsibility, apologize, and promise it will never happen again."

At the time, a Lithuanian government official denied that his country had hosted a secret CIA facility. The CIA told ABC News that reporting the existence of the Lithuanian prison was "irresponsible" and declined to discuss the location of the prison.

On Tuesday, the CIA again declined to talk about the prison. "The CIA's terrorist interrogation program is over," said CIA spokesman Paul Gimigliano. "This agency does not discuss publicly where detention facilities may or may not have been."

Former CIA officials told ABC News that the prison in Lithuania was one of eight facilities the CIA set-up after 9/11 to detain and interrogate top al-Qaeda operatives captured around the world. Thailand, Romania, Poland, Morocco, and Afghanistan have also been identified as countries that housed secret prisons for the CIA. President Barack Obama ordered all the sites closed shortly after taking office in January.

The Lithuanian prison was the last "black" site opened in Europe, after the CIA's secret prison in Poland was closed down in late 2003 or early 2004.

"It obviously took a lot of effort to keep [the prison] secret," said John Sifton, whose firm One World Research investigates human rights abuses. "There's a reason this stuff gets kept secret."

"It's an embarrassment, and a crime."

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Nov 19 2009, 05:46 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

QUOTE OF THE DAY FOR THURSDAY 19 NOVEMBER 2009:

Organized war is the culmination of state, ethnic, or religious sponsored mass hatred. Nations must evolve ways to solve international and internal disputes without resorting to war if civilization and humanity are to survive on this planet.

Why do we hate? Academics seek answer in new field

QUOTE

By NICHOLAS K. GERANIOS, Associated Press Writer
Wed Nov 18, 7:57 pm ET

SPOKANE, Wash. – Why did the Nazis hate the Jews? Why did the Hutus hate the Tutsis?

Hate is everywhere, but the fundamental question of why one person can hate another has never been adequately studied, contends Jim Mohr of Gonzaga University, who is developing a new academic field of hate studies.

The goal is to explain a condition that has plagued humanity since one caveman looked askance at another.

"What makes hate tick?" Mohr, director of Gonzaga's Institute for Action Against Hate, wondered. "How can we stop it?"

Gonzaga founded the institute a decade ago after some black law students received threatening letters. It has since started a Journal of Hate Studies, hosted a conference and offered its first class on hatred last spring.

The hope is that other universities will follow suit, said Ken Stern of the American Jewish Committee in New York, who has been involved in the effort. "We wanted to approach hate more intelligently," he said.

Stern, who has spent 20 years battling anti-Semitism, said the need for hate studies became obvious when people started fighting groups like the Aryan Nations, which once flourished in this area. Opponents galvanized against the Aryans, but didn't really know how best to fight them, Stern said.

"We were flying by the seat of our pants," he said. "There was no testable theory."

There is not even a good definition of hate, Stern contends.

Philosophers have offered numerous definitions: Rene Descartes said hate was the urge to withdraw from something that is thought bad. Aristotle saw hate as the incurable desire to annihilate an object.

In psychology, Sigmund Freud defined hate as an ego state that wishes to destroy the source of its unhappiness.

Gonzaga, a Jesuit university best known for its basketball team, offered a class on the subject taught by five professors from different disciplines.

Student Kayla De Los Reyes was in that class, and said the information both horrified her and gave her hope.

"Hate is something that is part of the human emotional makeup," she said. "Everyone feels it at one point or another. You have to learn to control it."

The goal is to create an academic home where a variety of disciplines, including history, psychology, religious studies, anthropology and political science, can be brought together to focus on hate. It's the same sort of effort that led to the creation of disciplines like black studies or women's studies, Mohr said.

Such academic efforts are not without controversy. Some skeptics fear they are little more than attacks on the dominant power structure.

"This stuff tends to be one dimensional and presumes the guilt of an archetypal white male," said Glenn Ricketts, spokesman for the National Association of Scholars.

Indeed, De Los Reyes said one of the more interesting topics in the class involved white privilege. The most recent Journal of Hate Studies contained articles about oppression of gays, Nazi experiments on Jews, the local battle against Aryan Nations, and Muslim support for suicide bombings.

Heather Veeder, a graduate assistant for the institute, said the organization has an important mission.

"Hate thrives in areas not illuminated by education," she said.

But Stern said it is too easy to blame ignorance for hate. People can have plenty of knowledge about something and still hate it, he said. The problem is when one person or group can separate another person or group from their humanity, thinking of them as an "other," Stern said.

"We dehumanize them and justify violence against them," Stern said.

There is no simple answer to why people hate, Mohr said. Hate can be sparked by greed, or fear, or a tribe bonding together in opposition to another. People looking to belong will hate others to fit into a group, he said.

With all the political conflict in the United States, it can seem that hate is on the rise. Some people seem to hate President Obama. Some hate Muslims. Some hate homosexuals.

But Mohr said he wouldn't pursue a field of hate studies if he didn't think something positive could be achieved.

"We can change," Mohr said. "There has to be hope."

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Nov 21 2009, 05:12 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

Where's dissent from peaceful Muslims? [Letter to the editor The Augusta Chronicle] Saturday 21 November 2009

QUOTE

Where is "Christian" America's apology for waging an unnecessary war of choice in Iraq? That abomination has gone on for 6 years and 8 months. The U.S. war of aggression in Iraq was waged under known false pretenses. Where are the calls to bring those responsible for lying this country into war in Iraq to justice? Where are the denunciations from the pulpits of mainstream Christian churches? Billy Graham has blessed every war that United States launched under Presidents Bush Sr. and Bush Jr.. Where is the denunciation of unjust, immoral, illegal wars from the pulpit of First Baptist Church of Augusta? "Christian" crusaders have plenty of blood on their hands. That is what they will have to answer to God for. I suggest that retired U.S. Army Major Dewey Galeas get the beam out of his own eye.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:04 AM

QUOTE

There was NOT a consensus among the intelligence community that Saddam possessed WMD. There were those in the CIA who doubted that conclusion. Former Vice President Dick Cheney paid no less than 4 visits to Langley, VA (the home of the CIA) to pressure the agency to issue an unqualified conclusion that Saddam possessed WMD. The Downing Street Memos from July 2002 noted that the Bush admin was "fixing" intelligence around the conclusion that Saddam possessed WMD. In Oct 2002 CIA Director George W. Tenet informed former President George W. Bush that the intelligence which said that Saddam sought yellowcake uranium in Niger was unreliable. Nevertheless that false claim made it back into the State of the Union address in Jan 2003. Bush & Cheney LIED & BULLIED this country into war in Iraq. UN inspectors were on the ground in Iraq doing their job in competent fashion when then President Bush ordered them out of the country so he could comment "shock & awe" bombing of Iraq. The right-wing media vilified the UN inspectors. Shock jock Neal Boortz claimed that Hans Blix (the UN chemical weapons inspector) "couldn't find his a$$ with both hands". Bush went to war in Iraq BECAUSE HE COULD!

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:49 AM

QUOTE

I sense that many Americans who are afraid of terrorism are scapegoating Muslims the same way that the Nazis blamed all of Germany's problems on the Jews. Persecution occurs when xenophobic societies are stressed. Violence escalates & perpetuates itself when the inevitable backlash against those persecutions follows. The cycle of fear and revenge has to be broken. FallingLeaves made some wonderful posts above only to be disparaged by the fear mongers who perpetuate ignorance, disinformation, and hatred. Sen. Carl Levin has a wonderful idea that I think will hep end the U.S. war in Afghanistan in short order if it becomes law: tax the super rich to pay for the cost of sending more U.S. troops to Afghanistan! Watch how fast the right-wing, pro-big business media changes its tune if that happens. The ditto-head sheeple will follow the leader when the media quits singing their siren songs of war. When United States leaves Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans will be pleasantly surprised when the backlash against U.S. military intervention dies down and a semblance of peace and normality return. The cycle of hatred and violence will have been broken. The antonym of appeasement is synthesis.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sun Nov 22, 2009 7:52 AM

QUOTE

Here's the bottom line. If United States does not withdraw its troops from Iraq and Afghanistan and stop launching drone attacks in Pakistan the violence will continue, and it will not turn out well for American occupation forces or for United States - militarily, politically, or economically. There will be no U.S. military "victory" in these neocolonial wars. I have enunciated the reasons for this many times. They are: demographics, geography, resources, and historical imperatives. Others have reached the same conclusion including Andrew Bacevich and Matthew Hoh, both men with military experience. William R. Poke also reaches the same conclusion. 40,000 more U.S. troops in Afghanistan is only a down payment on the numbers needed to win a long counterinsurgency war. The economic cost of a long war in Afghanistan could easily top $6 trillion. It would take between 600,000 and 1.3 million U.S. troops many years to pacify Afghanistan and affected border regions. That is just not going to happen, so you can fuggedabout a U.S./NATO military "victory" over (as you see it) Muslim militants. http://www.juancole.com/2009/11/polk-let-a...and-depart.html

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sun Nov 22, 2009 9:07 AM

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Nov 21 2009, 05:36 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

General was far too politically correct [Letter to the editor The Augusta Chronicle] Saturday 21 November 2009

QUOTE

Most right-wingnuts who rant on about "political correctness" are the very same people who object when others voice their freedom of speech in dissident fashion. Who cares about your personal WWII heroes, Carl Langley? Neither of those men are above reproach. I remind you that Generals don't run this country nor are they Commander in Chief. It is very good that the US Army is diversified. Former President George W. Bush launched a clash of civilizations (a war on Islam) when he embarked this country on a "long war" for hegemony in the Middle East & South Asia. Don't try to stop me or any other American dissident from voicing our "politically incorrect" opinions. It is the militaristic mentality of American aggressors that demands "political correctness". This narrow minded thinking demands that every politician wear an American flag lapel pin & declare "America is the greatest nation in the world." When Americans live up to our core values we are indeed the greatest nation on Earth, but when we torture terror suspects & wage wars for hegemony (the US war in Iraq is largely about access to oil & has nothing whatsoever to do with stopping terrorism) - we are NOT "the greatest nation"

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:32 AM

QUOTE

God bless our Muslim soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sat Nov 21, 2009 5:33 AM

QUOTE

United States has waged an unjust, immoral, illegal war in Iraq for 6 years 8 months. United States has waged a war of conquest & occupation in Afghanistan for 8 years 1 month. We are only at the beginning of a "long war". The original crusades lasted about 150 years. They started out with a noble purpose (to gain Christian access to Jerusalem). That objective was reached within 5 years. After that the crusades disintegrated into wars of greed & lust. There were acts of barbarism & heroism on both sides. The long supply lies proved the west's undoing. Everything reverted back to the status quo ante after 150 years. The Children's Crusade near the end was horrible beyond description. These modern day crusades will end similarly. United States will lose the long war because of demographics, geography, resources & historical imperatives. The bottom line is that there would be few if any long term consequences from a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq & Afghanistan. False pride & fear of humiliation are driving United States deeper into a quagmire. Notice how my dissent against the U.S. wars of aggression in Iraq & Afghanistan are labeled "America hating tunnel vision."

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:15 AM

QUOTE

I don't hate America. I hate where right-wing warmongers and their supportive American Establishment have taken America.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:17 AM

QUOTE

Unjust crusades always end badly for the aggressor, johnston.cliff. You can't handle the truth with your profoundly simplistic and utterly wrong reasoning.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:27 AM

QUOTE

United States has no legitimate interests in Afghanistan beyond making sure that Al Qaeda training camps are not reestablished there. That can be done from afar without U.S. occupation troops. The bottom line is that terrorism does not pose an existential threat to United States. It is a major nuisance at worst that is best dealt with trough police action and international cooperation not by occupying Afghanistan for decades with the U.S. Army at a cost of at least $500,000 per U.S. solider per year and perhaps as much as $1 million per U.S. soldier per year. President Obama will make a big mistake if he escalates U.S. military personnel in Afghanistan. The Taliban, despite their harsh rule, are less corrupt than the U.S.-backed gov't of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. That is why the Taliban has managed to become resurgent after 8 years of U.S. military occupation. The operative word is counterproductive - look it up! The U.S. War on Terror has become the U.S. War Of Terror. We are creating many more enemies than we are killing. As I have repeatedly noted, United States will lose its long war of aggression because of demographics, geography, resources, and historical imperatives.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:35 AM

QUOTE

The era of neocolonialism has passed.
Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sat Nov 21, 2009 6:37 AM

QUOTE

I see tons of political correctness and attempts to repress free speech coming from the radical right war hawks in these Reader Comments. The meme "You're either with us or you're against us" is readily apparent.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:29 AM

QUOTE

United States is at war in Iraq NOT because of "terrorist Muslim beliefs" but because The Bush-Cheney war regime committed aggression against Iraq. They lied us into war. Their purpose (stated by George W. Bush himself) was to remold the entire Middle East. Bush took his eye off Afghanistan without finishing the job (Bush disparaged "nation building") & trained his sights on his father's anathema, Saddam Hussein. Iraq was to be the first domino in the remaking of the entire Middle East under the US security umbrella. The misguided War on Terror has led to backlash in Iraq, Afghanistan & Pakistan. Americans can keep on blaming "terrorist Muslim beliefs" but our wars of aggression are feeding their resentment & hatred. Afghans have never tolerated a foreign occupier. The war on terror has destabilized Pakistan. United States cannot fight 1 billion Muslims by itself. Canada is pulling out of the coalition in Afghanistan. Britain is demanding an exit strategy from Afghanistan. United States has the right & responsible to pursue those DIRECTLY responsible for 9/11, but it does not have the right to wage war in Afghanistan for more than 8 years & still not catch bin Laden. Blowback!

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Sat Nov 21, 2009 7:46 AM

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Nov 24 2009, 09:35 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

QUOTE ("JohnBoy53")

QUOTE ("JohnRandolphHardisonCain")

It does not matter if President Obama orders another 36,000 U.S. troops, another 60,000 U.S. troops, or any number of addition U.S. troops to Afghanistan, the U.S./NATO mission is doomed. Canada and Britain are weary of this war. Canadians are ready to get out and leave the fighting to the Americans. The British public is sick of this war. Europe has no interest, and Australia can't pick up the slack.

President Obama is condemning this country to many more years of costly, indecisive war, and he is dooming his own presidency. United States will make no progress whatsoever on the domestic front, including our economy, as long as this country militarily occupies Iraq and Afghanistan. President Obama is making a major blunder. He is caving in to the war-addicted American business and power Establishment.

And there ain't nuttin' you can do about it!! Must be a-pullin' your hair out and be about down to the pubes by now!!! ROFL!!!!!!!

JohnRandolphHardisonCain replies:

Enjoy your ersatz victory, and dance a jig like you did when U.S. invasion forces overthrew the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001 and rolled to victory in Baghdad in 2003. The fighting will die down over the winter in Afghanistan, but come next Spring even with increased numbers of U.S. troops deployed, the number of Americans killed and maimed in Afghanistan will grow as will the U.S. budget deficit and national debt, and there will still be no U.S. military victory in Afghanistan next year, or the year after that, or the year after that, and President Obama will neither win the war nor engineer a U.S. exit from Afghanistan before he leaves office either in Jan 2013 or Jan 2017. Even your enthusiasm for war will be ground down long before any kind of American victory in Afghanistan occurs which will be never. Go ahead and yuck it up, JohnBoy.

Obama to Increase Troops in Afghanistan

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Nov 27 2009, 05:53 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

Understand the strategic choices for Afghanistan and Pakistan By Perry Smith| Guest Columnist [The Augusta Chronicle] Friday, November 27, 2009

QUOTE

(The writer, a retired U.S. Air Force major general, is secretary of the Congressional Medal of Honor Foundation. His books include Rules and Tools for Leaders, Assignment Pentagon and A Hero Among Heroes . He lives in Augusta.)

QUOTE

The vast majority of Afghans, including women, do not support the corrupt U.S.-backed gov't of Afghan President Hamid Karzai & his warlord cronies. Their 8 years of misrule along with the unwelcome U.S. military occupation of Afghanistan is exactly why the Taliban is resurgent. American "experts" tout their current fetish of counterinsurgency warfare, but the fact remains that only a handful of counterinsurgency campaigns have ever succeeded & those took on average 11 or 12 years to win. According to the Chairman of the JCS, Adm. Mike Mullen, we are only "at the beginning" of this long war after 8 years with no clear U.S. policy in Afghanistan & poor military strategy. Gen. David Petraeus does not walk on water. Whether or not his surge succeeded in Iraq is still an open question. The town of Tal Afar was the model village for Gen. Petraeus' counterinsurgency strategy. It was billed as a success but has since fallen back into chaos. Anbar province in western Iraq where Gen. Petraeus' strategy was centered is regressing as U.S. troops withdraw. The U.S. war in Afghanistan is counterproductive to our national security & destabilizes Pakistan. Obama's decision to escalate is a mistake

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:39 AM

QUOTE

Gen. Perry Smith's column comes rather late in the game as President Obama has already made his decision to escalate the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Gen. Smith is providing Americans reading material so they can get up to speed on a subject about which deliberation has already occurred. Instead of making their informed opinions heard before this fateful decision was made, Americans are left to read about what the decision makers have decided & follow along in their dust. What is missing from the pathetic American "debate" on Afghanistan is what do Afghans themselves think & want? The majority of Afghan want the foreign occupation forces to leave. They did not like the Taliban's harsh rule, but the Taliban did bring a certain amount of harsh justice & order to Afghanistan. Poppy production was down under the Taliban. It is up under Hamid Karzai & the U.S. occupation. Afghans did not like the Taliban, but they detest the U.S.-backed current regime even more. Oppression of women did not stop with the overthrow of the Taliban. Read or listen what one Afghan woman, Malalai Joya, says about the U.S. war & occupation: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.p...oryId=114207995

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Fri Nov 27, 2009 6:10 AM

QUOTE

What astounds me more than American supremacists' militarist interventionist mentality & their continuing support for an 8 year old lost cause in Afghanistan is the fear of Islam, the ignorance about Islam, the disinformation about Islam, the vilification of Islam & the outright hatred of Islam epitomized by southernguy08's post at 6:28 am. This is the reason so many Afghans, Pakistanis & Muslims throughout the Islamic world are convinced that United States is waging not only war of hegemony in Iraq & Afghanistan but also war against Islam. BTW, southernguy08, the repressive family of Saudi Arabia is an erstwhile ally of United States. Remember when former President George W. Bush held the Saudi Prince's hand? U.S. support for the corrupt royal family in Saudi Arabia was Osama bin Laden's first beef with United States' interventionism in the Middle East. 30,000 or more U.S. troops in Afghanistan will only be a down payment. The U.S. Army's counterinsurgency manual calls for 1 occupation troop per 20 population. United States would need between 600,000 & 1.3 million troops to win a counterinsurgency war in Afghanistan. False pride & fear of humiliation are driving us into a quagmire

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:24 AM

QUOTE

southernguy08, I attended (and graduated from) college on a student deferment from 1966- 1970. I drew a high number in the first draft lottery in 1970. I you are going to make "service" in the military a litmus test for the ability to analyze foreign policy and voice an informed opinion, then you will have to discount the opinions of Dick Cheney, Dick Army, Newt Gingrich, Saxby Chambliss, Mitch McConnell, John Boehner, Sean Hannity, Paul Wolfowitz, Neal Boortz, Ann Coulter, Frank Gaffney, Frederick Kagan, Joe Lieberman, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Ken Adelman, Fred Barnes, William Bennett, John Bolton, Matt Drudge, Rudy Giuliani, David Horowitz, Bill Kristol, Michael Ledeen, Bill O'Reilley, Ted Nugent, Condoleezza Rice, Fred Thompson, and lots more Congressmen, Senators, Movers and Shakers, Neoconservatives, "Think Tank" academics, and Opinion Makers who did not "serve" in the U.S. military.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Fri Nov 27, 2009 7:56 AM

QUOTE

Notice that southernguy08 demands I be grateful to U.S. military personnel "serving" in Iraq & Afghanistan because they are protecting my freedom of speech. But when I voice my opinion freely, Tigger_The_Tiger calls me a traitor & repeatedly "reminds" me that the penalty for treason is death. I just don't see logic or cogent arguments put up by right-wing posters in this edition of Reader Comments. They don't say they have read any of the books that Gen. Smith recommends. All they say is "I've been there & seen for myself". Because I disagree with the U.S. wars in Iraq & Afghanistan & give reasons why, I am labeled as "full of it", a "draft dodger", "hate America", "treasonous", etc.. President Obama is committing United States to at least 3 more years of war if he serves only 1 term & 7 more years of war if he serves 2 terms. President Obama has promised to "finish the job" during his term in office. This is NOT going to happen. If the economy crashes again Obama will not be reelected & the U.S. will not be out of Afghanistan in 3 years. The job won't be finished in 7 years. Those "off ramps" Obama has put in his policy will never be used. It is easy to go in & HARD to get out!

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:20 AM

QUOTE

Tigger_The_Tiger, how is expressing my opposition to the U.S. wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, a freedom guaranteed to me by the U.S. Constitution, "providing aid and comfort" to the enemy? By urging this country to press ahead in an 8 years old failed war in Afghanistan, it is YOU who is condemning this country to failure. The first book that Gen. Perry Smith recommended is titled "In the Graveyard of Empires." The reasons United States will lost wars in Afghanistan (just as the Soviet and the British before them lose war there) is because of the following reasons: demography (the Taliban can raise an endless supply of fierce warriors), geography (Afghanistan is a mountainous country more than 8,000 miles from United States. It costs $400 to deliver one gallon of fuel to Afghanistan); resources (United States and Britain are broke. The U.S. borrows money from China to fight these wars while the Taliban raises more money from the Persian Gulf States than it gets from opium sales); and because of historical imperatives (the age of neocolonialism is over). Cheer-leading for the United States military is not particularly patriotic when the U.S. foreign policy is wrong & war unwinnable.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:37 AM

QUOTE

Every member of the Taliban in Afghanistan is not a "terrorist". The U.S. military is talking with some of them. It is true that Mullah Omar has rejected any negotiations that leave Hamid Karzai's gov't in power. I don't "blame America for all the world's problems". I blame America when it wages protracted, costly, unwinnable, anachronistic, neocolonial wars whose intent is to dominate the Middle East & South Asia & place those regions under a U.S. security umbrella. Gen. Ray Odierno has said that he envisions United States involved in Iraq "for many years to come." What is driving the resistance in Iraq & now in Afghanistan is the perception among Afghans that United States is not there as liberators but as conquerors & occupiers. When United States kills innocent civilians in Iraq & Afghanistan WE ARE THE AGGRESSORS. Indiscriminate U.S. bombing in Afghanistan helped turned Afghan sentiment against the U.S. occupation. Each U.S. troop on the ground in Afghanistan costs at least $500,000 & likely as much as $1 million each per year. 30,000 more troops in 2010 means another $30 billion for the U.S. war in Afghanistan. We are now committed to $75 billion every year for another decade

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Fri Nov 27, 2009 8:58 AM

QUOTE

carcraft, United States cannot change the cultures of the entire Muslim world by fighting wars in Iraq & Afghanistan & by launching missile into Pakistan. If we wish to further women's rights in this area of the world, we can't do that by waging wars of occupation. Turning this into a crusade against Islam only cements an American defeat. The best way to work for women's rights is through peaceful means. We work around the edges using non-governmental organizations & let the women of Afghanistan (or whatever Muslim nation you wish to influence) take the lead in telling the NGOs what it is they want. I posted a link at 6:10 am to what one Afghan woman, a former member of parliament, thinks about the situation for women in Afghanistan under the Taliban & under U.S. occupation. It isn't just Muslims who are culturally conservative in this area of the world. The ancient Yazidi sect in north Iraq recently stoned a young woman to death in a so-called "honor killing". United States cannot change the cultural mores of The Middle East, South Asia, Central Asia & the Arabian peninsula through U.S. wars & military occupation in Iraq & Afghanistan or with missiles strikes into Pakistan.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Fri Nov 27, 2009 9:27 AM

QUOTE

U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan, Retired Lt. General Karl Eikenberry, recommended that the President NOT commit more U.S. troops to Afghanistan because United States does not have a credible or reliable partner in the corrupt government of Hamid Karzai & his bevy of warlords. Remember that newly minted 4 star Gen. Stanley McChrystal comes from the same counterinsurgency theory-of-war school as does Gen. Jesus Petraeus. Their is no evidence that 30,000 more U.S. troops will come anywhere near tipping the balance in Afghanistan anytime in proximate future, but already the decision to escalate the U.S. war in Afghanistan is leading to an incremental destabilization of Pakistan. More war is what the pro-war American supremacist militarist business-of-war establishment wants. Wait until the American economy crashes again (the banking sector has not been fixed & banks continue to issue unregulated credit default swaps out the wazoo) & suddenly China is not willing to lend us more money for our foreign military adventures. Remember we still have ~ 117,000 U.S. troops in Iraq. Gen. Ray Odierno wants a long term U.S. presence there. Obama will be begging for mo money for mo war soon enough.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:45 AM

QUOTE

We can debate right here. What's the point of being face to face in a coffee shop? A retired sergeant major claimed I was afraid to speak at Ft. Gordon. If he arranged the meeting I would be glad to speak. I was on Austin Rhodes' program for 3 hours in October 2005. Austin gleans personal information from The Augusta Chronicle forums and uses irrelevant ad hominem attacks to discredit people with whom he disagrees. I'll heed gaspringwater's advice, but I won't rule out a meeting. You're comments between 1:30 pm and 1:52 pm and continuing after that, show me you are already predisposed against me, wizzardx1. What's the point in meeting you? It would take longer than 1 meeting to begin to educate you on my POV. The one thing that you and I might agree about is that the little guy gets screwed. I am on the side of the little guy. I became politicized starting in 1968 at age 20 and became more so by 1972. There is a lot of history between then and now. I don't have an ax to grind against Vietnam War veterans, but I do support the conclusion reached by a consensus of historians that the Vietnam War was unnecessary.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Fri Nov 27, 2009 2:02 PM

QUOTE

I was never invited back on Austin's show. I came out publicly against the U.S. war in Afghanistan on that show in Oct 2005 even though the program was mainly about the U.S. war in Iraq & what "liberals" believe. Austin has mined The Augusta Chronicle bulletin board (The Forum) for irrelevant personal information. He accused me of being a millionaire & when I disabused him of his misconception he uses my poverty against me. None of the personal attacks have anything to do with whether the surge succeeded in Iraq (it didn't) or whether escalating the U.S. war in Afghanistan is a good idea (it isn't). I could have a medical history a mile long & be psychotic. That would not make any difference on my well informed opinion that the only thing guaranteed to succeed by an escalation of the U.S. war in Afghanistan is the incremental destabilization of Pakistan. The government of Pakistan has asked to be included or at least informed of the decision making process. Obama has sided up to India which has interests in Afghanistan that deeply worry Pakistan. The misguided U.S. war on terror has destabilized Pakistan & raised tensions between India & Pakistan. Obama's war will be a failure

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:11 PM

QUOTE

No one can be a draft dodger who never received a draft notice unless he repeatedly uses deferments as reasons to avoid service. I used a college deferment & then drew a high number (277) in the first draft lottery in 1970. The next year my birthday was drawn Number One! The war whoopers here should label Dick Cheney & other chickenhawks draft dodgers. At 18 years old few young men have firmly set political ideas. Mine began to gel at age 20 & became firmly set as far as the U.S. war in Vietnam was concerned in 1972 when I was 22. I voted for George McGovern. I could not vote in 1968 because the voting age was 21. As I look back, I could have applied for conscientious objector status. This country has a long history of military interventions before & after Vietnam. In 1980 Ronald Reagan made it clear that he would support proxy wars in Central America, in Angola & in Mozambique. Reagan invaded Grenada. After the Berlin Wall came down & the Cold War ended Bush 41 invaded Panama to get one man. Bush 41 waged his war in Panama one Christmas & the first Gulf war the next Christmas. Bush 43 launched wars in Afghanistan & then in Iraq. I am a conscientious objector to the business of war

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Fri Nov 27, 2009 5:33 PM

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

IP: ----------

synergy	Posted: Nov 29 2009, 11:35 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 36,920 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	Blaming Bush does not justify Obama's war in Afghanistan by Synergy [Daily Kos diary] Sun Nov 29, 2009 at 04:42:10 AM PST

Posted: Nov 30 2009, 05:28 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

Afghan push: Is it in time? Augusta Chronicle editorial - Monday, November 30, 2009

QUOTE

wizzardx1, all the military advisors do NOT agree with the counterinsurgency theory of war. Retired 3 star General Karl Eikenberry, who is now U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan & was formerly head of U.S. forces in that country, advised against sending more U.S. troops because the corrupt gov't of Hamid Karzai with its warlords is not reliable a partner. The Augusta Chronicle editorial staff (ACES) has no credibility whatsoever. There simply is no way that the Bush 43 admin & the U.S. military got it wrong for 8 years, then Gen. Stanley McChrystal comes up with a plan that might succeed over a ten year period, but because President Obama has "dithered" since August, suddenly it may be too late to win the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Don't forget that President Obama already sent an additional 16,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan back in April. That did not tip the balance & neither will another 30,000 U.S. troops tip the balance. The U.S. Army's own counterinsurgency manual calls for 1 occupation troop per 20 population. It would take 600,000 occupation troops at least 10 years to win a counterinsurgency war at a cost of roughly $1 million soldier every year. U.S. GET OUT OF AFGHANISTAN NOW!

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:23 AM

QUOTE

The claim that the U.S. has waged war in Afghanistan & occupies that country for more than 8 years with "the goal of destroying the terrorist platform from which to launch attacks on America" is bogus. United States had & still has the right & the responsibility to bring those responsible for 9/11 to justice. Those people are not in Afghanistan. United States was justified in invading Afghanistan in Oct 2001 in order to destroy Al Qaeda training camps & capture or kill Al Qaeda leaders. The former was accomplished. Afghanistan does not serve as a "platform from which to launch attacks on America." Obama & Biden still use that bogus rationale for this failed war. The leaders of Al Qaeda escaped to Pakistan. The "platforms" from which the 9/11 attacks were planned & launched include The Philippines (KSM lived there when he planned the airline hijackings), Hamburg, Germany where Al Qaeda cells operated, and even the U.S. itself where the 9/11 terrorists received flight training. Al Qaeda does not operate from Afghanistan. The Taliban is a local phenomenon not an international jihaddist movement. Many Al Qaeda leaders have left Pakistan for Yemen & Somalia. Afghanistan is irrelevant.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Mon Nov 30, 2009 5:48 AM

QUOTE

False pride and fear of humiliation are two major factors driving United States further into this quagmire of Afghanistan.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:12 AM

QUOTE

Afghanistan is now Obama's war. If President Obama doesn't have the prescience to end the illegal occupation of Afghanistan, not only his presidency is doomed, United States will be diminished politically, economically & militarily over the course of a long, intractable war in Afghanistan which has already spread to Pakistan & now portends India's involvement. The U.S. war on terror in South & Central Asia can flare beyond the ability of any superpower to contain. Russia & China are egging United States on. China is financing this war through massive U.S. debt. Why is United States exhausting itself fighting in an impoverished country ten thousand miles from home while regional superpower Russia & China sit on the sidelines? A regional conflagration which could become a world war is in no one's best interest. Obama will find it politically impossible to use so-called exit ramps when the military situation does not improve in the next year or two. It is easy to get into a quagmire & hard to get out. An immediate about face is the only tenable military option United States has. Afghanistan will be the American empire's graveyard. United States is one fiscal crisis away from collapse.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:43 AM

QUOTE

robaroo, many experts say it takes $1 million to place a U.S. soldier on the ground in Afghanistan for 1 year. The U.S. military claims that figure is closer to $500,000. If the military is correct it will cost an extra $15 billion every year to send an additonal 30,000 American troops to Afghanistan. If the higher figure is correct it will cost an extra $30 billion for those additional 30,000 troops. The total cost of the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan could easily top $75 billion a year. President Obama will soon appeal to Congress for additional funds (all borrowed from places like China) for the expanded U.S. war effort in Afghanistan. If it takes ten years to win a counterinsurgency war, then the costs could easily top $750 billion.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:13 AM

QUOTE

Horse manure, JerryAtrick. It cost up to $400 a gallon to deliver fuel to Afghanistan. The costs of deploying an army to Afghanistan vs keeping the troops at home are magnitudes of times greater. It is the war profiteers and the pro-business-of-war-American-economy which are pushing for an expanded and more profitable (for them) U.S. war effort in Afghanistan.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:34 AM

QUOTE

The U.S. war in Afghanistan is not winnable. It is not winnable because of demography, geography, resources, and historical imperatives. AWyld1, I'm sorry you along with The Augusta Chronicle editorial staff (ACES) are stupid, reality denying, brainwashed fools. One of the most destructive mistakes that chest thumping, self-professed American patriots and war advocates make is repeatedly proclaiming this country "the greatest nation in the world." No doubt arrogant and ignorant Romans, Brits, the Soviets, & many other empires proclaimed the same. The U.S. won the cold war, but now economic weakness is endangering its global power. United States has reached the limits of its empire.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Mon Nov 30, 2009 8:48 AM

QUOTE

In 70 Predator strikes so far in Pakistan, 600-odd people have been killed, including 17 in the al-Qaeda high command. Al Qaeda has not been decapitated. Al Qaeda's command structure has been compared to a hydra. Everyone is replaceable. United States killed Al Qaeda in Iraq's leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi along with 2 women & 1 child in a targeted airstrike in 2006. That did not stop AQI. Al-Zarqawi was replaced. United States has killed hundreds of civilians in its missile strikes in Pakistan. It is impossible to overstate the anti-American sentiment that is now widespread in Pakistan. Read what Pakistani journalist Ahmed Rashid writes about this. A surge of U.S. troops into Afghanistan and continuation of missile strikes in Pakistan fired from U.S. drones guarantees only one thing - the incremental destabilization of Pakistan - a nuclear armed country with 177 million inhabitants. United States' technology is not going to deliver a U.S. military victory in this asymmetric war. The costs will break us. When we kill someone's relative we make enemies. The U.S. kills and kills in Afghanistan & Pakistan. We cannot kill all the terrorists because our policies keep creating more enemies

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:20 AM

QUOTE

Riverman1, you were never known for your intelligence, but you comment at 9:11 am (which you have used before) shows the arrogance of American idiots who proclaim United States "the greatest country in the world." Did you know that drone pilots suffer from PTSD? A 19 year old video-game whiz can indeed be recruited to be a drone pilot. He can indeed kill lots of Taliban (who do not threaten this country). But what the 19 year old drone jockey can't do is win this war for America. Remember when cruise missiles were the stealth weapons? They didn't eliminate the terror threat. Neither will drone strikes. And the fiscal costs mount up. You do make an important argument for not escalating the number of U.S. ground troops in Afghanistan. Since neither Afghanistan nor the Taliban threaten United States in any way, the only legitimate U.S. interest in Afghanistan is to ensure that no Al Qaeda training camps are reestablished there. This can be done with stand off weapons like missile launched from drone aircraft. There is no pending national security need for United States to send additional ground troops into the inhospitable, unforgiving terrain of Afghanistan.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:29 AM

QUOTE

Riverman1, who will United States sign an armistice with when it wins the "war on terror"? How will we know when he have won? Unlike WWII this is a political war like the Vietnam war or France's war in Algeria. There are never military victors in political wars. All political wars are ended through negotiations. There is no such things as a monolithic Taliban. There are a whole host of Taliban allied insurgent groups in Afghanistan. They are united in their common goal to expel foreign occupation forces. If this country was occupied for 8 years by a foreign power, and if this country was ruled by a corrupt, inefficient gov't allied with warlords, Americans from every walk of life would rise up against the occupiers and against anyone who collaborated with them. Throats would be cut. Bombs would be planted. Hit and run tactics would be adopted. Afghans are no different. They want the foreign occupiers (which is US) to leave THEIR country, and they won't stop fighting until we do. Just look at Afghan history going back 2,500 years.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Mon Nov 30, 2009 9:38 AM

QUOTE

I don't hate America. I do hate that my country has a history of waging unnecessary neocolonial wars. I was in college from 1966-1970 during the Vietnam War. That war finally ended in 1975. In 1980 presidential candidate Ronald Reagan made it clear he would fight proxy wars in Central America. Reagan ordered the invasion of Grenada in 1983. After Soviet Union peacefully surrendered ending the Cold War in 1989, Bush 41 immediately invaded Panama in order to capture one man, Gen. Manuel Noriega. United States was back in the business of war as usual. The next Christmas Bush 41 fought the 1st Gulf War after U.S. Ambassador Glaspie gave Saddam Hussein the green light to invade Kuwait. Bush 43 invaded Afghanistan in 2001 & Iraq in 2003. I listened to highly paid establishment media maven Ted Koppel today talk about how the real unspoken reason that President Obama is escalating our long term presence in Afghanistan is because Pakistan has nukes. What Koppel didn't admit is that the 8 year long U.S. occupation of Afghanistan has incrementally destabilized Pakistan helping to fulfilling Koppel's self-fulfilling fear-mongering prophesy about the dangers posed by Pakistan's nuclear weapons.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Mon Nov 30, 2009 6:47 PM

QUOTE

The U.S./NATO war in Afghanistan is a political war. It will be ended through negotiations not through a military victory. It is better to start those negotiations immediately with the Taliban who now operate in all parts of Afghanistan not just in the Pashtun tribal areas of southern Afghanistan. The only thing that is guaranteed by an additional influx of 30,000 American occupation troops is the continued incremental destabilization of Pakistan when a destabilized nuclear armed Pakistan is the west's biggest fear. Why are we following a policy that is guaranteed to result in a self-fulfilling nightmare?

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Mon Nov 30, 2009 7:37 PM

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Dec 2 2009, 10:14 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

Obama’s Speech on Afghanistan

QUOTE

From WBUR and NPR "On Point" with Tom Ashbrook

Wednesday, December 2, 2009 at 10:00 AM EST

Obama’s Speech on Afghanistan

President Barack Obama speaks about the war in Afghanistan at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point, N.Y., Tuesday, Dec. 1, 2009. (AP)

Post your comments below

And so, the Afghanistan plan is announced. We’re going in. And we’re getting out.

Going in, with 30,000 more American troops to fight and train and claw back momentum from the Taliban. Going out, or headed in that direction, by July, 2011 – just eighteen months from now.

There was something for everyone last night in the President’s speech at West Point. Building up. Coming home.

But there was no straight up withdrawal. No word on how to pay for the surge. And no guarantees.

This Hour, On Point: eight years in and doubling down in Afghanistan. We’ll look at the plan, and the battle ahead.

You can join the conversation. Tell us what you think — here on this page, on Twitter, and on Facebook.

-Tom Ashbrook

Guests:

John Mearsheimer, professor of political science and co-director at the Program on International Security Policy at the University of Chicago. He’s been critical of sending further troops to Afghanistan and advocates withdrawing.

Robert Kaplan, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a longtime correspondent for The Atlantic. His latest book is “Hog Pilots, Blue Water Grunts: The American Military in the Air, at Sea, and on the Ground.” He has advocated sending more troops to Afghanistan.

QUOTE

It really doesn’t matter what the American people think about the U.S. war in Afghanistan because it is the American elite national security Establishment that is making decisions for us. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, and John Kerry are all part of the elite American Establishment. It makes no difference if members of this club are Republicans or Democrats. They represent the interests of American supremacist militarists and the business-of-war lobby. Perhaps the invasion of U.S. Afghanistan in Oct 2001 was necessary to apprehend those responsible for 9/11 and to destroy Al Qaeda trainings camps (if that could not be done through police actions) but United States has no right whatsoever to remain in Afghanistan for 8 years waging a war for American hegemony. The only guaranteed “success” of a U.S. surge in Afghanistan will be the destabilization of Pakistan. The long war in Afghanistan is counterproductive and a self-fulfilling nightmare.

Posted by John Randolph Hardison Cain, on December 2nd, 2009 at 9:28 am EST

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Dec 3 2009, 05:29 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 36,920
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

Godspeed, Mr. President

QUOTE

Augusta Chronicle editorial staff (ACES): I know God. God is a friend of mine. God does not grant His "speed" or His blessings to United States in waging its war in Afghanistan. And tell the truth, ACES. You do not not truly wish President Obama "Godspeed". You do wish for United States military to kill & kill & kill some more in Afghanistan. I removed the Obama sticker from my vehicle yesterday. President Obama is not doing God's work or furthering the legitimate national security interests of our country by escalating the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Jim Hightower writes "Obama has been taken over by the military industrial hawks & national security theorists who play war games with other people's lives & money." Cornel West says President Obama has been "mesmerized" by the "brilliant" influential advisers surrounding him. Ted Koppel says the real elephant in the room is Pakistan & its nuclear arms. Koppel says the bottom line is that United States military will remain in Iraq far beyond 2011 or 2012 as stipulated in the Status of Forces Agreement, and United States military occupation forces will be in Afghanistan 20 or 30 more years! Forget about Obama's assurances to the contrary.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Thu Dec 3, 2009 5:25 AM

QUOTE

Already (ACES) The Augusta Chronicle editorial staff's thesis of a U.S. military pullout from Afghanistan in July 2011 has been shredded. Yesterday (Wed 02 Dec 2009) the day after President Obama's speech, Anne Gearan, National Security Writer for the Associated Press wrote "Obama's three chief war managers promptly put the countdown on hold. The exit strategy isn't absolute, they said, disappointing Democrats for whom the July 2011 date was meant as an olive branch from a Democratic president bearing bad news." Sec of Defense Robert Gates, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen, and Sec of State Hillary Clinton all nixed the fixed withdrawal date. Sec of Defense Gates went on to state that United States military would not leave Iraq until Afghan security forces are ready to pick up the job (which will be NEVER). That is another reason why United States military occupation of Afghanistan will last DECADES not 18 months or 3 - 5 more years. ACES is about their usual business of raising false alarms. American should be alarmed that we are headed into a decades long war we cannot win & cannot afford. It is easier of ACES to trash Obama than to criticize Robt Gates.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Thu Dec 3, 2009 5:56 AM

QUOTE

The beaches of Normandy were fortified with German installations. There are no such Taliban installations in Afghanistan. U.S. troops will be airlifted into Kabul (Bagram Air Base). The Taliban does not have an Air Force. The Germans had the Luftwaffe. It is true that supply routes into Afghanistan from Pakistan are often attacked by Taliban insurgents, but no U.S. troops will be entering Afghanistan over land routes AFAIK. wizzardxi's analogy to WWII does not hold water.

QUOTE

WWII was a declared war. The U.S. war in Afghanistan, despite claims it is an existential war, is in fact a neocolonial political war. What is "victory"? How do we know we have "won"? For how many more years can United States afford to spend upwards of $75 billion each year in upfront costs (all of it borrowed from foreign sources like China)? When long term costs are considered, including the price of providing care for wounded soldiers including the tens of thousands who suffer for PTSD, the costs rapidly escalate into trillions of dollars. Meanwhile the U.S. currency is losing value & economic hardships endure here at home. I have written before that United States' war in Afghanistan is doomed because of geography, demography, resources & because of historical imperatives. This war will bankrupt United States & it won't defeat Al Qaeda. They already have a much better safe havens in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia & the Maghreb in North Africa. The U.S. war in Iraq was counterproductive because it was Al Qaeda's biggest recruiting tool. The same with Afghanistan. Central Asia as well as Pakistan is being destabilized. Russian railroads are being bombed by resurgent Islamic militants.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Thu Dec 3, 2009 6:54 AM

QUOTE

robbie, When the U.S. surged troops into Iraq, Islamic militants who had received training the Iraq under U.S. occupation (a bigger training ground and proving ground for weapons than Afghanistan was under Al Qaeda) many moved to Afghanistan and took their expertise (esp IEDs) to Afghanistan. What makes you think that as United States surges into Afghanistan the militants will not return to Iraq? United States still has 115,000 occupation troops in Iraq. When we draw down what happens? The Iraqis cannot reconcile among themselves. The January elections may or may not happen in late February 2010 a month after the constitutional deadline and it is by no mean certain to happen then. Iraq can still slide into civil war. Today a bomb killed 1 and injured 6 in northern Baghdad. The mole always win an a game of what a mole. United States does not have enough troops to fight counterinsurgency wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, North Africa, and elsewhere. We will exhaust ourselves which is bin Laden's game plan.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Thu Dec 3, 2009 7:32 AM

QUOTE

robbie wrote at 7:40 am: "What THEY do with THEIR country when we are gone is THEIR decision. Not AQ's who did hold quite a bit of power here until we surged." robbie admits that Al Qaeda did not exist in Iraq until United States invaded that country in an unnecessary war of choice in 2003. I recall Izzat Ibrahim al-Douri saying the Iraqi resistance will attack at the time and place of their choosing. Why wouldn't Iraq's Sunni resistance wait until the majority of U.S. troops leave Iraq for Afghanistan? Enjoy your ersatz "victory" in Iraq, robbie. It ain't over yet, brother. Remember Sec of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declaring Afghanistan "an amazing success" in 2002?

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Thu Dec 3, 2009 8:31 AM

QUOTE

I would not be surprised if Al Qaeda played a role in helping Chechen militants plant bombs in Russia. United States cannot militarily occupy every enclave that harbors Al Qaeda's leaders or to which Al Qaeda sends its emissaries. Using the U.S. military to fight the war on terror is like using a shotgun to kill a fly. Is the U.S. able to keep drones over Pakistan, over Somalia, over the Indian Ocean, and elsewhere indefinitely? The Sudan can harbor Al Qaeda. Or Malaysia. Or Indonesia. Or The Philippines. United States' occupation of Afghanistan because that is where the 9/11 attacks are said to have originated is ridiculous. KSL planned airline hijackings while he was in The Philippines, Al Qaeda cells planned 9/11 in Hamburg, Germany & terrorists received flying lessons in United States. Occupying countries is counterproductive because it creates more enemies for the United States. That is what Al Qaeda wants. The only effective way to fight terrorism is thorough international cooperation & targeted police actions. Destroying Chechnya did not solve Russia's problems with its Muslim dominated republics. United States cannot fight its way to victory Iraq, Afghanistan, or Pakistan.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Thu Dec 3, 2009 8:52 AM

QUOTE

robbie, you need to distinguish between Al Qaeda in Iraq (formerly Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia) & Al Qaeda central headed by OBL & Ayman al-Zawahiri. They are not the same thing although there was a loose affiliation. AQI was largely destroyed. Al Qaeda central remains in tact & has spread since 9/11/01 & the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in Oct 2001. Why did the Bush 43 admin & the U.S. military high command allow the Taliban & Al Qaeda to escape to Pakistan & for OBL to escape the noose when he was surrounded in Tora Bora mountains in Dec 2001? The real reason that United States occupies Afghanistan is not because of any threat posed from there by either Al Qaeda or the Taliban. United States wants to impose its security umbrella over the entire region. Bush wanted to reshape the entire Middle East. That is still the agenda of the American supramacist militarist Establishment agenda. Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, John Kerry & Richard Holbrooke are all members of the American elite Establishment. There really is not difference in their objectives & the objective of the Bush 43 administration. The war in Iraq was about oil. There are plans for a gas pipeline in Afghanistan.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Thu Dec 3, 2009 9:04 AM

QUOTE

I already have my passport, NO DIXIE CHICK PLEASE. Thanks for your intelligent comment. If I hated America as you claim, I would recommend that United States stay on the failed course it has pursued since 9/11/01. United States had & still has the right & responsibility to bring those DIRECTLY responsible for 9/11 to justice. United States was justified in invading Afghanistan to destroy Al Qaeda training camps & overthrow the Taliban while in hot pursuit of the former. United States was never justified in invading Iraq. United States is not justified in occupying Afghanistan for 8 years & waging a war of occupation there. That is why Afghans resent us. Pakistanis also resent U.S. meddling in their country. I already explained that Osama bin Laden's game plan is to bankrupt United States. He is succeeding. If we keep playing his game we will continue to lose the war on terror & our standard of living will continue to decline. President Obama did not mention how much it is going to cost to put 30,000 more American troops on the ground in Afghanistgan. Figure $1 million per soldier per year. That is an additional $30 billion. The Afghanistan war will cost $75 billion or more per year

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Thu Dec 3, 2009 9:18 AM

QUOTE

It's Obama's war now. It may not have been the politically expedient thing for the President to do to inform the American people that the U.S. occupation of Afghanistan in wrong and the U.S. war in Afghanistan unwinnable, but it would have been the morally right thing to do and the best thing to do for this country in the long run, even if it means that Obama may not be reelected. Now Wartime President Barack Obama will preside over an interminable war in Afghanistan and the continued deteriorate of the U.S. economy as well as the reduced clout of United States in economic, political, and military terms. As it is, Obama has not only condemn his own Presidency, he has ordered the military and committed this country into a quagmire in Afghanistan. We won't win in 18 months and we won't get out of Afghanistan for decades or until we are forced out by political, economic, or military necessity.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Thu Dec 3, 2009 10:11 AM

updating backlog of post Oct 19 - Oct 26, 2009

2009-10-26T06:35:00.000-07:00

Oct 19 2009, 04:54 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 34,324 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	I am part of the "baby boomer" generation born right after WWII. Our parents' generation, the men and women who grew up during the Great Depression and fought in WWII, are rapidly dying out. Too many of my own generation have died prematurely. Certainly, there are no guarantees (other than those God offers) in this life. At 61, it has become apparent to me that my time on this Earth is limited. There is an expression "There is nothing like an old man in a hurry". So I better get to work trying to make peace and leave if legacy for peace while I still can. It seems to me that the WWII generation should have turned against war after WWII. They dedicated themselves to raising their families among which I number. We owe our parents' generation a great debt for their sacrifices. They did not move quickly enough on civil rights. My generation did that, but my generation has also become spoiled in my respects, me included. How to confront the powers that be and offer workable alternatives is the challenge. Without peace it is hard to imagine sustainable progress for human kind. We must move beyond war - including moving beyond so-called "limited" war as a means of settling disputes among nations and between groups. -------------------- Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then, will you realize that money cannot be eaten!!! (Cree Indian Prophecy)
IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Oct 20 2009, 09:22 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 34,324
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

Pakistan 'striking at militants'....HURRAH!!

QUOTE

QUOTE ("Moon Puppy")

QUOTE ("nuke_guy")

Without war we'd all be speaking German or Japanese now or at best celebrate Victoria Day in May.

The difference between then and now is there is no willingness from the commanders to actually do what it takes to win. In WW2 the commanders made the hard decision to take the war beyond the actual weapon users and actively involve the citizens that supported (or were enabling) the warriors. Now the commanders are attempting to selectively target on the warriors. While a noble goal it will remain ineffective as long as those brave Tally-ban and others hid behind women and children and blend into civilian non-combatants.

Why does anyone expect anything other than limited results when limited actions are taken?

This dovetails with what I have been saying about Total War, Maximum Effort. You can not fight a limited war and expect absolute victory.

JohnRandolphHardisonCain replies:

United States is not in a "total war" like it was in WWII. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and now the U.S. covert war in Pakistan as well as the U.S. proxy war in Pakistan are political wars. Terrorists do not threaten the existence of United States. At worse they are a major hassle, but not a threat to the survival of United States. Perhaps President Obama should ask Congress to declare war. Do you think they would? If Congress did declare war, who would they declare it on? And how would the war be resolved? Who would sign the surrender or peace armistice? Political wars never end with a clear cut military victor. Political wars always end through negotiations. It is time to negotiate an end to the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Ten years from now when the U.S. counterinsurgency war has failed, United States will be economically weaker, politically weaker, and militarily weaker. Pakistan may be able to put down an insurgency, buy they cannot end terrorism without some sort of compromise with large elements within their own population.

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Oct 25 2009, 06:43 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 34,324
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

The surge has failed!

Does anyone seriously think that United States can massively draw down its military occupation force in Iraq and leave a stable situation behind? The pressure is on to escalate the number of U.S. troops occupying Afghanistan for a long counterinsurgency war. United States is caught between Iraq and a hard place. Iraqis certainly do not deserve this carnage, and it would not be so save for the illegal U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq.

Former President George W. Bush spoke in Saskatoon, Canada on Wednesday, Oct 21st. Bush said: "An American president should never want to use wars, certainly not my first choice. I understand the consequences. ... (But) when you say something, you mean it. In order to be effective, you’ve got to back up your words. My point was that this time, we were serious. Cough up your weapons. ... I will tell you, I believe the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein. I believe the Iraqis are better off."

Tell it to the 90 plus dead Iraqis and the 632 wounded Iraq, Bush Boy.

Bush continues to justify his illegal war on Iraq by falsely the intelligence community was telling him Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. But now Bush embellishes that with the absurd claim that his war in Iraq prevented a nuclear arms race between Iran and Iraq. What a dithering fool! Bush did not finish the job in Afghanistan. He bungled and dithered in Afghanistan for 8 years distracted by his failed, unnecessary, illegal, immoral, unwinnable assault on Iraq and its people throwing them into unending chaos as long as American troops occupy that country.

Twin Baghdad car bombings kill 90

QUOTE

by Prashant Rao
7:38 am EDT Sun 25 Oct 2009

BAGHDAD (AFP) – Twin suicide car bombs blasted the justice ministry and the provincial offices in central Baghdad on Sunday, killing at least 90 people and sparking turmoil in the embattled Iraqi capital.

Around 600 people were wounded in the attacks, which occurred within minutes of each other at around 10:30 am (0730 GMT) and left streets littered with charred bodies and torn-off limbs.

The blasts destroyed dozens of cars and shattered water pipes, spewing dirty water on to nearby streets.

Authorities closed off roads leading to the bomb sites as fire trucks and ambulances struggled through thick traffic to reach the blazing buildings.

One of the attacks occurred at a busy intersection near the ministries of justice and labour, while the other was opposite the Baghdad provincial government offices in Salhiyeh neighbourhood.

At least 90 people were killed and 632 people were injured, according to a tally of tolls from four hospitals in central Baghdad -- Al-Karama, Ibn Nafis, Medical City and Yarmuk.

Shortly after the attacks, Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki visited the site of the Saliyeh bombing, where he spoke to officials and security officers but made no statement.

"Why are they doing this to us?" shouted a man who gave his name only as Mohammed, sitting near the ravaged provincial buildings, his clothes covered in blood.

"It's because of the election -- they want to defy the government," he said, referring to planned general elections in January.

Thick smoke billowed over the stricken area and fires could be seen from two buildings whose windows had been shattered by the force of the blasts.

Rescue workers in Salhiyeh said they had to cover dead bodies in blankets before picking them up because they were too hot to touch.

Firemen meanwhile were using their trucks' ladders to reach the upper floors of the ministries, fearing that many dead and wounded could be trapped.

Several helicopters were flying over the area and dozens of humvees were lining the streets around the bomb sites.

The explosions were a grim reminder of deadly blasts which shook the ministries of foreign affairs and finance on August 19, in which around 100 people were killed.

The twin bombings came as Iraqi political leaders were to meet to try to end a deadlock over a stalled election law amid growing concerns that the country's January 16 election will have to be delayed.

The meeting was scheduled to take place at 3:30 pm (1230 GMT). There was no immediate information as to whether the meeting would go ahead as planned.

Lieutenant General Ali Ghaidan Majeed, commander of Iraqi ground forces, warned in an interview with AFP on Saturday that the coming months could see an upswing in violence ahead of the January polls.

He said security would likely only stabilise by the middle of next year after a transfer of power to a new government.

"I am concerned that between now ... and July 2010, basically throughout the election and after with the transfer from the old government to the new government, maybe you will see terrorist activities increase," he said.

Attacks have dropped dramatically compared to a year ago -- violent deaths in September were the lowest since May -- but remain high by international standards.

However insurgents are still able to mount high-profile attacks, especially in Baghdad and the northern city of Mosul, which kill dozens.

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Oct 25 2009, 05:26 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 34,324
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

The surge has failed!

QUOTE

Sargbaby, Iraq had nothing whatsoever to do with the attacks on 9/11/01. Former President George W. Bush ordered the U.S. military to invade Iraq in March 2003. That ill-advised decision is what led to the ongoing violence in Iraq which will continue as long as any U.S. military personnel (combat or otherwise) remain in Iraq. That is the bedrock truth of the situation.

Furthermore the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan will be defeated for the simple reason that United States has no legal or moral ground to occupy Afghanistan and wage war there for 8 years. United States does have the right to bring the perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks to justice. Beyond that United States' effort at winning military hegemony over the Middle East and South Asia will fail. It doesn't matter what a U.S. President orders or what Congress approves. The U.S. military missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are doomed by history to fail. United States can only "succeed" militarily in destabilizing the entire region leading to a regional and perhaps world war. In waging wars for hegemony over the Middle East and South Asia, United States is in effect waging a war on Islam, and it will NEVER succeed. This country will exhaust itself in this doomed crusade.

Bombings target government in Baghdad, 147 killed

QUOTE

By REBECCA SANTANA, Associated Press Writer
4:16 pm EDT Sun 25 Oct 2009

BAGHDAD – A pair of suicide car bombings Sunday devastated the heart of Iraq's capital, killing at least 147 people in the country's deadliest attack in more than two years. The bombs targeted two government buildings and called into question Iraq's ability to protect its people as U.S. forces withdraw.

The bombings show that insurgents still have the ability to launch horrific attacks even as violence has dropped dramatically in Iraq. Many fear such attacks will only increase as Iraq prepares for crucial January elections.

The dead included 35 employees at the Ministry of Justice and at least 25 staff members of the Baghdad Provincial Council, said police and medical officials speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak to the media. At least 721 people were wounded, including three American contractors.

The street where the blasts occurred had just been reopened to vehicle traffic six months ago. Shortly after, blast walls were repositioned to allow traffic closer to the government buildings. Such changes were touted by Iraq's Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki as a sign that safety was returning to the city.

The Iraqi leader walked among the mangled and blackened cars, which lay in front of blast walls that had been decorated with peaceful street scenes of Iraq. At the Justice Ministry, windows and walls on both sides of the street were blown away, and blood pooled with water from burst pipes.

Al-Maliki has staked his political reputation and re-election bid on his ability to bring peace to the country and pledged to punish those responsible, who he said wanted to "spread chaos in the country, undermine the political process and prevent the holding of parliamentary elections." But the Sunday attacks seemed designed to paint the Iraqi leader as incapable of providing security to the beleaguered city, undermining much of his political support.

The attacks occurred just hours before Iraq's top leadership was scheduled to meet with heads of political parties in order to reach a compromise on election guidelines needed to hold the January vote.

President Barack Obama, who earlier this week reaffirmed the U.S.'s commitment to withdrawing its troops from the country, called al-Maliki to offer his condolences.

"These bombings serve no purpose other than the murder of innocent men, women and children, and they only reveal the hateful and destructive agenda of those who would deny the Iraqi people the future that they deserve," Obama said.

The fact that the vehicles were able to get into an area home to numerous government institutions — just hundreds of yards from the heavily fortified Green Zone where the U.S. Embassy and the prime minister's office are located — sparked demands that those in charge of the city's security be held accountable.

~~~cont'd~~~

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Oct 26 2009, 05:53 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 34,324
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

Regarding the reality of man-made climate change and the denial thereof:

Skepticism is warming up

QUOTE

The world is moving head with The 350 Movement while many Americans have their heads buried in the sand. 350 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the upper limit that scientists (who use objective criteria rather than political calculations) say the Earth's atmosphere can carry without irreversible climate change. Today we have already reached 390 ppm of CO2. In other words we are already the beyond the tipping point and must reduce the ppm of CO2 in the air if we wish to mitigate the worse effects of a dramatic warming in Earth's climate over the long term. This is not a right vs left issue. This is a scientific, informed, responsible position verses an uneducated, misinformed, irresponsible position taken by those who deny man-made climate change. This could well be THE critical issue of our time because competition for scare resources (including water) will drive wars as billions of people are negatively impacted by the reality of climate change.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Mon Oct 26, 2009 6:39 AM

Backlog posts 08 Oct - 17 Oct 2009

2009-10-17T12:39:00.000-07:00

Posted: Oct 9 2009, 05:19 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 33,769
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

War on Terror has destabilized Pakistan

QUOTE

Former Pakistan strongman Gen. Pervez Musharraf was on PRI's The World last evening talking about how Pakistan must be given due respect by United States and how it's only workable strategy is to strike militants in Pakistan's tribal areas "in serial fashion" via a concentration of forces strategy. It appears to me that Pakistan is becoming more and more unstable, Pakistan's tensions with India are escalating, and the entire South Asia / Central Asia is tender for a regional war that could easily become a world war. The spark for this is the now 8 year long U.S. war of occupation in Afghanistan in pursuit of American hegemony and dominance over the region. Nothing like having a War on Terror morph into regional or world war. United States has reached the limits of its empire and will be repelled just as every expansionist empire is eventually repelled.

Official: Pakistan to Attack Militant Bases

QUOTE

ABC News

Interior Minister says Pakistan has 'no option' but to attack militants after Peshawar bombing

By RIAZ KHAN
The Associated Press

ISLAMABAD

Pakistan's interior minister says the nation has "no option" but to attack militant strongholds in the wake of a deadly suicide car bombing in Peshawar that killed 41 people.

Rehman Malik told reporters Friday that the country has to launch an operation in the area militants are using as a base to launch deadly strikes. He said such an offensive was expected "soon."

The government has been threatening to launch an offensive against militants in the South Waziristan region along the border with Afghanistan.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

PESHAWAR, Pakistan (AP) — A suicide car bomber detonated his vehicle along a road near a well-known market in Pakistan's northwest city of Peshawar on Friday, killing 41 people and underscoring militants' ability to strike in major cities despite U.S.-backed military offensives pressuring their networks.

The attack in the Khyber Bazaar area came as Pakistan's army prepares for another major operation in the al-Qaida and Taliban stronghold of South Waziristan tribal region. The militants have threatened bombings if the army doesn't back off, but the U.S. has continued to prod Pakistan to take action against insurgents using its soil to fuel the insurgency in neighboring Afghanistan.

Television footage showed the charred skeleton of a bus flipped on its side in the middle of a major road. Twisted remains of a motorbike lay alongside the bus. A nearby vehicle was in flames.

Noor Alam saw the vehicle explode, and suffered wounds on his legs and face.

"I saw a blood soaked leg landing close to me," Alam told The Associated Press at the overwhelmed Lady Reading hospital. "I understood for the first time in my life what a doomsday would look like."

Peshawar Police Chief Liaqat Ali Khan said the attacker was in a car packed with "a huge quantity of explosives and artillery rounds." A minibus apparently carrying passengers nearby was also leveled in the blast.

It came days after a suicide attack killed five at a U.N. office in the capital, Islamabad and two weeks after another explosion killed 11 in a Peshawar commercial area.

It was the deadliest attack in Pakistan since a suicide bomber demolished a packed mosque near the northwestern town of Jamrud in March, killing about 50.

Provincial Health Minister Syed Zahir Ali Shah said 41 people were killed and more than 100 wounded Friday.

~~~cont'd~~~

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

IP: ----------

synergy	Posted: Oct 11 2009, 07:14 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 33,769 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	I am deeply suspect of the Council on Foreign Relations. The name of Leslie Gelb should be enough to trigger suspicition of this "august" body. The CFR is part of the American elite status quo Establishment. If I am not mistaken they backed the U.S. neocolonial war in Vietnam. IMO Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and nearly every Senator and Congressman (the exceptions can probably be counted on one hand) are part of the American Establishment. When push comes to shove there is no difference between the policies pursued by Republicans and Democrat Establishment leaders. Obama may want to change course, but he continues the same policies that got us into this mother of all dilemmas. Dick Cheney was right (and did everything in his power to make it so) when he stated that United States would be engaged in a generations long (maybe 20 to 50 years) war between civilizations. This is on a much larger scale than the original crusades. United States can't (or won't) quit Afghanistan because of false pride and fear of humiliation. It would strengthen Russia and China and that isn't tolerable to American Establishment players on the world stage. Two McClatchy pieces make my point that Obama will pursue a military solution in Afghanistan, in Pakistan, and in the so-called global war on terror. We are only in the first throes of this clash of civilizations. No one alive today will see and end to this conflict. There will be no peace in our time. United States is to blame for trying to win a militarily unwinnable struggle. There have to be non-stop communications and negotiations between all parties involved to stem a regional war which will include India and Pakistan and could easily escalate into a world war. JMO. Read the two linked articles below carefully. Are Obama advisers downplaying Afghanistan dangers? By Jonathan S. Landay, John Walcott and Nancy A. Youssef \| McClatchy Newspapers \| Posted on Sunday, October 11, 2009 Pakistan-based group suspected in Indian Embassy bombing By Sarah Davison and Jonathan S. Landay \| McClatchy Newspapers \| Posted on Thursday, October 8, 2009 -------------------- Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then, will you realize that money cannot be eaten!!! (Cree Indian Prophecy)
IP: ----------

synergy	Posted: Oct 16 2009, 01:10 PM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 33,769 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	Musings: Jesus said blessed are the hungry for they shall be filled. My stomach is full, but I remain spiritually hungry and thirsty. -------------------- Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then, will you realize that money cannot be eaten!!! (Cree Indian Prophecy)
IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Oct 16 2009, 05:48 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 33,769
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

Judging by rising violence in Iraq, in Afghanistan, and in Pakistan, the global war on terror seems to have backfired on Uncle Sam. The entire strategy in the legitimate struggle against terrorism need to be rethought. Massive military action including occupation of entire countries and endless wars for hegemony will not turn the tide in United States' favor. The root causes of terrorism have to be addressed and solved. War fever, propaganda, and hatred of Muslims are not smart or winning strategies. Settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the sine qua non for peace in the Middle East. Addressing poverty and development in a humanitarian manner (rather than as an afterthought in the wake of efforts to provide "security" by military action) along with negotiation must be at the forefront of American foreign policy.

New violence in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan

QUOTE

Examiner.com

October 16, 12:50 PM [Tampa Political Buzz Examiner] Kyle Sennett

Taliban claims at least 33 lives in Pakistan

Pakistan's army chief, Gen. Ashfaq Kayani, briefing government officials, reported Friday that a suicide car bomber in Peshawar killed at least 13 people Friday morning, most of them civilians. The day before, Thursday, Taliban militants also orchestrated a string of attacks that killed 30, ten of which were police officers. Interior Minister Rehman Malik confirmed that Taliban spokespersons claimed responsibility for the attacks. These fresh deaths come after a week plus of intense fighting and violence, including a 22-hour stand-off at a military base, followed by the death of 41 people in the Swat Valley.

Four US troops killed in Afghanistan

NATO has reported that 4 American service members have been killed in the southern Kandahar Province in Afghanistan. A bombing caused the death, killing two instantly and two more died from wounds sustained. NATO has not released names or details, pending US authorities notifying next-of-kin. Kandahar Province hosts the Fort Lewis based 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, although other US troops are in the area as well.

Suicide bomber kills 13, injures 65 in Iraq

A suicide bomber at the Taqwa mosque in Tal Afar stood up during prayer services, shot the prayer leader at point blank then detonated a bomb, killing 12 more, and injuring 65. Akram Haseeb, one of the injured victims recounts, "“I was sitting in the back rows in the mosque when one of the worshipers in the front stood up and loudly interrupted the imam while he was preaching. He raised his assault rifle and shot the imam dead first, and then turned and shot the people around him. When the ammo was finished, he blew himself up.” The mosque at Tal Afar is one of many Sunni Arab mosques, the main denomination of the area. On Thursday, a more violence and deaths broke out across Iraq as well. Xinhuanet News reports that 2 were killed and 12 more injured by a roadside bomb in Baghdad and Diyala province, another killed and two wounded by a bomb in the Diyala capital city of Baquba, two wounded in Saadiyah, and three more soldiers wounded in the town of Baladruz.

Here is video covering the Peshawar attack today:

Click on link above for original Examiner.com post which contains a video embedded here.

Posted: Oct 17 2009, 08:03 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 33,769 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	I've noticed that when United States suffers multiple combat deaths in Afghanistan there are immediate reports of a massive number of Taliban killed. I have become skeptical of those often unsubstantiated or exaggerated claims. It has happened again in the most recent deaths (yesterday and today) to 7 American soldiers in Afghanistan. The U.S. military claims to have killed 25 Taliban although the U.S. military has officially stopped issuing body counts of enemy killed. You have to take their word for it. Not me! As of 8:44 am EDT Sat 17 Oct 2009 http://www.icasualties.org/OEF/index.aspx website had raised its tally of U.S. military fatalities from the war in Afghanistan to 880. 10/17/09 AFP: Raids kill 25 Taliban in Afghanistan: officials NATO and Afghan forces have killed 25 Taliban fighters in assaults across southern Afghanistan, a government official and the defence ministry said Saturday. In the deadliest incident, an air strike killed 20 militants late Friday in the Urgun district of Paktika province, said Hamidullah Zawak, spokesman for the provincial governor. 10/17/09 AP: Pakistan sets its sights on Taliban sanctuary The Pakistani military is setting its sights on the Taliban's remote sanctuary after nearly two weeks of big bombings across the country, as hundreds flee the Afghan border region each day before what promises to be the army's riskiest offensive yet. 10/17/09 Guardian: Crisis looms in Kabul over Karzai election results Britain and the United States are attempting to avert a political crisis in Afghanistan as fears mounted in Kabul that Hamid Karzai will refuse to accept the results of an official inquiry into massive electoral fraud that is expected to trigger a fresh round of voting. 10/17/09 LATimes: Bombs kill 3 U.S. troops in Afghanistan The NATO-led coalition says bomb attacks have killed three American troops in Afghanistan. The international force says two U.S. troops were killed Friday in an explosion in the nation's east. Another U.S. service member was killed the same day in a bombing in the 10/16/09 wgal: Lancaster County Grad Killed In Afghanistan Students in a Lancaster County school district are coping with the death of a recent graduate. Military officials said that Brandon Styer, 19, was killed by a roadside bomb while serving in Afghanistan. 10/16/09 Reuters: Afghan woman, child killed in NATO-led operation An Afghan woman and a child were killed in a joint NATO-Afghan operation against insurgents in Afghanistan on Friday, sparking a protest by a group of angry villagers. 10/16/09 MoD: MOD police officer boosts Afghan female police MOD police officer Isabella McManus is the first British female police officer to work in Afghanistan training and mentoring the Afghan National Police. Since her arrival the number of women who want to join Afghanistan's Police Force has doubled. 10/16/09 FT: Pentagon to boost Afghan deployment The administration of US president Barack Obama is to announce the deployment of an additional 40,000 troops to Afghanistan, according to the Afghan ambassador to Washington, as the US steps up its efforts to contain the growing Taliban insurgency. 10/16/09 NYTimes: New Attack in Pakistan Targets Police Station At least 11 people were killed and 15 injured in an apparent suicide attack Friday in Peshawar, according to local government officials...The target of the attack appeared to have been an investigative unit of the Peshawar police in a tightly guarded area of the city. 10/16/09 NYTimes: Pakistan Attacks Show Tightening of Militant Links A wave of attacks against top security installations over the last several days demonstrated that the Taliban, Al Qaeda and militant groups once nurtured by the government are tightening an alliance aimed at bringing down the Pakistani state, government officials and analysts said. -------------------- Only after the last tree has been cut down, Only after the last river has been poisoned, Only after the last fish has been caught, Only then, will you realize that money cannot be eaten!!! (Cree Indian Prophecy)
IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Oct 17 2009, 02:36 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 33,769
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

QUOTE

Posted: Sat Oct 17, 2009 8:43 am

What are you "right" about, Brad? You're ecstatic that civil war has broken out in Pakistan. I think it will lead to further chaos. You think the Pakistan army will put down militants/extremists and pacify the land. I don't think so. The violence will only spread. The Pakistan military will require more and more American arms and assistance until United States is embroiled in Pakistan as surely as it is mired in Iraq and Afghanistan. The specter of a regional war involving India also looms. You accused me of exulting in America's failure in Afghanistan "to make a political point". It seems to me that you are guilty of what you accused me of, Brad. Enjoy your ersatz "victory".

Pakistan 'to strike at militants'....HURRAH!!

Major Ground Offensive Begins In Pakistan But Few Expect It To Turn The Tide In The War

QUOTE

SHTIAQ MAHSUD and MUNIR AHMAD | 10/17/09 11:25 AM | AP

DERA ISMAIL KHAN, Pakistan â€” More than 30,000 Pakistani soldiers launched a ground offensive against al-Qaida and the Taliban's main stronghold along the Afghan border Saturday, officials said, in the country's toughest test yet against a strengthening insurgency.

The United States has long pushed the government to carry out an assault in South Waziristan, and it comes after two weeks of militant attacks that have killed more than 175 people across the nuclear-armed country. That has ramped up pressure on the army to act.

Pakistan has fought three unsuccessful campaigns since 2001 in the region, which is the nerve-center for Pakistani insurgents fighting the U.S.-backed government. It is also a major base for foreign militants to plan attacks on American and NATO forces in Afghanistan and on targets in the West.

After months of aerial bombing, troops moved into the region Saturday from several directions, heading to the insurgent bases of Ladha and Makeen among other targets, intelligence and military officials said on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the topic or because they were not allowed to brief the media.

They said the operation was expected to last around two months.

Pakistani army spokesman Maj. Gen. Athar Abbas confirmed Saturday evening that a full-fledged ground operation was under way and said that it aimed to "uproot" the Pakistani Taliban. He said it was too early to discuss what sort of resistance the army was meeting.

The United Nations has said it is preparing to help civilians who are fleeing the region. Up to 150,000 civilians have already left in recent months after the army made clear it was planning an assault, but there are perhaps as many as 350,000 remaining.

At least 11 suspected insurgents were killed in the jet bombings, while a bomb hit a security convoy, killing one soldier and wounding three others, two local intelligence officials said. A military statement Saturday evening said four soldiers were killed and 12 wounded in exchanges of fire elsewhere in the region.

It is nearly impossible to independently verify information from the region, which is largely controlled by local tribes and has little infrastructure or government presence. Foreigners require permission to enter tribal areas, and few Pakistani journalists risk traveling there.

Makeen resident Ajmal Khan said people there were terrified but could not leave their homes due to a curfew.

"We heard sounds of planes and helicopters early Saturday. Then we heard blasts," Khan said by telephone. "We are also hearing gunshots, and it seems the army is exchanging fire with Taliban."

The army has deployed more than 30,000 troops to the region, said one of the intelligence officials. The military already has said it has sealed off many supply and escape routes and has been trying to secure the support of local tribesmen in the fight.

Earlier this week, the airport in the nearest major town, Dera Ismail Khan, was closed to civilian aircraft.

Recent opinion polls show broad support for military action against the militants, a change from a few years ago. There is also political backing for action. But a long and bloody conflict â€“ and more terrorist attacks around the country â€“ could erode that support.

Speaking earlier in the week, army spokesman Abbas said the assault would be limited to slain Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud's holdings â€“ a swath of territory that stretches roughly 1,275 square miles (3,310 square kilometers). That portion covers about half of South Waziristan, which itself is slightly larger than the U.S. state of Delaware.

The plan is to capture and hold the area where Abbas estimates 10,000 insurgents are headquartered and reinforced with about 1,500 foreign fighters, most of them of Central Asian origin. "There are Arabs, but the Arabs are basically in the leadership, providing resources and expertise and in the role of trainers," he said.

Since 2001, the army's three attempts to dislodge Taliban fighters from South Waziristan have ended in truces that left the Taliban in control. This time the military has said there will be no deals, partly to avoid jeopardizing gains won earlier this year when Pakistani soldiers overpowered the Taliban in the Swat Valley, another northwestern region.

Taliban spokesmen could not immediately be reached for comment Saturday. Communications in and around the region appeared jammed, making it difficult to reach local residents or other witnesses.

Despite sometimes rocky relations with the Pakistani military, the U.S. is trying to rush in equipment for the offensive that would help with mobility, night fighting and precision bombing, a U.S. Embassy official told The Associated Press in a recent interview, speaking on condition of anonymity because the issue is politically sensitive.

In addition to night-vision devices, the Pakistan military has said it is seeking additional Cobra helicopter gunships, heliborne lift capability, laser-guided munitions and intelligence equipment to monitor cell and satellite telephones.

Even if the operation is successful in South Waziristan, many of the militants could escape to Afghanistan or other parts of Pakistan's semiautonomous tribal belt. Few analysts expect that by itself it will turn the tide in the country's war against militants.

~~~snip~~~

JRHC Journal Update 08 Oct 2009

2009-10-08T18:40:00.000-07:00

Posted: Oct 8 2009, 05:09 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 33,208
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

The bottom line Augusta Chronicle editorial Thursday, October 08, 2009

QUOTE

Regardless of what President Obama decides to do in Afghanistan, it's a good bet much of the world won't appreciate it -- or acknowledge the good that America does in the world. And they sure won't join us in the heavy lifting.

Notwithstanding, this is not America's war. This is a struggle to civilize the hornet's nest that time forgot. Terrorists based in Afghanistan attacked us in 2001 -- but their ilk are at war with civilization all over the globe, from India and Pakistan and Iraq and Afghanistan to Indonesia, Africa and elsewhere.

And while a "coalition of the willing" occasionally stands with us, it's mostly America that is shedding its blood to fight the world's battles for it.

Afghanistan, historically a caustic cauldron of chaos, is no different.

So be it. We'll go it largely alone. Because we have to.

QUOTE

What a pathetic excuse for an editorial! Poor old beset upon Uncle Sam! Nobody likes us. The Augusta Chronicle editorial staff (ACES) offers no explanation why this might be so. In an editorial on Oct 6 titled "Does left want a weakened America?" ACES claimed that liberals are ashamed of America's superpower status & want it weakened. The truth is United States is weakened & the world marching to its own terms because of a misuse of that power. What IS United States fighting for in Afghanistan? The U.S. invasion of Afghanistan 8 years ago was justified because we were in pursuit of those who planned & carried out the 9/11 & other terrorist attacks. Al Qaeda camps were destroyed although Sheriff George Wyatt Earp Bush never brought Osama bin Laden to justice as he swore he would. United States had the right to overthrow the Taliban gov't while in hot pursuit of the 9/11 perpetrators. United States maintains the right to pursue & bring to justice those DIRECTLY responsible for 9/11. United States does not have the right or the need to wage war in Afghanistan for 8 years. An article in The London Times yesterday says American troops are losing heart because the US mission is unclear.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Thu Oct 8, 2009 6:00 AM

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Oct 8 2009, 06:28 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 33,208
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

QUOTE

Actually the U.S. military mission in Afghanistan became unclear on March 20, 2003 when President George W. Bush took his sights off OBL, set his sights on Saddam Hussein & ordered the US invasion of Iraq w/o completing the mission in Afghanistan. In 2002 SecDef Rumsfeld touted the "amazing success" of the U.S. mission in Afghanistan. No Americans opposed the initial U.S. invasion of Afghanistan in Oct 2001. The Taliban were overthrown in Nov 2001. In Dec 2001 OBL was allowed to escape when he was trapped in the Tora Bora mountains of Afghanistan. Instead of going in after OBL themselves the U.S. military outsourced that job to locals. Guess what? OBL got away & lived to fight another day. At one point President George W. Bush stated that he was no longer much concerned about the fate of OBL because Al Qaeda had been significantly degraded. United States' mission became unclear in Afghanistan when the lives of ordinary Afghans failed to improve under U.S.-backed President Hamid Karzai. Make no mistake, United States is the power behind the "sovereign" (in name only) states of Afghanistan & Iraq. The mission was doomed when locals perceived Americans as occupiers not liberators.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Thu Oct 8, 2009 7:25 AM

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Oct 8 2009, 09:27 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 33,208
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

QUOTE

I don't think that Republican war supporters give a damn about what is in the best interest of the Afghan people. They are concerned with United States winning a military victory no matter the costs. Justus4 is absolutely correct when he writes "Get out of Afghanistan now because next year will be too late." False pride and fear of humiliation are driving United States deeper into a quagmire. President Obama along with VP Biden, Sec of State Clinton, and members of Congress are all American Establishment politicians. Obama has removed the option of a U.S. withdrawal from the table. That is the only viable option this country has. If we really want to rebuild Afghanistan, work for women's rights, etc. in Afghanistan, that is best done from the outside by supporting NGOs and other aid, developmental, and human rights groups working at the margins. Waging endless war in Afghanistan will not lead to a U.S. victory, a stable Afghanistan, or reconstruction of that shattered country. That said, Biden's counter-terrorism strategy is a less destructive, less costly, and a more workable policy than the U.S. Army's counter-insurgency strategy.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Thu Oct 8, 2009 10:25 AM

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Oct 8 2009, 09:47 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 33,208
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

QUOTE

"Beijing's Afghan Gamble" by Robt Kaplan [NYTimes] 07 Oct 2009 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/07/opinion/07kaplan.html "In nuts-and-bolts terms, if we stay in Afghanistan and eventually succeed, other countries will benefit more than we will. China, India and Russia are all Asian powers, geographically proximate to Afghanistan and better able, therefore, to garner practical advantages from any stability our armed forces would make possible.//Everyone keeps saying that America is not an empire, but our military finds itself in the sort of situation that was mighty familiar to empires like that of ancient Rome and 19th-century Britain: struggling in a far-off corner of the world to exact revenge, to put down the fires of rebellion, and to restore civilized order. Meanwhile, other rising and resurgent powers wait patiently in the wings, free-riding on the public good we offer. This is exactly how an empire declines, by allowing others to take advantage of its own exertions." Robert D. Kaplan is a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security and a correspondent for The Atlantic.

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Thu Oct 8, 2009 10:45 AM

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Oct 8 2009, 10:15 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 33,208
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

QUOTE

Right, augustalawyer! United States is going to occupy, pacify, reconstruct & change the mores of 31 million Afghans. Don't forget about instability in Pakistan. We are also going to try to raise the standard of living of 180 million Pakistanis who, by the way, resent us giving them money because Pakistanis perceive the U.S. is interfering in their country. Have you read the news report about this? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/06/world/as...lamabad.html?em "U.S. Push to Expand in Pakistan Meets Resistance" by Jane Perlez [NYTimes 05 Oct 2009]. Islamic militants in Pakistan object to interference & so too does the Pakistani military. Have you read the news reports about Afghanistan, augustalawyer, which say Afghanistan is too poor to support a large standing army? The U.S. military says it will take 3 to 5 years to train an Afghan army. 80 to 90% of Afghans are illiterate. Many experts say it may take twice that long if it is possible to train a competent army that will "stand up". The police force is corrupt in Afghanistan. People hate them more than they hate the Taliban. Are you old enough to remember Vietnam, augustalawyer? Vietnamization did not work. Why repeat mistakes?

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Thu Oct 8, 2009 11:04 AM

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Oct 8 2009, 08:24 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 33,208
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

Sad to say, but Obama's "ultimatum" of sorts (i.e. participate in the political process but don't try to overthrow the U.S.-backed corrupt and weak central gov't of Hamid Karzai) will not be accepted by the Taliban. It is for United States to leave Afghanistan. United States in a state of weakness is in no position to dictate terms to the Talbian. This is a non-starter. The United States should hold unconditional talks with the Taliban immediately and renounce the corrupt gov't of Hamid Karzai. Obama's purported formula will only lead more entanglements with less options for the U.S. occupation. If India gets sucked into the vortex of violence this conflagration could become a regional or even a world war.

QUOTE

Obama - involve Taleban in Afghanistan future

Senior official said that President is unlikely to accept a large influx of troops requested by the current US commander

Barack Obama: Taleban can be involved in Afghanistan future

QUOTE

From The Times of London
October 9, 2009

The Taleban issued a statement on their website declaring that they had "no agenda to harm other countries"

Tim Reid in Washington

President Obama is prepared to accept some Taleban involvement in Afghanistan’s political future and is unlikely to favour a large influx of new American troops being demanded by his ground commander, a senior official said last night.

Mr Obama appears to have been swayed in recent days by arguments from some advisers, led by Vice-President Joe Biden, that the Taleban do not pose a direct threat to the US and that there should be greater focus on tackling al-Qaeda inside Pakistan.

Mr Obama’s developing strategy on the Taleban will “not tolerate their return to power”, the senior official said. However, the US would only fight to keep the Taleban from retaking control of the central government — something the official said it is now far from capable of — and from giving renewed sanctuary to al-Qaeda.

Bowing to the reality that the fundamentalist movement is too ingrained in national culture, the Administration is prepared, as it has been for some time, to accept some Taleban role in parts of Afghanistan, the official said.

That could mean paving the way for insurgents willing to renounce violence to participate in a central government, and even ceding some regions of the country to the Taleban.

Mr Obama, the official said, is now inclined to send only as many more troops to Afghanistan as are needed to keep al-Qaeda at bay. Downing Street said that the US President had discussed Afghanistan with Gordon Brown yesterday during a 40-minute video conference call.

Sending far fewer troops than the 40,000 being demanded by General Stanley McChrystal would mean that Mr Obama is willing to ignore the wishes of his ground commander.

General McChrystal, along with the US military’s other top officials, insist that only a classic, well-resourced counter-insurgency strategy has a chance of staving off defeat in Afghanistan. Losing the war, they further argue, would provide al-Qaeda with new safe havens from which to mount attacks on the US and elsewhere.

After two days of meetings in the White House Situation Room with his war Cabinet, Mr Obama, according to the official, kept returning to one central question: who is our adversary?

The answer was, repeatedly, al-Qaeda, with advisers arguing that the terror network was distinct from the Taleban and that the US military was fighting the Taleban even though it posed no direct threat to America.

In a sign of how politically astute the insurgents have become in deciphering the debate raging inside the White House, the Taleban issued a statement on their website yesterday declaring that they had “no agenda to harm other countries”.

Mr Obama appears to be thinking that the primary aim of US forces in Afghanistan is to deny al-Qaeda any ability to regroup there — as it did before the 9/11 attacks. Such a mission would require only a small increase in the forces deployed in Afghanistan and a bigger focus on killing al-Qaeda operatives in Pakistan. Such an approach will be resisted fiercely by General McChrystal and most Republicans.

Two other factors have played a significant role in the debate. Mr Obama is concerned that the discredited Government of President Karzai could doom a counter-insurgency strategy to failure. The second is how encouraged the Administration has become over the Pakistani Government’s willingness to take the battle to extremists inside its own borders.

Posted: Oct 8 2009, 08:24 PM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 33,246
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

Journal Update #1 Tue 06 Oct 2009

2009-10-06T08:23:00.000-07:00

Posted: Oct 5 2009, 10:17 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 33,020
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

U.S./NATO mission in Afghanistan doomed

Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:13 am

QUOTE ("oldsarge99")

Synergy you and i don't agree on much, but Afghanistan is a noose around Obama's neck. The decision he makes will have reprecussions for many years. If he falters and loses his nerve. He will pay a price here at home he may not recover from. If he agrees to a troop surge, the war in Afhanistan belongs to him and is his to win or lose. How he handles this will show me what he is made out of. God help him if he falters and we leave Afghanistan and Alqaeda regroups and hits us again!

JohnRandolphHardisonCain replies:

If Obama orders 45,000 more troops to Afghanistan and begins training Afghan army and police as fast as possible the U.S. military says it will take at 3 to 5 years for that to be accomplished. Many experts says it may take twice that long if it is possible. That means that Obama cannot "win" in any sense of that word in his first term and probably cannot "win" the war during his second term.

The Chairman of the JCS Adm Mike Mullen says we are at square one or "the beginning" in Afghanistan. The past 8 years don't count in his math. The number of successful counterinsurgency wars can be counted on one hand, and they took an average of 10 to 12 years to "win". If Obama serves two terms and throws everything we have at "the problem" in Afghanistan then it will be the next President who realizes a "victory".

Obama is wise to consider a regional strategy and to seek help from Afghanistan's neighbors including Iran. IMO negotiations have to be part of the solution since this is a political war and not a war of necessity. We cannot wage total war because of that fact. All political wars end through negotiations. It is being touted even in the right-wing Wall Street Journal / FOXNews press that Al Qaeda is severely weakened in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The Taliban is a local phenomenon not a jihaddist network bent on world domination. Negotiate with the Taliban and marginalize Al Qaeda. And then there is the problem with the corrupt gov't of Hamid Karzai. Good luck American occupiers!

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Oct 6 2009, 05:02 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 33,020
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

Does left want a weakened America?

QUOTE

Katrina vanden Heuvel's statement "The world is marching on its own terms. America's no longer a superpower" is absolutely correct. This is not something that Barack Obama accomplished in 9 months. The neoconservative Project for a New American Century (PNAC) was formulated in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 1980s. PNAC proposed that United States should seize the "unipolar moment" when it was left as the world's only superpower & use its military might to make United States' political & economic model dominant throughout the world THROUGH THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE. After 9/11 the Bush Doctrine was devised which stated that the U.S. President could order military force against any nation or group which he/she though MIGHT become a threat to United States sometime in future. The Bush Doctrine further stated that United States would retain military superiority & dominance on land, at sea, in the air & IN SPACE! The Bush Doctrine of "preventive war" (not just "preemptive war" which may be justified if there is an imminent threat) is utterly illegal. American unilateralism & "cowboy diplomacy" did not work. This is why "The world is marching on its own terms."

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Tue Oct 6, 2009 5:58 AM

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

IP: ----------

synergy

Posted: Oct 6 2009, 10:16 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 33,020
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

Does left want a weakened America?

QUOTE

If United States doesn't find a way to end its wars in Iraq & Afghanistan this country will fail & there is nothing that Obama, Gates, Jones, Petraeus, or McChrystal can do to stop it. The onus for this failure will fall on Obama because it is his admin that has taken the option of a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan off the table. That is the only viable option United States of America has. Liberals are focused on health care & are ignoring the failed, illegal wars that can bring this country down. By sitting on the sidelines, Russia & especially China will be the big winners. United States' clout & Americans' standard of living are headed for 3rd world status because we cannot summon the political will to disengage from unnecessary foreign entanglements & choose to wade deeper into the quagmire. At 47 years old President Obama is too young to remember much of America's angst caused by the U.S. war in Vietnam. The war in Afghanistan is now the longest running war in U.S. history except for Vietnam, & when the inconclusive war in Iraq is included, the costliest wars in U.S. history except for WWII. We have a $2 trillion budget deficit. Interest comes due! Pay the (Chinese) piper!

Posted by JohnRandolphHardisonCain on Tue Oct 6, 2009 11:12 AM

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

Journal Update #2 Mon 05 Oct 2009

2009-10-05T08:18:00.000-07:00

Posted: Oct 5 2009, 08:57 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 32,943
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

U.S./NATO mission in Afghanistan doomed

QUOTE ("oldsarge99")

Obama is being faced with an LBJ moment, escalate the war by sending in thousands of additional troops or descalating the war and bringing the troops home. Obama has to deal with Petraus and Mc Crystal pushing for a troop surge to gain the upper hand and also with his party beginning to mount a cut and run campaign. I said many months ago it wouldn't be long before the DIMS lost their resolve to fight in Afghanistan. I also said that the majority of OBAMA's support would come from the GOP on this issue. Look for a temporary surge with Mc Crystal getting the troops that he has requested, but with a 12 to 18 month timeline for dramatic improvement. If OBAMA falters and loses his resolve and denies the generals request, Petraus and Mc Crystal may resign.That would be a body blow to the Fuhrer. It would throw the administration into chaos and cost Obama dearly. Obama recently said this was war of necessity and had to be fought. Well we about to see what he is made of. Does he have the resolve of Truman, Kennedy, Lincoln, or Dubya.

JohnRandolphHardisonCain replies:

I suspect that our American Establishment President will give the nattering warmongers some if not all of what they want. SecDef Gates (another member of the American elite status quo Establishment) is said to be "leaning" towards sending more troops. 10,000 more troops would still be considered as a holding pattern in a policy of containment. Even 45,000 more U.S. troops would not turn the tide and change the trajectory of this war over the long term. A military victory is not in the cards despite what American supremacist "cut loose the military" types spout.

It would take 620,000 occupation troops ten or twelves year to maybe win a counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan, and even that is doubtful because every state surrounding Afghanistan (populous Pakistan, Iran, and the Central Asia republics) would also become more volatile over that extended time frame. The costs of such a protracted American-led NATO war in Afghanistan would be astronomical. We don't have the personnel, the materiel, the resources, the resolve, or the justification for escalating the U.S./NATO war in Afghanistan to the levels required to prevail.

This is a political war not a war of necessity. Obama made a mistake labeling it as such. Political wars never end with a clear victor, and they always end through negotiations. Better to get started with that process rather than wade deeper into the quagmire of Afghanistan which is historically "the graveyard of empires".

Posted: Oct 5 2009, 10:17 AM

Advanced Member

Group: Admin
Posts: 32,943
Member No.: 3
Joined: 20-November 07

Warn: (0%)

U.S./NATO mission in Afghanistan doomed

Posted: Mon Oct 05, 2009 11:13 am

QUOTE ("oldsarge99")