JRHC Journal Updates

Posted: Jul 16 2009, 12:34 PM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,857 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	Prayers today for Frank McCourt who is gravely ill with meningitis and is unlikely to survive, the author's brother said Thursday. -------------------- 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: Aug 15 2009, 07:06 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,857 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	Ongoing wars means heathcare reform will wait (2009-08-15) Healthcare reform must wait until this country ends its costly wars abroad. That may take 10 years or longer. So be it. We cannot have guns and butter at the same time. Counterinsurgency "expert" retired Col. John Nagl says the U.S. is in it for the long haul in both Afghanistan and Pakistan. So does Ambassador Richard Holbrooke. And that's not the extent of U.S. wars in the Middle East and South Asia. Every country in Central Asia bordering Afghanistan is now being drawn into this epic clash. I have supported universal health insurance since 1970 and the single payer "public option" system of finance since 1994. None of that matters as long as this country is at war. Most liberals have their priorities wrong. There will be no progress on needed domestic programs or sustainable economic recovery as long as this country wages costly, endless wars of hegemony. Europe, Russia, and India may be on the side of the west in this epic clash of cultures. Even China is affected because of its Muslim Uyghur population. But ironically it is China and Russia who stand to gain the most by staying on the sidelines as historically Christian western civilization clashes with resurgent Islam spurred on in no small part by the counterproductive U.S. war on terror which has created more enemies of United States than it can kill - high tech asymmetric warfare be damned. -------------------- 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: Aug 16 2009, 12:43 PM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,857 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	QUOTE ("JohnRandolphHardisonCain") United States is a failed republic - economically, politically, and militarily. United States is currently entangled in expensive, endless wars it cannot win which are bleeding American and British blood and bankrupting both nations. United States is mired in debt. It cannot take care of its own people. Americans are deeply, perhaps irreparably divided. There will be no economic progress or any progress whatsoever on the domestic agenda until this nation ends its costly foreign military entanglements. The current situation in America is an anarchists dream! Bring down the national security state and the entitled establishment! No Americans deserve healthcare as long as United States is attempting to dominate the world through the use of military force. -------------------- 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: Aug 16 2009, 01:51 PM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,857 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	QUOTE ("Moon Puppy") You really should have this obsession issue you have checked. But you're right on one point, no American deserves the healthcare that they would get from the Federal Government, we deserve better. American's presented a united front against this power grab randy, and I for one am proud of that fact. You say it's a failure as a Republic, well the Represenitives who are elected are listening to the poeple when they say No You Can't to Obama. I thought you would be proud of that as well since you are against Obama also. JohnRandolphHardisonCain replies: The struggle for peace is a magnificent obsession. Peace is paramount. There can be no guns and butter during war. No universal medical care. No tax cuts. LBJ did fund social programs during the Vietnam war but inflation raged in its wake. IMO there can be no sustainable economic recovery as long as this country remains mired in foreign wars that cost hundreds of billions in up front expenses each year and even more over the long term. I am happy to see Barack Obama and the nation bogged down as long as Obama fails to deliver on his promise to end the U.S. war in Iraq and close Guantanamo. He has yet to give people accused of terrorism a fair trial. The U.S.-backed Afghan state under Hamid Karzai is corrupt. Obama's decision to escalate the U.S. war in Afghanistan is as fatefully and fatally flawed as LBJ's decision to escalate U.S. involvement in Vietnam in 1965. -------------------- 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: Aug 17 2009, 03:52 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,857 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	2009-08-17 False associations: Last evening I spilled neat green tea on my keyboard. It was only a small amount - about a teaspoon. This morning my keyboard would not work. I rebooted the computer and everything is cool. Not overreacting is key sometimes. BTW, Happy Birthday Connie! -------------------- 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: Aug 19 2009, 01:16 PM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,857 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	2009-08-19: They say that God does not saddle us with burdens we cannot bear. If so, I must be able to bear a lot. God has not saddle me with personal burdens, but I bear the weight of the world when it comes to wars that my country has waged from Vietnam to Latin America to Africa to Iraq and Afghanistan. The weight of this burden is enormous, but it is my raison d'être. -------------------- 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: Aug 23 2009, 04:48 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,857 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	2009-08-23 The Jeeter Lester of Tobacco Road has nothing on me. I've got junk strewn in my yard lying inanimate where they died - a Massey Ferguson tractor, several lawn mowers awaiting the scrap heap or a miracle from God, and a banana bike allowed to rust. This because I'm too sorry and too preoccupied to deal with proper disposal or recycling. -------------------- 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: Aug 24 2009, 02:09 PM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,857 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	It doesn't take a major prophet to read the writing on the wall. The U.S. war in Afghanistan is doomed. United States will suffer a political, economic, and military defeat if it continues to fight this anachronistic neocolonial war in Afghanistan. Don't Americans ever learn anything from history? Afghanistan was the death knell for the Soviet Union. Unending wars can lead to the economic and political demise of United States. Don't think it can't or won't happen, arrogant American supremacists! Heed this warning! Analysis: Fraud cases threaten US strategy QUOTE By ROBERT H. REID, Associated Press Writer 12:48 pm EDT Mon 24 Aug 2009 KABUL – Fraud allegations have cast doubt over the Afghan presidential election and threaten to undermine President Barack Obama's Afghan strategy, at a time when casualties are rising and the top U.S. military officer acknowledges the situation is deteriorating. U.S. officials had hoped Thursday's balloting would bolster the legitimacy of the Afghan leadership, enabling it to confront the Taliban, combat corruption and accelerate Afghanistan's development — all key goals of the Obama administration. Instead, President Hamid Karzai's opponents are accusing him of massive fraud, including ballot-stuffing and voter intimidation. His chief rival, former Foreign Minister Abdullah Abdullah, has ruled out a postelection alliance with Karzai should the incumbent ultimately win. Election officials said they will release preliminary returns from the vote on Tuesday, although the final result will not be known for weeks. Both the Karzai and Abdullah campaigns have said preliminary reports suggest their candidate is ahead, raising concern that the release of partial figures could stoke tension and generate even more accusations of manipulation from the disappointed camp. All that could lead to a protracted period of claims and counterclaims that could delay formation of a new administration and poison the political atmosphere at a time when the United States and its NATO partners are trying to bring together ethnic, political and social groups opposed to the Taliban in order to roll back the insurgency. At the worst, the dispute could trigger clashes between rival camps similar to the wave of unrest that swept neighboring Iran after June's disputed presidential election. The fallout has been an embarrassment for U.S. and NATO officials, who were quick to declare the Afghan election a success even though the Taliban launched attacks in southern provinces of Kandahar, Helmand and elsewhere. The upbeat comments were reminiscent of the Bush administration's misplaced praise for the January 2005 election in Iraq — which is now generally recognized as having widened the gulf between Iraq's religious groups and fueled the war. "There's no doubt that there have been irregularities during the polling day," said Kai Eide, the U.N.'s top official in Afghanistan. "I appeal to the candidates and to their campaigns, and also to the voters, to demonstrate the patience and calm that is required." With more fraud allegations surfacing, U.S. officials have toned down their comments and acknowledge it could take some time before the political future of Afghanistan becomes clear. "We're really not going to know for several more weeks exactly where we do stand in this process," U.S. Ambassador Karl Eikenberry said Sunday on CNN. "We're not sure exactly what the level of voter turnout was. Millions turned out to vote, but of course, Taliban intimidation, especially in southern Afghanistan, certainly limited those numbers. But for now, we don't know, and it's for us to wait and see and allow this process to move forward," he said. Political turmoil in Kabul could not come at a worse time. The top U.S. military officer, Adm. Mike Mullen, described the situation in Afghanistan as "serious and deteriorating." "Afghanistan is very vulnerable in terms of (the) Taliban and extremists taking over again, and I don't think that threat's going to go away," he said Sunday on CNN. U.S. and NATO casualties are mounting. At least 37 U.S. service members have died in Afghanistan this month — on track to surpass the July toll, which was the highest monthly total for American forces since the war began in 2001. With Americans dying in greater numbers, the image of squabbling politicians in Kabul is likely to fuel opposition to the war in the United States — much as television footage of Shiite-Sunni bloodletting undermined the Bush administration's Iraq war policy in 2006. Just over 50 percent of respondents to a Washington Post-ABC News poll released this past week said the war in Afghanistan is not worth fighting. ___ Robert H. Reid is AP bureau chief in Kabul and has covered the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001. -------------------- 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: Aug 27 2009, 06:22 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,857 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	Health care industry contributes heavily to Blue Dogs http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/74426...nk=omni_popular U.S. missile strike kills six militants in Pakistan http://www.reuters.com/article/newsMaps/id...E57Q1MD20090827 -------------------- 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: Sep 2 2009, 09:53 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,857 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	The use of the term "trigger-pullers" offends me. It conjures the term "trigger-man" which is used in a negative context. Besides "trained-killers" will not win a military or a political victory for United States in Afghanistan because the rationale for a U.S.-led occupation of Afghanistan is built on faulty premises. United States does not have a legal or a moral right or frankly the ability to impose its will on the people of Afghanistan simply because Al Qaeda once had training camps there. U.S. to boost combat force in Afghanistan QUOTE latimes.com U.S. to boost combat force in Afghanistan Support units will be replaced by up to 14,000 'trigger-pullers,' and noncombat posts will be contracted out, Defense officials say. The swap will allow the U.S. to keep its troop level unchanged. By Julian E. Barnes September 2, 2009 Reporting from Washington U.S. officials are planning to add as many as 14,000 combat troops to the American force in Afghanistan by sending home support units and replacing them with "trigger-pullers," Defense officials say. The move would beef up the combat force in the country without increasing the overall number of U.S. troops, a contentious issue as public support for the war slips. But many of the noncombat jobs are likely be filled by private contractors, who have proved to be a source of controversy in Iraq and a growing issue in Afghanistan. The plan represents a key step in the Obama administration's drive to counter Taliban gains and demonstrate progress in the war nearly eight years after it began. Forces that could be swapped out include units assigned to noncombat duty, such as guards or lookouts, or those on clerical and support squads. "It makes sense to get rid of the clerks and replace them with trigger-pullers," said one Pentagon official, speaking on condition of anonymity because the plans have not been announced. Officials have spoken in recent days about aspects of the plan. The changes will not offset the potential need for additional troops in the future, but could reduce the size of any request from Army Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal, the top U.S. and allied commander, officials said. ~~~cont'd~~~ -------------------- 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: Sep 26 2009, 05:12 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,857 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	Posted: Sep 25 2009, 08:26 AM It occurs to me that the original crusades unfolded over 150 years, so no one alive when they begin was still alive for the denouement. People died thinking that the Christian west had won which turned out not to be the case. Maybe this clash of civilizations is now only the beginning of a generations long struggle. United States does not have the resources, the will, or the right to maintain this conflict beyond a few more bloody years. Afghans on the other hand are fighting in their homeland. They have no place to go. They have demography, geography, resources, will power, and historical imperative on their side. This crusade will not turn out any better for the west than the first one did. Invading and occupying Afghanistan was and is an epic blunder. History will judge it so. ______________________________________________________________________ Posted: Sep 25 2009, 06:59 PM United States most certainly IS fighting the Afghan Taliban, rinehartsfan. The Taliban is made up primarily of Pashtuns. The corrupt U.S.-backed leader of Afghanistan, Hamid Karzai, is a nominal "Uncle Tom" Pashtun who has made alliances of convenience with Tajik warlords. The worse than sorry Afghan army is made up disproportionally of Tajiks. There is no way that Pashtuns will join the army and fight against their own interests. And the Afghan police are even worse and more corrupt than the Afghan army. Fuggedabout successful Afghanization of the army and police. That won't happen in 3 to 5 years or even 6 to 10 years. United States is fighting the cat in Afghanistan while the tiger is Pakistan. United States has given Pakistan at least $13 billion in the last few years, maybe more, and they still are not interested in ending their support for the Pakistan Taliban which is their hedge against India along the Kashmir border. The idea that United States can win a military victory in Afghanistan, build a democratic nation state, and turn the tide on the War on Terror is patently absurd. Dan Froomkin and many other now understand this. Those who don't are military leaders (especially so-called counterinsurgency experts), neocons who act at the behest of Israel, and defense contractor who stand to profit from perpetual crusader wars. Are you or the strategic thinker Sargbaby really able to argue otherwise? ________________________________________________________ Posted: Sep 26 2009, 04:40 AM The U.S. occupying force in Afghanistan is clearly failing in its primary counterinsurgency mission (as stated by Gen. Stanley McChrystal) of protecting the civilian population. Afghan civilian deaths hit record high in August By LORI HINNANT (AP) – 4:42 am EDT Sat 26 Sep 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: Sep 26 2009, 11:51 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,857 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	This is GOOD news for war profiteering "defense" contractors who will be paid to replace this asset because, you know, failure to do so would put our troops and the U.S. military mission at risk. Taxpayers prepare to shell out a few million extra. That's nothing between friends, right? FREEDOM doesn't come cheap. You betcha the original crusaders wish they had this piece of magic to keep an eye on the wily Muslims. If they had maybe they would have won, but then again, maybe not. Drone crashes in northern Iraq, US military says QUOTE By CHELSEA J. CARTER, Associated Press Writer 11:36 am EDT Sat 26 Sep 2009 BAGHDAD – A U.S. military drone crashed Saturday in northern Iraq, hitting a regional office of Iraq's largest Sunni political party in an area that remains an insurgent stronghold, an American military official said. The unmanned aerial reconnaissance vehicle crashed into the local office of the Iraqi Islamic Party in Mosul, an area the U.S. military has called the last stronghold of al-Qaida in Iraq. Drones have been a mainstay of the U.S. war effort, offering round-the-clock airborne "eyes" watching over road convoys and tracking insurgent movements and occasionally unleashing missiles on a target. The U.S. military did not immediately identify the type of drone that crashed in Mosul where the aerial vehicles are routinely used to track insurgents planting explosives. There was no immediate indication the drone was shot down, said Maj. Derrick Cheng, a U.S. military spokesman. There were no reports of injuries. Cheng said the drone struck the party office at about 7 a.m., damaging the roof of the building. American troops recovered the drone and were working with local officials to assess the required repairs, he said. Cheng said the cause of the crash was under investigation. ~~~cont'd~~~ -------------------- 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: Sep 28 2009, 03:05 PM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,857 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	Isn't it clear to everyone by now that the entire U.S. war in Iraq, and along with it the premature claims of "success" in the so-called "surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq, was in fact a giant fiasco? Didn't then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claim "spectacular success" for the U.S. war in Afghanistan in 2002? How has that "success" played out? If you are on of those "optimists" who has supported these "successful" wars that never seem to end, then how do you explain the renewed violence reported from Iraq today (see below) and the reservations expressed in the NY Times piece below (i.e. things "left underdone - read "FAILURES") regarding the U.S. war in Iraq as U.S. forces try to disengage six years and six months after George W. Bush decided to order the U.S. invasion of that land of sinking sand? Of course Gen. Ray Odierno is happy to blame Iran for the U.S. failure in Iraq while Iraq PM Nouri al Maliki is happy to blame Syria. And Gen. Stanley McChrystal is happy to also scapegoat Iran for the failed U.S. military mission on Afghanistan. Failure is always some one else's fault! Success knows many fathers. Failure is a bastard. TWO items below: Eighteen killed, dozens wounded in Iraq attacks QUOTE by Bassem al-Anbari 3:04 pm EDT Mon 28 Sep 2009 RAMADI, Iraq (AFP) – At least 18 people, most of them members of Iraq's security forces, were killed and dozens wounded in bomb attacks on Monday, the worst violence to hit the country in more than two weeks. In the deadliest incident, a suicide attacker killed seven police and wounded 10 when he blew up a water tanker packed with explosives at a quick response unit's headquarters on the highway from the western city of Ramadi towards Jordan and Syria. A police officer, who gave the toll, said the attack was carried out 35 kilometres (20 miles) west of Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, which was a key insurgent base in the aftermath of the US-led invasion in 2003. Violence in the predominantly Sunni Arab city has dropped dramatically in recent years, although a similar suicide car bomb killed eight people at a security checkpoint there on September 7. Anbar, Iraq's biggest province, became the theatre of a brutal war focused on the cities of Fallujah and Ramadi, while several towns along the Euphrates river valley became Al-Qaeda strongholds and later safe havens for insurgents. But since 2006 local Sunni tribes have sided with the US military and unrest has dwindled as rebel fighters have been ejected from the region. Elsewhere on Monday, five soldiers were killed and 28 people -- including nine troops and an unknown number of policemen -- were wounded by back-to-back bombs in western Baghdad, an interior ministry official said. The first explosion, a homemade bomb targeting an army patrol, wounded just one civilian and caused some damage but a secondary device inflicted fatalities. "As the army and some civilians gathered and police arrived on the scene, another IED (improvised-explosive device) exploded nearby," killing five soldiers and wounding 28 people, an official said on condition of anonymity. In a further attack, in the southern province of Diwaniyah, a bomb went off inside a minibus, killing three people and wounding five, a hospital official said. In the restive northern city of Mosul, two policemen were killed and two wounded by a roadside bomb that targeted a patrol in the centre of the city at around 3:00 pm (1200 GMT), a police official said. A policeman was also killed in similar circumstances in Baquba, north of Baghdad. Monday's death toll of 18 was the highest since September 10, when at least 26 people were killed in violence across the country. The number of violent deaths in Iraq hit a 13-month high in August, raising fresh concerns about stability after the government admitted that security is worsening. Government statistics showed that 456 people -- 393 civilians, 48 police and 15 Iraqi soldiers -- were killed last month. That was the highest such toll since July 2008, when 465 died. Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki sent extra troops to the west of the country three weeks ago to secure the border with Syria, which he has repeatedly accused of giving terrorists the shelter needed to mount attacks inside Iraq. Ask John Burns: Ending the War in Iraq QUOTE September 28, 2009, 2:00 am Ask John Burns: Ending the War in Iraq By The New York Times This week, John F. Burns, The Times’s chief foreign correspondent, will be taking questions on the end of the American war in Iraq. In February, the newly inaugurated President Obama announced that all combat troops would be withdrawn by August 2010, seven and a half years after the war began, and the remaining troops by 2011. Lars Klove for The New York Times But with relative calm in Iraq and instability expanding quickly in Afghanistan, Americans and their leaders increasingly see Iraq as the war already fought. “We’re so out of here,” a Marine officer said in July in Anbar province, once the heart of the insurgency there. Does America seem intent on leaving Iraq, no matter what happens? Should we? Would a return to wide-scale sectarian violence, or the opening of a new front between Kurds and Arabs, obligate U.S. soldiers to stay? What was accomplished and what was left undone? Mr. Burns covered the run-up to the war in 2002 and 2003 from inside Saddam’s Iraq, then served as Baghdad bureau chief from 2003 to 2007. -------------------- 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: Sep 30 2009, 09:30 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,857 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	QUOTE ("rinehartsfan") QUOTE demography, geography, lack of resources, and because history is not on our side. Nor were they on the side of those farmers over 200 years ago when thought they could defeat the British Empire. Courage, commitment, and fortitude are worth more than any of those things. But a man with none of these wouldn't understand. JohnRandolphHardisonCain replies: Here is the full text of what I wrote: "[The news story below is] Further indication that the U.S.-backed Iraq government will never "defend itself, govern itself, and sustain itself" as former U.S. President George W. Bushy claimed they would. Now the excuse is that they don't have enough money. Guess what? Neither does United States. I have written for years now that the U.S. military missions in Iraq and Afghanistan are doomed because of demography, geography, lack of resources, and because history is not on our side." US: Iraq budget shortfall poses security challenge By CHELSEA J. CARTER, Associated Press Writer - 9:06 am EDT Wed 30 Sep 2009 To which I add: Geography WAS on the side of the American revolutionaries. America is 3000 miles from the shores of Britain. Iraq is 8,000 miles from United States and Afghanistan is even further. Demography at the time may not have been on the side or American revolutionaries nor was access to resources. However both demographics and resources are on the side of insurgents in Iraq and in Afghanistan. They out breed us, and in case you have not noticed both United States are Britain are debtor nations. The largest source of revenue to the Afghan insurgents is from remittances from Persian Gulf states. That is a bigger source of revenue than is opium. Finally, history was on the side of the American revolutionaries. Britain was a colonial power. The American revolution marked the beginning of the end of colonialism. United States lost the war in Vietnam in large part because history has bypassed the era of colonialism (or neocolonialism). Similarly history is not on United States' side in its neocolonial wars in Iraq and Afghanistan because history has bypassed the neocolonial era. The French learned that in Algeria and in Vietnam. They will relearn the lesson again along with United States in Afghanistan. -------------------- 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 2 2009, 04:42 PM

Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,857 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)

I have written often about how war leads to deficits leads to debt leads to inflation leads to recession leads to unemployment and can lead to depression and fiscal collapse. United States has myriad problems as documented in this thread. I was thinking today how United States is on a trajectory to become a third world nation. We cannot repair our own infrastructure or take care of our 330 million people. We have become the world's leading debtor nation. We are engaged in two long term wars which drain hundreds of billions annually from the Treasury and cost trillions over the longer term. China is not engaged in these costly wars. Their economy is growing. They are building super highways and millions are entering the middle class. The same is true in India. That is why both the Chinese and then the Indian economies are set to surpass that of United States before mid century. Meanwhile, President Obama is likely to order at least another 10,000 (perhaps even more) troops to Afghanistan. A necessary move? A wise move? It think NOT. Walter Rodgers former senior international correspondent for CNN also thinks NOT. United States can and should stay politically, diplomatically, and economically engaged in Afghanistan, but military engagement is a no-win situation for Americans and for ordinary Afghans. Forget Afghanistan. Let's nation-build at home first. QUOTE from the October 02, 2009 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1002/p09s01-coop.html Forget Afghanistan. Let's nation-build at home first. Given our high dropout and unemployment rates, we must reprioritize. By Walter Rodgers East Otis, Mass. The assessment of the war in Afghanistan from the top US general there is grim. Without more troops, Stanley McChrystal warned in a report that was leaked recently, "The conflict will likely result in failure." His candor should be applauded. It gives President Obama and the American public – nearly half of whom now oppose the war there – an opportunity to ask themselves how we are going to save Afghanistan when we have not figured out how to engage in successful nation-building at home. There's no question we need it. Thirty percent of our students drop out before finishing high school. Our border with Mexico is awash in drugs and violence. Mexican and Russian mafias have strong criminal footholds in our cities. Some of our Rust Belt cities have unemployment levels on par with third-world countries. Michigan, once America's industrial heart, is on government life support. California, once the country's dynamo, is near bankruptcy. Taking on these tough challenges will require US leaders, both Democrat and Republican, to relinquish the idea they can remake much of the world in America's image and likeness. Giving up that idea is hard to do in Washington, even for presidents. It requires them to defy powerful pressure. Mr. Obama should recall that in 1962 President Kennedy instinctively resisted Defense and State Department pressure to send more troops to Vietnam. President Johnson was also wary of a troop buildup in Vietnam, but he fell prey to his own fears that Republicans would accuse him of being soft on communism if he flinched in the face of a festering Viet Cong insurgency. America has a poor record of nation-building abroad. The George H.W. Bush administration and Clinton White House failed in Somalia. The most recent Bush administration bungled it in Iraq, where Iraqis continue to blow one another up now that Americans are increasingly out of reach as targets. And now, bright as he is, Obama is showing us he learned next to nothing from the nine-year Soviet attempt at nation-building in Afghanistan that helped hasten the collapse of the Soviet Union. Not long ago, a friend, a high Canadian government official, met with his Chinese government counterparts. The discussion turned to the subject of the United States. My Canadian friend told me that the Chinese delegate coolly observed, "We always expected the American empire to collapse, but we had no idea it would collapse so quickly." The Pentagon and the US military command in Afghanistan now find themselves caught in a trap inadvertently set by their own politicians. The US military speaks of winning the hearts and minds of Afghans when it's almost certainly the case that the Americans will always be seen as "infidel outsiders" occupying a Muslim country, just as the Russians were seen on the same real estate in the l980s. Even if the Obama administration were to send half a million troops, the results would be little different. Just as the Communist Vietnamese enjoyed havens in Cambodia, Laos, and North Vietnam, so the Taliban and the rabidly anti-American Islamists in Afghanistan would enjoy similar sanctuaries in Pakistan and Iran. Few US politicians have had the courage to tell the public that Afghanistan has a corrupt, tribal government, too weak to go it alone without US troops. Obama unwisely made Afghanistan his problem by escalating, rather than winding down, US involvement upon taking office. Now, the US is committed to policing it, creating a modern infrastructure out of a medieval society, while providing Afghans security and jobs. How does this count as an intelligent investment when we are struggling to do the same thing here in the US? American political leaders have a moral obligation to repair their own republic before they try to reengineer Afghanistan. Nation-building at home will be at least as challenging as in Iraq or Afghanistan and far more important. A prerequisite for this domestic ­nation-building is a spirit of goodwill with civil discourse that scorns rabid political posturing. Members of Congress must see themselves as colleagues, not enemies, and the public must not let buffoons with megaphones shape the debate at the expense of serious-minded observers. No matter how great their material wealth, democratic nations cannot long survive, let alone mend themselves, without a spirit of public goodwill in the body politic. The run-up to the American Civil War demonstrated this. Today, a similar ideological malice stalks the land. It is arguably more destructive than any Islamist terrorist threat spawned in Afghanistan. And this malevolent public rancor needs to be addressed with far greater urgency than Afghanistan, which is probably too broken to fix. Walter Rodgers is a former senior international correspondent for CNN. He writes a biweekly column for the Monitor weekly print edition.

Posted: Oct 3 2009, 07:03 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,857 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	Posted: Wed Sep 30, 2009 9:24 am The post below is relative to the second post previous to this one. Right-wing pressure is on Obama to escalate the U.S. war in Afghanistan. 7 years and 11 months after this war began suddenly John McCain discovers "time is running short". BS! Time was running short from Day One when United States invaded Afghanistan in Nov 2001, from March 20, 2003 when Bush ordered the unnecessary and unjustified U.S. invasion of Iraq, and from Obama's decision earlier this year to increase the number of U.S. troops in Afghanistan by 21,000. Another 40,000 U.S. troops will not win this war. It will get us deeper into a quagmire. It would take 500,000 troops ten or twenty more years to win a counterinsurgency war. United States simply does not have the personnel, the resources, the national security interest, or the public will to wage a protracted war on that scale. Nor do we have the moral or legal justification to do so. False pride and a fear of humiliation are keeping United States involved in this unwinnable conflict. McCain: Time is running short for Afghan decision QUOTE (AP) ~ 8 am EDT Wed 30 Sep 2009 WASHINGTON — Sen. John McCain said Wednesday that President Barack Obama cannot give up the fight in Afghanistan, saying the region would be destabilized if the United States and its NATO allies pulled back. McCain, Obama's Republican opponent in last year's election, also argued for the president to approve a call for additional troops by Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the U.S. commander on the ground, and other military officers. If Obama fails to do so, McCain said in a morning news show interview, it would "put the United States in much greater danger, because failure in Afghanistan" would run the risk of the nation turning into a base for attacks on the U.S. and its allies. ~~~cont'd~~~ -------------------- 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 3 2009, 07:07 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,857 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	Posted: Sat Oct 03, 2009 7:46 am on the Augusta Chronicle bulletin board ... Because he is the Commander in Chief I think Obama does the authority to order additional U.S. troops to Afghanistan on his own without authorization or prior funding by Congress. He is likely to order at least 10,000 additional troops which will still be considered as keeping the war in Afghanistan in a holding pattern. Even if he ordered 45,000 more U.S. troops that would not turn the tide, and it will be very expensive. The U.S. Army counterinsurgency manual calls for 20 occupation troops per 1000 population to wage a successful counterinsurgency war. With about 31 million Afghans, it would take an occupation force of 620,000 to secure the country. It might take 10 or more years to win a counterinsurgency campaign. That simply is not going to happen. And Afghanization of the war will not work any better than Vietnamization of the U.S. war in Vietnam worked. This mission is doomed. United States has a right to pursue those DIRECTLY responsible for 9/11, but it has no right to occupy Afghanistan and to wage war there for 8 years. And even if outright military victory is impossible the argument that the U.S./NATO occupation is an effort to "contain" the Muslim extremists is a hollow one. The Taliban is a local movement nor a worldwide jihaddist movement. The harder the U.S. crushes down on the Taliban and on Afghanistan the more sympathy there is for Al Qaeda, and that movement can operate from anywhere including Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, Hamburg, Brooklyn, or Denver. The U.S. war on terror is counterproductive. United States should engage Afghanistan and the Muslim world through diplomacy, negotiations, and economic development but not through military occupation. That is the way forward. Otherwise we are only in the first throes of a generations long clash of civilizations, and this crusade will not turn out any better than the original ones did over an extended time period. Corruption, Shortage of Mentors Hinder Afghan Forces, U.S. Says QUOTE By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer Saturday, October 3, 2009 As the White House weighs a request from the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan for additional troops for combat and training there, a new report from the Defense Department's inspector general attributes shortcomings in the Afghan army and police force to a shortage of U.S. mentors and trainers, corruption and illiteracy among Afghan soldiers and a lack of strategic planning. "Expansion of the ANSF [Afghan National Security Forces] beyond currently approved levels will face major challenges," the 224-page report concludes, listing a major one as "time necessary to develop ethical, competent leaders." ~~~cont'd~~~ A Protection or a Provocation? QUOTE Residents of Afghanistan's Shomali Plain Deeply Conflicted Over Presence of U.S. Troops By Pamela Constable Washington Post Foreign Service Saturday, October 3, 2009 QARABAGH, Afghanistan -- The last time Taliban forces swept across the Shomali Plain, they left behind a wasteland of scorched vineyards and decapitated fruit trees that farmers have spent the past eight years nursing back to life. Now, the inhabitants of this fertile region north of Kabul are fearful that the whirlwind will come again, destroying their hopes and hard work. Yet they are deeply conflicted about whether American and NATO troops should remain here to defend them, or whether the Western forces are exacerbating problems that Afghans should settle among themselves. These growing concerns echo the urgent debate taking place in Washington, where policymakers are sharply divided on whether to commit more troops to Afghanistan or pull them out, as well as on how to define the mission -- as an effort to shore up Afghanistan's troubled democracy or to focus more narrowly on killing Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters. "If the foreigners leave, one man will just set fire to the next man's house," said Mirza Mahmad, 50, who was playing marbles with his grandson in this central Shomali town. "When I was a soldier, we defeated the Russians with old clothes and borrowed bullets, and they got stuck in the mud of Afghanistan. We need the Americans, but if they don't win the trust of the people, they will get stuck here in the mud forever." Like many other Afghans who have survived years of conflict and hardship, Shomalis express both resentment of the foreign military presence and bitterness that the United States abandoned their country after Soviet forces left in 1989. Some, with harsh memories of Taliban abuses, still call members of the Islamist militia fellow Muslims who should be given a second chance. They also fear another source of violence, even closer to home. Tensions surrounding the Aug. 20 presidential election, still bogged down in fraud allegations with no winner declared, have stirred up old enmities among former militia bosses who peacefully divided up power after the Taliban defeat. Now, residents warn, these men could go back to war in a heartbeat. Signs of trouble are already appearing in the political void across Afghanistan, as people wait anxiously for two commissions to investigate the election fraud charges and announce the final results. Campaign workers and government officials have been targeted in an atmosphere of rising partisanship and criminality as well as terrorism. In northern Afghanistan, there have been reports of police turning their weapons over to the Taliban and of rival officials arming their followers, either to defend President Hamid Karzai's expected victory or to violently protest the likely defeat of his major challenger, former foreign minister Abdullah Abdullah. "This election has created nothing but tension, and the whole country has been divided into two camps," said Haroun Mir, executive director of the Afghan Center for Research and Policy Studies in Kabul. "Everything has become so politicized that I don't think a technical solution will help. Only a political solution will prevent things from collapsing now." ~~~cont'd~~~ -------------------- 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 3 2009, 03:45 PM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,857 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	From "The surge has failed" thread on the Augusta Chronicle bulletin board: QUOTE ("Sargbaby") But, we're damn sure trying, which is better than what you did! JohnRandolphHardisonCain replies: "Trying" damn sure don't cut it when it comes to waging an unnecessary, unjust, immoral, illegal, unwise, unwinnable war, FOOL! American cheerleading IDIOTS like you permitted this country to run amok under George W. Bush. United States and its opportunist lackeys will pay the price. Will United States military be forced to leave Iraq because of political, economic, and military necessity? Yes! Will there be blood letting after Americans are gone? YES! United States should have learned its lesson in Vietnam. Gen. Ray Odierno knows he cannot significantly draw down U.S. troops and keep the lid on Iraq. Fools like retired Sargbaby and jack, mercenaries like Marko and Brad Owens, and Republican stooges like right-wing radio talk show hosts still cannot read the writing on the wall - maybe because it's in Arabic. Anyone who still thinks the surge was a success is a blithering idiot. It only put off the inevitable and will get a whole lot of people killed for nothing. Nothing positive will come out of the U.S. war in Iraq. It was a mistake from the day it was conceived and doomed to failure from the day George W. Bush ordered the U.S. invasion of Iraq. The U.S. war in Iraq is an utter FIASCO. And don't tell me the deaths of Saddam and his two sons was worth the lives of hundreds of thousands of Iraqis and thousands of lives of hapless American expendables - I mean soldiers. In Anbar, U.S.-Allied Tribal Chiefs Feel Deep Sense of Abandonment QUOTE By Anthony Shadid Washington Post Foreign Service Saturday, October 3, 2009 RAMADI, Iraq -- There was once a swagger to the scotch-swilling, insurgent-fighting Raed Sabah. He was known as Sheik Raed to his sycophants. Tribesmen who relied on his largess called him the same. So did his fighters, who joined the Americans and helped crush the insurgency in Anbar province. Sabah still likes his scotch -- Johnnie Walker Black, with Red Bull on the rocks -- but these days, as the Americans withdraw from western Iraq, he has lost his swagger. His neighbors now deride him as an American stooge; they have nicknamed his alley "The Street of the Lackeys." "The Americans left without even saying goodbye. Not one of them," Sabah said in his villa in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar, once the cradle of Iraq's insurgency. "Even when we called them, we got a message that the line had been disconnected." Nowhere is the U.S. departure from Iraq more visible than in Anbar, where the 27 bases and outposts less than a year ago have dwindled to three today. Far less money is being spent. Since November, more than two-thirds of combat troops have departed. In their wake is a blend of cynicism and bitterness, frustration and fear among many of the tribal leaders who fought with the troops against the insurgents, a tableau of emotion that may color the American legacy in a region that has stood as the U.S. military's single greatest success in the war. Pragmatism, the Americans call their departure. Desertion, their erstwhile allies answer. As the United States leaves the province, acknowledged Col. Matthew Lopez, the Marine commander here, "you're going to have individuals who are unhappy." Sabah freely admits he is one of them. "We stood by them, we carried out their requests, we let no one hurt them," he said in a rushed clump of words, near certificates of appreciation from the Marines and the U.S. Army that gather dust in a mother-of-pearl cabinet. "They weren't supposed to abandon us." As he sat with other tribal leaders who joined the American-led fight in 2006 and 2007, his reticence seemed to rival his fatalism, the sense that foes outnumber friends. "I expect I'll die at any time," he worried. "Today, tomorrow, maybe the day after." ' The British Had Foresight' Steeped in desert traditions of pride, dignity and honor, no one in Anbar, perhaps the most Arab of Iraq's Arab regions, would contend that any foreign occupation was good, and the Americans remain deeply unpopular in some quarters here. But true or not, there is a prevailing sense in this vast, arid region bisected by the Euphrates that, as far as occupations go, the British were better at it than the Americans. There are bridges still nicknamed "British bridges," built after the British defeated the Ottoman Empire and occupied Iraq at the end of World War I. One spans the Euphrates in Ramadi. The descendants of some sheiks jealously guard pictures of their forefathers posing with British potentates. One of them bragged that Gertrude Bell, the British diplomat and adventurer, wrote about his ancestor, the powerful sheik Ali Sulaiman. "One of the most remarkable men in Iraq," she declared in a letter to her father. "The British had foresight and, we can't say credibility, but they had more patience than the Americans. They understood how to take time to win someone to their side," said his great-grandson, Ali Hatem Sulaiman. "The Americans, no. With them, it's either shoot you or give you money, it's either hire you or beat you up." The Americans, he said, used a jackhammer to shape a diamond. Deliberate Disengagement To be fair, Lopez, the colonel in Ramadi, is no jackhammer. His tenure in Iraq started in 2003 in Karbala, part of the Shiite Muslim heartland. He ends his latest tour, this one in Iraq's Sunni hub, next month. He dismissed the idea that allies were somehow abandoned or friends shown any disrespect. The day after he took command, Lopez ordered the construction of a diwan, a kind of reception hall requisite in any sheik's house. Forty-eight hours later, it was done, complete with eight Persian carpets, overstuffed furniture, ample ashtrays and even pink plastic flowers in the corner. On the wall is a clock with the 99 names of Allah in Arabic. "All the nuances," Lopez described it, "all the cultural sensitivities." His Marines train their Army successors in the etiquette of brewing Turkish coffee, or as one soldier put it, "espresso times 10." Well-sugared tea should be served as soon as the sheiks sit down in Lopez's diwan. "You want to be Johnny on the spot every time," Cpl. Jared Jones insisted. In serving meals, put lamb in the middle, he said, chicken to the side. Take plastic silverware out of the wrapper; doing otherwise is considered tacky. "We can't stress how much this matters," Jones lectured the impromptu class of a half-dozen soldiers. "We mess it up, we pay the price. Now, are there any questions about chow?" But even Lopez's efforts can't rewrite the arithmetic of postwar Iraq. He acknowledged that "the sheer mathematics" of the withdrawal mean U.S. officers are simply less engaged with some of the sheiks who joined them in the fight against insurgents, a battle widely viewed as one of the crucial pivots in the American experience in Iraq. As he describes it, the military has also disciplined itself to better target which sheiks it wants to court -- the 20 or so whom they have deemed most prominent here. "I think that's one of our institutional lessons learned," Lopez said. The goal of what he called a responsible drawdown was "a return to normalcy." "It's not normal for a coalition presence to be injected into the Iraqi cultural system and the sheiks' system," Lopez said, sitting in his office at Camp Ramadi. "Without extricating ourselves from the equation," he added, "it can't return to normal." A Sheik Speaks His Mind Postwar Anbar is anything but normal, whatever normal might mean here. By virtue of its money, arms and prestige, the U.S. military -- like its British predecessors -- has indelibly remade the province's landscape. One ally, Ahmed Abu Risha, whose clan was little known before the occupation, is on a trajectory to become Anbar's most powerful man. Other allies have gathered fabulous wealth. Yet others deem themselves dead men walking, having courted too few friends while they occupied the U.S. limelight. The one constant is the degree to which the sheiks dislike one another. Any pledge not to speak ill about one's peers is almost always a preamble to a string of expletives. In one rant that ended only when the sheik ran out of breath, a rival was called a pimp, a prostitute, the son of a dog and, finally, "a circumciser." Perhaps another constant is the suspicion that many of America's allies direct at their patron. "They did the same thing in Vietnam," said the pragmatic Affan al-Issawi, a U.S.-allied militia leader near Fallujah whom Lopez called "a very dear friend of mine." "I know their history. Just in one night, they left. They left all their agents and friends behind. I knew they would leave one day," Issawi said. Issawi has decorated his villa with portraits of himself with then-President George W. Bush, former American military commanders and President Obama. He acknowledges the help the U.S. military gave him in the counterinsurgency, including rifles, heavy machine guns and ammunition it seized from "bad people," as well as $1.5 million in contracts to build schools and a water station. On one $450,000 school contract, he boasted, flashing a $25,000, diamond-encrusted Rolex watch, he managed to clear $300,000. Indeed, Issawi may come out on top. He is an ally of Abu Risha, who some speculate might become the president of Iraq after next year's elections. Issawi has a seat on the provincial council, guaranteeing police protection. He carries his wealth naturally, like a rich Persian Gulf Arab, at ease with privilege to which he has grown accustomed. "I didn't build my life with American bricks," said Issawi, who will turn 35 in November. "I knew one day they would leave, and that they would leave quickly." A Bitter Aftertaste In 1922, Ali Sulaiman, the sheik praised by Gertrude Bell in her letter, worried what would happen to his reputation if it looked like the British had abandoned him. Nearly a century later, Raed Sabah and a coterie of other sheiks are the modern equivalent. At the peak of the fight against the insurgency, the United States supplied Sabah with 50 AK-47 rifles. Jassem Swaidawi, another ally, ran up a $30,000 bill one month on a U.S.-supplied phone he used to contact the military; he was reimbursed. Hamid al-Hais shows off a partial right finger and two wounds in his right leg, suffered in a fight with insurgents in 2007. They all met Obama when he was still a presidential candidate. Some of them said they expected American citizenship. Fearful for their lives amid charges of treason, others hoped for help finding residency in neighboring Jordan or Syria. Some are clearly motivated by money, which was once abundant: They want funds to keep flowing in a region that, more than any other part of Iraq, appears wedded to kleptocracy. "The simplest thing they could have done was to keep in touch," said Sabah, who last saw representatives of the U.S. military before the provincial elections in January. "The Americans never understood Iraqi society," added Hais, sitting in his diwan with a plaque from the U.S. military that reads, "Allies in battle, friends in peace." "All they did was write down in their notebooks what they were supposed to have learned," he said. The American project here was always infused with contradictions. Iraq was never as sovereign as U.S. officials insisted, never as secure as the military proclaimed. The United States called itself a partner, even as it presided over the destruction of the country's fabric. In Anbar, it proclaims a return to normalcy, amid a withdrawal it deems responsible, in a land that will long bear its mark. Sabah and other U.S.-allied sheiks joke darkly about the accusations leveled against them: that they have served as spies and stooges for the Americans. Some call them "the sheiks of dolma," a reference to the stuffed grape leaves the allies would serve U.S. military officers for lunch. You served the Americans, some tell the sheiks, and they never served you. "The Americans took what they wanted from them and left them behind. You can't do that in Iraq," said Col. Mahmoud al-Issawi, Fallujah's police chief. "It's shameful to the worst degree. It's not just shameful, it's actually a huge scandal." "An easy target to be killed," he termed the sheiks. In the interview, Lopez, the Marine commander, said he was sure that the United States would still boast of friends in Anbar in five years. Sabah, not called a sheik as often these days, was doubtful. "They may have to come back one day, and their friends won't be here anymore," he said. "Who would stand with them again? After this? No one would accept it." -------------------- 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 4 2009, 05:43 AM
Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,857 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)	AC 2009-10-04: "Conservative" radio talk show hosts & their reactionary followers have a lot of insulting words for liberals including: bed-wetters, panty-waists, limp-wristed, cowards, traitors, unAmerican, appeasers, willing to "roll over" (used by The Chronicle editorial staff), draft dodgers, tree-huggers, wackos, Femi-Nazis, communists, hippies, unpatriotic, whiners, cry-babies, cut-and-runners, flag-burners, etc.. To make it perfectly clear for the record, it is an objective FACT that Sarah Palin IS a BIMBO. Anybody who thinks this woman has anything to offer America in the way of enlightened leadership IS stupid. Anybody who reads or listens to Dick Morris & takes this shyster serious isn't playing with a full deck. I have written that America is deeply, perhaps irreparably divided. Fuggedabout "civil discourse" on talk radio or network TV. Ratings & advertising dollars are the bottom line. Liberals pay way too much attention to what Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly & other right-wingers say. Frankly liberals (many of them also members of the American elite status quo Establishment) are also self-centered, self-absorbed American introverts oblivious to the real world outside the madness of media -------------------- 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 4 2009, 05:51 AM

Advanced Member Group: Admin Posts: 32,857 Member No.: 3 Joined: 20-November 07 Warn: (0%)

AC 2009-10-04: The AC editorial is wrong. Obama met again with McChrystal on Friday aboard Air Force One in Denmark. Today word comes that 8 U.S. soldiers have been killed in outposts in Afghanistan in the same type of attack that killed 9 U.S. soldiers in July 2008. Candidate Obama was wrong to label the U.S. war in Afghanistan "the good war". If President Obama does give Gen. McChrystal 45,000 more U.S. troops that will not change the trajectory of the U.S. war in Afghanistan any more than the surge of U.S. troops in Iraq changed the trajectory of that war. Gen. Ray Odierno still has 124,000 U.S. troops in Iraq (only 7,000 less than pre-surge levels). Odierno is warning that reducing troops too fast in Iraq is dangerous. United States cannot withdraw significant numbers of troops from Iraq & expect the fragile status quo to hold. Adding 45,000 more U.S. troops to the 8 year old U.S./NATO war in Afghanistan is not an effective counterinsurgency tactic. The U.S. Army's counterinsurgency manual calls for 20 occupation troops per 1000 population. Afghanistan has ~ 31 million people. It would take 620,000 troops 10 years or more to win a counterinsurgency campaign in Afghanistan IF it is possible. -------------------- 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)