(NDC) Afghan insanity
mjd
decades we'd have become jaded and unaffected by this sort of s**t,
but it still nauseates me anyway:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20091130/roston
you couldn't find a better definition of clusterf**k if you looked it
up in the dictionary...
The old geezer
>
> The USA should be growing opium to rival the afghan/burma crop. Beat
> them at their own game...
That's the *REAL* reason we went in there......... to gain control of
the fields.
TOG
Ray O'Hara
"DG" <nos...@nospam.nospammmm> wrote in message
news:3arof5lejnb7h49ne...@4ax.com...
> up every year.
>
who gives a fuck about junkies. no one makes them become one
what we should do is back the drug lords as they have the most to fear from
the Taliban and just let the junkies get high.
The old geezer
>
> According to the UN the Taliban have been holding back supply to keep
> the price artificially highhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/world/middleeast/28opium.html?_r=1
>
> This is the crux of my argument for growing in the USA to reduce world
> prices and fight them economically.
Man, we won't even drill for oil on our own land, you think they're
gonna grow poppies here???
So is the *REAL* reason for troops in Afaghanistan is a good position
to invade Iran from???
TOG
ND: Sierra Nevada Celebration Ale
NP: Pacific Coast Highway - Christopher Franke (Pretty Schmaltzy)
The old geezer
>
> >So is the *REAL* reason for troops in Afaghanistan is a good position
> >to invade Iran from???
>
*Someone* has to be making $$$$ from them being there.
TOG
Walter Karmazyn
> On Nov 12, 4:48�pm, DG <nos...@nospam.nospammmm> wrote:
>> According to the UN the Taliban have been holding back supply to keep
>> the price artificially highhttp://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/28/world/middleeast/28opium.html?_r=1
>>
>> This is the crux of my argument for growing in the USA to reduce world
>> prices and fight them economically.
>
> Man, we won't even drill for oil on our own land, you think they're
> gonna grow poppies here???
>
> So is the *REAL* reason for troops in Afaghanistan is a good position
> to invade Iran from???
Lots of reasons to choose from. Of course we were attacked 911 by folks
whose training ground and hierarchy lived in Afghanistan. Charles
Krauthammer, wrote in the neocon journal The Weekly Standard in November
of 2001:
The asymmetry is almost comical. The whole world against one man. If in
the end the United States, backed by every Great Power, cannot succeed
in defeating some cave dwellers in the most backward country on earth,
then the entire structure of world stability, which rests ultimately on
the pacifying deterrent effect of American power, will be fatally
threatened.
Which is why so much hinges on the success of the war on terrorism.
Initially, success need not be defined globally. No one expects a quick
victory over an entrenched and shadowy worldwide network. Success does,
however, mean demonstrating that the United States has the will and
power to enforce the Bush doctrine that governments will be held
accountable for the terrorists they harbor. Success therefore requires
making an example of the Taliban. Getting Osama is not the immediate
goal. Everyone understands that it is hard, even for a superpower, to go
on a cave-to-cave manhunt. Toppling regimes is another matter. For the
Taliban to hold off the United States is an astounding triumph. Every
day that they remain in place is a rebuke to American power. Indeed, as
the war drags on, their renown, particularly in the Islamic world, will
only grow.
*****
So yeah it was at the time mostly about not losing our imperial prestige
by not dealing out swift punishment for 911, and as Krauthammer says
above, getting Osama (or AQ) was not an immediate goal.
But it also had its other advantages, like as you say, having a military
footprint on either side of Iran.
That footprint is also in the traditional area of Russian and to a
lesser extent Chinese influence, which happens btw to be an area rich in
natural resources. This gives the US a chance to diminish post Soviet
Russian influence in the region. The Unocal pipeline was a lot more
about bringing that natural gas under American control, rather than
reaching the outside world through Russian channels.
W
Walter Karmazyn
> band beyond description wrote:
>> And if you'll recall, the big U.S. Cold War horror scenario was that if
>> the Soviets were allowed to proceed unopposed with their 1979 Afghan
>> invasion, it would be a hop, skip and a jump for them from there to
>> threaten the Mideast & Persian Gulf oilfields and exert a stranglehold
>> on the West's energy supply and all it holds dear. So the U.S. armed
>> Osama & Co and sundry anti-Soviet Islamic insurgents in Afghanistan,
>> the likely blowback of which the U.S. is experiencing to this day.
>
>
>
> More blowback on the way...
>
> Karzai's opponent in the "election", Abdullah Abdullah wanted the head
> of the Independent Election Commission removed. Not suprising since
> he presided over the last fraud filled eleciton. Karzai wouldn't
> remove the fraudster so Abdullah bowed out of the election.
>
> Karzai is a US puppet and his only apparent skill is taking our money
> and protection. He wouldn't last an hour in any major Afghan city
> without US protection. He's there to give US citizens a sense that
> Afghans have a democracy. It's sheer nonsense...
>
Abdullah is tighter with the warlords than Karzai, he has CIA
connections and has received money from them in the past. While Karzai
picked a warlord for one of his VP's and got the support of at least
some other major warlords, Abdullah's major support came from the
National Front, a group of warlords who have been marginalized under
Karzai. So perhaps electing Abdullah would have replaced Karzai's
warlord friends with his?
I've mentioned before how most Afghans feel about the warlords, they
hate them. these men, for the most part have been and still in many
cases are brutal with the people. Some are said to be guilty of human
rights violations, mass murder, war crimes and what not. Many Afghans
would like to see them held accountable for their crimes. The warlords
of course wouldn't like this and a couple of years back those who got
themselves elected to the Afghan Parliament introduced and got passed a
bill that would grant amnesty to warlords for their various crimes and
human rights violations. Karzai thought the bill could be
unconstitutional, but signed it anyway under threat of losing warlord
support. There was a huge rally (25,000) in support of this bill in the
same stadium where the Taliban used to execute people. Abdullah
attended that rally, not sure if he spoke at it, but he did speak to the
western press there, in support of its passage.
Amnesty International claims that following the election, Abdullah's
supporters were, like Karzai's, threatening journalists that were
investigating fraud charges.
W
>
>
> --
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosepetal236/
Edwin Hurwitz
band beyond description <everybody's.d...@that.rag.com> wrote:
> On 2009-11-13 15:38:04 +0900, Walter Karmazyn <walterk...@yahoo.com> said:
>
> > The old geezer wrote:
> And if you'll recall, the big U.S. Cold War horror scenario was that if
> the Soviets were allowed to proceed unopposed with their 1979 Afghan
> invasion, it would be a hop, skip and a jump for them from there to
> threaten the Mideast & Persian Gulf oilfields and exert a stranglehold
> on the West's energy supply and all it holds dear. So the U.S. armed
> Osama & Co and sundry anti-Soviet Islamic insurgents in Afghanistan,
> the likely blowback of which the U.S. is experiencing to this day.
Blowback!?!? Why you anti American Commie loving pinko tree hugging oh
wait, you are right.
Edwin
--
If you want to make peace, you don't talk to your friends. You talk to your
enemies.
-Moshe Dayan