REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

US envoy removed from Afghan post

POSTED BY: GINOBIFFARONI
UPDATED: Monday, October 19, 2009 05:50
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 3137
PAGE 1 of 2

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:10 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


A senior UN official in Afghanistan has been removed from his post following a row about how to handle the country's disputed election, the BBC has learned.

Peter Galbraith had angered Afghan President Hamid Karzai by criticising the country's election commission.

Mr Galbraith, from the US, was said to have called for a complete recount.

Last week the top UN Afghan envoy, Kai Eide, said Mr Galbraith had left the country after a row between them, but he denied he had ordered him to go.

UN sources say Secretary General Ban Ki-moon decided to end Mr Galbraith's mission after it became clear he was no longer able to carry out his work in Afghanistan, says the BBC's Lyse Doucet.

Some Afghan cabinet ministers had said they no longer wanted to work with him.


AFGHAN POLL FRAUD
15 Sep:Election Complaints Commission +chief says 10% of votes need to be recounted
8 Sep: Poll complaints body orders some recounts nationwide
8 Sep: IEC says votes from 600 polling stations "quarantined"
3 Sep: Claims 30,000 fraudulent votes cast for Karzai in Kandahar
30 Aug: 2,000 fraud allegations are probed; 600 deemed serious
20 Aug: Election day and claims 80,000 ballots were filled out fraudulently for Karzai in Ghazni
18 Aug: Ballot cards sold openly and voter bribes offered

Election: Main fraud allegations

Last week, Mr Eide told the BBC the dispute had been resolved by Mr Galbraith agreeing to leave the country for a while.

He described Mr Galbraith as "a valuable deputy" and said he hoped they could "re-establish a good team and work together".

Mr Eide declined to talk about details of his disagreement with Mr Galbraith, but said the UN should respect the constitutional bodies in charge of the presidential election "to avoid any impression that there is foreign interference".

The row is between two men who have known each other for a long time but have very different styles, but a UN source said that had not been the only factor in Mr Galbraith's removal, says our correspondent.

It is understood that Mr Ban would not have dismissed Mr Galbraith - who came to the post with US support - without backing from the Washington, she adds.

The US, along with other foreign missions in Afghanistan, appears to want to move on from the election dispute to deal with the country's other considerable problems, she says, but this will anger observers who believe a more robust response is needed to the allegations.

EU election observers have said that about 1.5m votes - about a quarter of all ballots - cast in August's presidential vote could be fraudulent.

They say that 1.1 million votes cast for President Karzai are suspicious.





Guess they don't like being called crooked bastards

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8281934.stm






" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Tuesday, September 29, 2009 6:35 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


So, are they gonna replace him with someone from Bush's campaign team....


Someone who understands a few thousand votes have no meaning







" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, September 30, 2009 5:11 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


The senior UN envoy removed from his post in Afghanistan has told the BBC his dismissal sent "a terrible signal" to the world about the organisation.

Peter Galbraith said he believed he had been removed because of a dispute with his superior over how to handle fraud allegations in the country's elections.

He said that in not addressing the "extensive" evidence of fraud, the UN had failed its Afghan mandate.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8284123.stm


If such a fraud cannot be addressed, then Afghanistan is truely lost


Funny what happens when you make your enemy the voice of truth





" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 1, 2009 7:02 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Support by Afghan people may wane: NATO commander

The coalition does not have an indefinite amount of time to defeat the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan because public support there will not last indefinitely, the top U.S. and NATO commander says.

Speaking at a London think-tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Gen. Stanley McChrystal said success in Afghanistan will depend on convincing ordinary Afghans that coalition forces could help deliver a better life.

Last week, McChrystal delivered a report seeking 40,000 more combat troops in Afghanistan. Failing to do so would mean that the U.S. would fail to meet its objectives of causing irreparable damage to Taliban militants and their al-Qaeda allies, he said.

The latter option would involve few troops and more unmanned drones and special forces units. NATO contributes roughly two-thirds of the more than 100,000 international troops in Afghanistan, including more than 3,000 from Canada.

White House officials say it may take weeks more before the president decides whether to overhaul the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan or send more troops.

Jones later told senators in a classified briefing after the meeting that the administration's Afghanistan strategy will depend largely on the outcome of the Aug. 20 Afghan presidential election. A recount is underway following allegations of massive fraud.
With files from The Associated Press

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/10/01/afghanistan-mcchrystal001.htm
l


While NATO publicly is continuing to support the mission, NATO members are either debating to, or planning to remove their troops from this mess

Instead of dealing with the False election, drug economy, fraud and corruption... US diplomats are busy running about begging countrys not to pull out their troops. General McChrystal wants 40,000 more troops now, and he will likely want replacements if say half of the NATO troops leave, as is being debated in Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, and Italy.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,618420,00.html






" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 1, 2009 5:47 PM

DREAMTROVE


This a lot of bumps. You want to keep a thread on the Afghan war, you have some good points. Care to dig up some maps and casualty figures?

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 1, 2009 7:03 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


This is getting bumps because it needs and deserves them. I keep meaning to get to this, but there's damned little to snark about in Afghanistan right now. It's a horror show, and it's not getting better.

Any bets on how long Karzai lasts?

Anyone remember what happened to Najibullah, the last "President" that was installed by a foreign power there? Let's just say Mussolini got off easy.




Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 1, 2009 7:19 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This a lot of bumps. You want to keep a thread on the Afghan war, you have some good points. Care to dig up some maps and casualty figures?




The sad thing is I think McCrystal is right, if his approach had of been implemented from the beginning, I think he could have won over the people of Afghanistan...


But after the debacle Bush and Cheney set in motion, How could you trust the west? Especially with all the post Soviet indifference...


Just makes me mad... and if I'm mad, you could just imagine what people living there must think of the situation.

Bush / Cheney was horrible

Obama isn't making things better

my country is suppose to pull out next year, and they will even if the government here falls to make it happen



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 1, 2009 7:25 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
This is getting bumps because it needs and deserves them. I keep meaning to get to this, but there's damned little to snark about in Afghanistan right now. It's a horror show, and it's not getting better.

Any bets on how long Karzai lasts?

Anyone remember what happened to Najibullah, the last "President" that was installed by a foreign power there? Let's just say Mussolini got off easy.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams






Remember Diem, I think a remake of that could be very likely


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem#Coup_and_assassination


Coup and assassination
The body of Diem in the back of the APC, having been executed on the way to military headquarters.
Main articles: Cable 243, 1963 South Vietnamese coup, and Arrest and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem

On orders from U.S. President John F. Kennedy, Henry Cabot Lodge, the American ambassador to South Vietnam, refused to meet with Diem. Upon hearing that a coup d'etat was being designed by ARVN generals led by General Dương Văn Minh, the United States gave secret assurances to the generals that the U.S. would not interfere. Dương Văn Minh and his co-conspirators overthrew the government on November 1, 1963.

The coup was very swift. On November 1, 1963, with only the palace guard remaining to defend President Diem and his younger brother, Ngô Đình Nhu, the generals called the palace offering Diem safe exile out of the country if he surrendered. However, that evening, Diem and his entourage escaped via an underground passage to Cholon, where they were captured the following morning, November 2. The brothers were executed in the back of an armoured personnel carrier by Captain Nguyen Van Nhung while en route to the Vietnamese Joint General Staff headquarters.[60] Diem was buried in an unmarked grave in a cemetery next to the house of the U.S. ambassador.[61]
Aftermath

Upon learning of Diem's ouster and death, Ho Chi Minh is reported to have said, "I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid."[62] The North Vietnamese Politburo was more explicit, predicting: "The consequences of the 1 November coup d'état will be contrary to the calculations of the U.S. imperialists ... Diem was one of the strongest individuals resisting the people and Communism. Everything that could be done in an attempt to crush the revolution was carried out by Diem. Diem was one of the most competent lackeys of the U.S. imperialists ... Among the anti-Communists in South Vietnam or exiled in other countries, no one has sufficient political assets and abilities to cause others to obey. Therefore, the lackey administration cannot be stabilized. The coup d'état on 1 November 1963 will not be the last."[62]

After Diem's assassination, South Vietnam was unable to establish a stable government and numerous coups took place during the first several years after his death. While the U.S. continued to influence South Vietnam's government, the assassination bolstered North Vietnamese attempts to characterize the South Vietnamese as supporters of colonialism






" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 1, 2009 8:15 PM

DREAMTROVE


I think this is a hopeless lost cause. We were in there to sew chaos to spread that chaos to Iran and Pakistan and we have admitted as much. The local combatants have many nuclear industrial powers to draw on for potential aid:

China
Pakistan
India
Iran
The five former soviet republics
Russia
And of course, US. Don't think they can't work for us and then turn around and use those weapons against us, because they've done it before.

But really, we're totally outclassed. It's the same reason we never go to war in Africa. Unless you put boots on the ground numbering in 8 digits, you're not even in the running. Our 5 digit force is a suicide mission. Someone bring those guys home.

As for Karzai, he's a dead duck. I'd say next march...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 2, 2009 8:21 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


I think the bigger question is what would happen if the west pulled out...

back to the chaos and suffering that brought the Taliban to power?


or does the US need Afghanistan as a land base for the invasion of Iran?

which also has made me mad lately,

as far as anybody has been able to prove Iran is in compliance with both the NPT and IAEA treatys...

yet they have had to put up with the hysteria Obama started during the G20...


and Israel, throwing stones refuses to sign either treaty, submit to any inspection, and had exported nuclear weapons tech to South Africa .

Embargos = Bullshit




" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 2, 2009 8:23 AM

FREMDFIRMA


And all this makes the latest tiny tragedy all the more upsetting.

Some kid got fatally bonked by a box of coalition propaganda leaflets - which is kind of a sad echo of our entire doings there.

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_8560/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=7msUsAfb

FWIW - I think McChrystal is the wrong guy for the job, so does Gates, but there's no way to yank him unless he does something even stupider than usual, since he has seniority and political backing.
Ask WHERE, and you'll understand why I dislike him.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 2, 2009 8:29 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I think the bigger question is what would happen if the west pulled out...

back to the chaos and suffering that brought the Taliban to power?


or does the US need Afghanistan as a land base for the invasion of Iran?

which also has made me mad lately,

as far as anybody has been able to prove Iran is in compliance with both the NPT and IAEA treatys...

yet they have had to put up with the hysteria Obama started during the G20...


and Israel, throwing stones refuses to sign either treaty, submit to any inspection, and had exported nuclear weapons tech to South Africa .

Embargos = Bullshit




" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939



Right there with ya, Gino.

If Iran "must" open up its nuclear facilities, shouldn't Israel, France, Great Britain, Canada, the United States, Brazil, South Africa, India, Pakistan, et al, have to do the same?

Or are the rules different if the country happens to be our enemy du jour?

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 2, 2009 9:17 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And all this makes the latest tiny tragedy all the more upsetting.

Some kid got fatally bonked by a box of coalition propaganda leaflets - which is kind of a sad echo of our entire doings there.

http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_8560/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=7msUsAfb

FWIW - I think McChrystal is the wrong guy for the job, so does Gates, but there's no way to yank him unless he does something even stupider than usual, since he has seniority and political backing.
Ask WHERE, and you'll understand why I dislike him.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it



I think McChrystal has had several good ideas. Less reliance on using airstrikes planned with questionable intell, more positive engagement with the locals ( ie trying to win over the Afghans by having the troops not treat the locals like crap ), he is calling the administration on its lack of clear strategic goals, and the commitment to attain them, he has also been critical of the corruption in the Afghan government.

The political side of this the US has fought these problems since the Vietnam war, but how can you face those problem if not head on, I'm sure Gates doesn't like that at all. Indecision and lack of clarity from Washington is at least 1/3 of the problem.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2009/09/mcchrysta
l_to_resign_if_not_gi.php


http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090921/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan


So, ok I 'll ask Where? Why?






" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 2, 2009 9:23 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I think the bigger question is what would happen if the west pulled out...

back to the chaos and suffering that brought the Taliban to power?


or does the US need Afghanistan as a land base for the invasion of Iran?

which also has made me mad lately,

as far as anybody has been able to prove Iran is in compliance with both the NPT and IAEA treatys...

yet they have had to put up with the hysteria Obama started during the G20...


and Israel, throwing stones refuses to sign either treaty, submit to any inspection, and had exported nuclear weapons tech to South Africa .

Embargos = Bullshit




" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939



Right there with ya, Gino.

If Iran "must" open up its nuclear facilities, shouldn't Israel, France, Great Britain, Canada, the United States, Brazil, South Africa, India, Pakistan, et al, have to do the same?

Or are the rules different if the country happens to be our enemy du jour?

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams




What amazes and sickens me is how willing all the western powers are to run along behind Obama on this and beat on the same drum?

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,652115-2,00.html




" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 2, 2009 9:47 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


Caught some of his radio interview on On Point yesterday -

http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/10/peter-galbraith-on-afghanistan

Galbraith:

"President Obama’s strategy requires a partner who is credible. We cannot do the job in Afghanistan on our own. We need to have a credible Afghan government that is interested in providing services to the people, that is capable of providing good, honest administration, on both the national and the local level. And whose tenure in office is accepted by the Afghan people. The Karzai government has been characterized for the last 7 years by corruption and ineffectiveness. And now, if President Karzai in fact continues in office, it will be the product of an election in which there was a massive fraud. I’m not saying that President Karzai would not have won anyhow, I think it’s quite possible that he would’ve won, and certainly if there was a run-off. But nonetheless, the fraud has tainted the credibility of the process, and therefore will certainly affect how Afghans, and particularly those who supported Karzai’s opponents, see the legitimacy of the government….

What we had in this election was wholesale fraud. That is to say, in at least a thousand polling centers, the polling centers never opened. And yet, votes were manufactured in those polling centers, or perhaps not even manufactured, merely reported. And in that circumstance, it’s possible that 1/3 of the votes that President Karzai was reported to have received were fraudulent. Incidentally, there was also fraud in the tally of Dr. Abdullah and Ramazan Bashardost, the third candidate, maybe in some of the others. But not on the scale that there was for President Karzai."

Ouch - some of the comments are pretty good too.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 2, 2009 10:58 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Two of the biggest mistakes

1. Bringing in a exile to head the government

2. Trying to build a government from the top - down

To establish a democracy, particularly one with so many diverse and sometimes hostile groups you need to start simple.

Someone asked me, what would you have done? So I gave it some thought

You don't start at the top, instead you appoint a temporary military governor ( such as McA in Japan )
then build democracy at the grassroots level.

Village / Town / City. get services running, tend to the people, etc

When an area becomes more or less secure ( many areas were six months in ) you elect provincial governors.

When you have enough Provinces secure enough to have elections, you elect a parliament to begin the process of debating and writing a constitution. Once this process is complete, ( I think areas which had not participated up to this point would see it as in their interest to get involved ) Then another election is held, under the rules of the new constitution... the military governor hands off control of the government... then bamm

it is now up to them.

Handing power over to warlords and exiles....

Well the whole " nationbuilding " effort up to now reminds me of this movie scene






" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 2, 2009 3:18 PM

DREAMTROVE


Bump for further thought as well, many excellent points. a great number of them made by gino

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 2, 2009 3:45 PM

FREMDFIRMA



My problem with McChrystal is that unofficially, he's in the same boat with Erik Prince, politically and morally speaking.

I worry that his personal biases and intolerance are gonna mess with his judgement, you understand ?

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 2, 2009 3:58 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Bump for further thought as well, many excellent points. a great number of them made by gino



More like "the vast majority of them". :)

I find it refreshing to get an outside view of our military actions. I've never been convinced that we're getting an accurate reporting of it here at home.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 2, 2009 7:22 PM

DREAMTROVE


Mike,

Yeah, I was just not speaking in hyperbole, but there are some other excellent points like this one:
Quote:

Frem:
My problem with McChrystal is that unofficially, he's in the same boat with Erik Prince, politically and morally speaking.



Yeah this was my gut reaction as well. I read the back and forth between him and Obama and it seemed like McChrystal was gunning for an all out hopeless cause here, almost reminiscent of the WWI generals. I just wanted to read more on the subject before commenting.

One thing doesn't take a lot of research to say:
We're getting our heads handed to us like everyone else, ever, and for a very obvious reason. No, it's not "they're crazy bastards" nor is it "Mountains! eek! run for the hills!"

It's the straightforward reality that you can't conquer total anarchy. Not easily. This is why we suck in Somalia as well. It's the same thing that defeated the Greeks and then the Romans in Germany and Russia.

Once you have an established power structure, that structure keeps control of the population. Capture that, and you capture the country. Obviously, we would have had fewer troubles in Iraq if we had not then tried to dismantle the power structure and build a new one in its place.

But if you look at Nazi and Soviet conquest of Europe, it was relatively easy, because there was a very solid local power structure to take. Once you control Paris, Paris controls France. Not a lot else to be done. Once you control Kabul, you control Kabul, and that's about it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 2, 2009 8:39 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


The only things I know about McCrystal I have read since his appointment. Special Forces background, and that he was fairly non political up to the point that some former subordinates figure that if Obama doesn't reinforce or change the mission he'd resign...

I like that as it was the "yes" men which largely helped to create this mess

Also he was one of the few to be calling for less airstrikes ( both manned and unmanned ) as well as changes with Karzai and Afghan gov corruption.


I think with his background, and from what he has said that trying to win over the people, and building infrastructure was the only way to win, and he has also said that the present gov there is a major obstacle...'

Seems a honest statement of fact next to the party line from Washington

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1927403,00.html

and if he does resign in protest, that may also serve to bring an end to this mess.

Seems refreshing as Petraeus was reminiscent of Westmoreland, and look how that ended.


I looked and tried to find a connection with Prince ( who is a douche ) and couldn't find any, not saying it isn't there.

My feeling is the use of " contractors " should be outright banned.

Oh, and Dream you can conquer anarchy, but you can't play sides ( like Somalia, and Afghanistan ) you have to play it straight, you have to present the hope of something better, and you have to beat down any corrupt bastard that messes with the solution publicly.

You can't goe in guns blazing saying " were gonna hunt down them Taleban basterds " as has been the case.

We could talk about the " Nazi and Soviet conquest of Europe " at lenght if you like, but I think there was much more to it.









" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 3, 2009 2:18 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Gino, Dream:

Keep looking. Look into McChrystal's involvement in the cover-up of Pat Tillman's friendly-fire death, which was used to make the man a hero (he already was) and as a recruiting tool for a war he was against (Iraq). According to some, that whitewash and cover-up of the way he died started with McChrystal.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 3, 2009 2:26 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mike,

Yeah, I was just not speaking in hyperbole, but there are some other excellent points like this one:
Quote:

Frem:
My problem with McChrystal is that unofficially, he's in the same boat with Erik Prince, politically and morally speaking.



Yeah this was my gut reaction as well. I read the back and forth between him and Obama and it seemed like McChrystal was gunning for an all out hopeless cause here, almost reminiscent of the WWI generals. I just wanted to read more on the subject before commenting.

One thing doesn't take a lot of research to say:
We're getting our heads handed to us like everyone else, ever, and for a very obvious reason. No, it's not "they're crazy bastards" nor is it "Mountains! eek! run for the hills!"

It's the straightforward reality that you can't conquer total anarchy. Not easily. This is why we suck in Somalia as well. It's the same thing that defeated the Greeks and then the Romans in Germany and Russia.

Once you have an established power structure, that structure keeps control of the population. Capture that, and you capture the country. Obviously, we would have had fewer troubles in Iraq if we had not then tried to dismantle the power structure and build a new one in its place.



Bingo. And despite the protestations of some around this board, that's also what would make the U.S. damned hard to invade or defeat on our home soil. We tend to rally behind our "leaders" when threatened, but if invaded, we wouldn't *rely* on them; we'd for the most part fight to the last man to defend our families, our homes, and our land. Our "national" leadership only goes so far, and just under the surface there's a seething semi-anarchy, as has been witnessed over the summer at the town hall meetings.

Quote:


But if you look at Nazi and Soviet conquest of Europe, it was relatively easy, because there was a very solid local power structure to take. Once you control Paris, Paris controls France. Not a lot else to be done. Once you control Kabul, you control Kabul, and that's about it.



Yup. And agreed, Iraq should have been done far differently, if it was going to be done at all. Depose Saddam or run him into exile, then USE his higher-ups to restore a sense of order, and then SLOWLY start phasing them out in favor of more U.S.-friendly puppets. That's not to say I advocate puppet regimes, just that if you're going to do it anyway, at least let the people have a semblance of involvement and "choice" in the matter. Makes it easier to mollify them, don'tcha know...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 3, 2009 5:06 AM

DREAMTROVE


Mike

I always thought the Tillman thing wreaked the way the cheney hunting story did: IIRC, the first version of friendly fire report stated that two US perimeter patrols were circling in opposite directions Generally, the first leak is true, and later versions are cover ups, but if true, then there's a problem: This is never done, for this specific reason it's not done. (Just like you never fire behind you in a hunting line.) If this was done, then someone ordered it, probably with intended consequences.
Quote:

Bingo. And despite the protestations of some around this board, that's also what would make the U.S. damned hard to invade or defeat on our home soil. We tend to rally behind our "leaders" when threatened, but if invaded, we wouldn't *rely* on them; we'd for the most part fight to the last man to defend our families, our homes, and our land. Our "national" leadership only goes so far, and just under the surface there's a seething semi-anarchy, as has been witnessed over the summer at the town hall meetings.


I have to slightly disagree with you agreeing with me That may be true, but the power structure *is* in place, and the state police and national guard of any US state might have its hands full, but would have some ability to hold that state, more so than if were total anarchy.

Quote:

Yup. And agreed, Iraq should have been done far differently, if it was going to be done at all. Depose Saddam or run him into exile, then USE his higher-ups to restore a sense of order, and then SLOWLY start phasing them out in favor of more U.S.-friendly puppets. That's not to say I advocate puppet regimes, just that if you're going to do it anyway, at least let the people have a semblance of involvement and "choice" in the matter. Makes it easier to mollify them, don'tcha know...


Yeah, there were a lot of better ways to do this one. Saddam was a menace because he was a puppet, and we didn't want him to become someone elses puppet, puppets are like that, or to go indy on our ass. The fact is, most govts. are puppet govts. which is one reason why I oppose the idea of govt.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 3, 2009 7:55 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Gino, Dream:

Keep looking. Look into McChrystal's involvement in the cover-up of Pat Tillman's friendly-fire death, which was used to make the man a hero (he already was) and as a recruiting tool for a war he was against (Iraq). According to some, that whitewash and cover-up of the way he died started with McChrystal.



I assume your talking about the silver star citation?

Put yourself in his shoes, the order to award the medal was very likely political, probably from SecDef...

What do you do, refuse to sign off on the medal? at that point any investigation would have been ongoing, any information classified without any conclusion... is it no wonder the citation was vague and inaccurate ?

There should have been no medal awarded until after the investigation was over, so what do you do ?

From what I read McChrystal reported what had happened up the chain of command repeatedly,

not the actions of a coverup




" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 3, 2009 1:41 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Here we go, the election was a fraud and the UN monitors there to ensure a fair election did nothing

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8288383.stm


great for the taleban recruiting drive



NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 3, 2009 1:53 PM

FREMDFIRMA



I didn't mean a direct connection, I meant McChrystal privately has that same damned attitude.

You know, that the problem with Afghanistan is that it's fulla Afghans, a buncha rag-head sand ******s who are all going to hell anyway so might as well speed the process and oh what a shame we can't get em to kill each other instead of wasting our precious resources...

THAT attitude.

Besides the fact that he's climbed the ranks politically, using preparation H for lip gloss, there's big gaping holes in his public service record, and for a fact folks, they do NOT give out them stars for humanitarian reasons, so I find myself wondering what the bastard did back in Jan 2001 to get it.

Ponder the history of what it takes to "make one's bones" as a General - and the fact that Patton and McArthur did so by stomping on US Veterans at the behest of the government that screwed em - more often than not, it takes an act so monstrous that the "loyalty" of the person is undeniable.

And when poring over McChrystals record, all I got is questions, and no answers at all.

That in combination with a certain amount of known religious and racial intolerance regarding the man, makes me cynical and suspicious, his role in JSOC completely reeks of blackops, and he's buddy buddy with the same alphabet intel goons who're in my opinion the single greatest threat to our nation and it's people on the planet.

So yeah, I think he's the wrong guy for the job.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 3, 2009 3:03 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

I didn't mean a direct connection, I meant McChrystal privately has that same damned attitude.

You know, that the problem with Afghanistan is that it's fulla Afghans, a buncha rag-head sand ******s who are all going to hell anyway so might as well speed the process and oh what a shame we can't get em to kill each other instead of wasting our precious resources...

THAT attitude.

Besides the fact that he's climbed the ranks politically, using preparation H for lip gloss, there's big gaping holes in his public service record, and for a fact folks, they do NOT give out them stars for humanitarian reasons, so I find myself wondering what the bastard did back in Jan 2001 to get it.

Ponder the history of what it takes to "make one's bones" as a General - and the fact that Patton and McArthur did so by stomping on US Veterans at the behest of the government that screwed em - more often than not, it takes an act so monstrous that the "loyalty" of the person is undeniable.

And when poring over McChrystals record, all I got is questions, and no answers at all.

That in combination with a certain amount of known religious and racial intolerance regarding the man, makes me cynical and suspicious, his role in JSOC completely reeks of blackops, and he's buddy buddy with the same alphabet intel goons who're in my opinion the single greatest threat to our nation and it's people on the planet.

So yeah, I think he's the wrong guy for the job.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it



I can only judge him by the actions I see, and he has come out with more honesty about the problems in Afghanistan than anyone else in the command structure...

airstrikes are down %40 I read someplace,

and the speeches to the troops seem to focus on treating the locals better, and to be more tolerant of the cultural differences...

plus the fact he is really forcing Obama and Gates to actually make some sort of decisions, and to make them publicly on what the mission is suppose to be anyway...


From what you have said, if he started in with that attitude, I would be denouncing him too, just haven't seen it yet, and with a special forces background I really wouldn't expect it either, the primary purpose of the SF is to go into countrys and train local forces.

Also, from what you have said is there anyone you would consider the right person for the job since ALL general officers are bad?






" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 3, 2009 3:52 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Well, given the situation, really there's only two halfway decent options, and Ralston is a freakin flyboy, not to mention corrupt as it gets and blatantly in bed with general dynamics and the turks.
(see also: Sibel Edmonds)

Which leaves General Pace - whom we oughta drag out of retirement and put in charge of step by step disengagement of our forces from the area.

I know Pace is a sumbitch, and Gates hates the hardassed, ambitious bastard, but he's OUR sumbitch, and like Gates, will follow orders without regard to personal feelings on the matter.

Even with the inevitable friction between him and Gates, who kinda put a knife in his back to climb into the position he did, it'd still go better with a sand-eating marine in charge who has enough knowledge of the area and its inhabitants to not make the obvious, boneheaded mistakes every else has been - Pace is also less likely to sit on his ass in an air conditioned office back in washington and fly it by wire, he'll go OUT there, and start knocking the heads of staff officers on site till shit gets done.

That said, I hate Pace too, but he *IS* the man for the job, since you asked.

-F

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 3, 2009 4:04 PM

DREAMTROVE


Quote:

his role in JSOC completely reeks of blackops


You don't say... JSOC in Afghanistan *is* black ops these days. And no one seemed to notice that under the new setup the Al Qaeda cells that we've recruited have access thru JSOC to make any requests they want for any equipment in the US military and the top oversight on this is Hillary Clinton? This is insane. And, of course, such "contractors" are under no treaty or bloodoath or anything they might actually honor to *not* turn around and then use that equipment against us.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 3, 2009 6:08 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Some more reading for you to catch up on.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090525/zirin2


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 3, 2009 6:12 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Posted by DreamTrove:

And, of course, such "contractors" are under no treaty or bloodoath or anything they might actually honor to *not* turn around and then use that equipment against us.



Oh, come on - you're not even being realistic! There's absolutely NO CHANCE at all that that could ever happen! Nobody has EVER used our own weapons or training against us - how could they, once we've shown them the light of freedom?

[/sarcasm]

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 3, 2009 9:12 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Well, given the situation, really there's only two halfway decent options, and Ralston is a freakin flyboy, not to mention corrupt as it gets and blatantly in bed with general dynamics and the turks.
(see also: Sibel Edmonds)

Which leaves General Pace - whom we oughta drag out of retirement and put in charge of step by step disengagement of our forces from the area.

I know Pace is a sumbitch, and Gates hates the hardassed, ambitious bastard, but he's OUR sumbitch, and like Gates, will follow orders without regard to personal feelings on the matter.

Even with the inevitable friction between him and Gates, who kinda put a knife in his back to climb into the position he did, it'd still go better with a sand-eating marine in charge who has enough knowledge of the area and its inhabitants to not make the obvious, boneheaded mistakes every else has been - Pace is also less likely to sit on his ass in an air conditioned office back in washington and fly it by wire, he'll go OUT there, and start knocking the heads of staff officers on site till shit gets done.

That said, I hate Pace too, but he *IS* the man for the job, since you asked.

-F



Since we're playing fantasy football here and pulling people out of retirement how about Anthony Zinni

Obama hasn't made the disengagement call yet, I can't see Ralston coming up with a winning strategy unless he gets some kickass staff officers to back him up...

Pace would be a good choice, but I wonder why Gates / Obama retired him ? had to have been more than a personality clash...





" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 4, 2009 3:15 AM

DREAMTROVE


Mike

Thanks for the Nation story. In the words of Rupert Giles: "Bloody priceless."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 4, 2009 4:36 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/world/asia/13military.html

From Oct 3rd, describes a new manual of operations having been written based on mistakes that were made in a July 2008 disaster at Wanat:

"More than a year has passed since an Afghan police commander turned on coalition forces and helped insurgents carry out a surprise attack that killed nine Americans, wounded more than 30 United States and Afghan troops and nearly resulted in the loss of an allied outpost in one of the deadliest engagements of the war."

"The handbook, “Small-Unit Operations in Afghanistan,” strikes a tone of respect for the Taliban and other insurgent groups, which are acknowledged to be extremely experienced fighters; even more, American soldiers are warned that the insurgents rapidly adapt to shifts in tactics."

"The manual includes a chapter titled “Cultural Engagements,” offering guidance to small-unit leaders on building relationships with wavering village elders and trust among distrustful village residents — a process that cannot be left to senior officers who may be back at headquarters.

The manual describes how to train better for the defense of remote forward operating bases in harsh Afghan terrain, especially in contested areas where the loyalties of local people are uncertain. The detailed “how to” lists include instructions on such battlefield techniques as deploying mortars more effectively than soldiers did at Wanat, where they did not take into account terrain that provided cover for attackers."

Sadly, it sounds like 8 years in and we're still learning the hard way and basically "tweaking."

I don't buy the "winning hearts and minds" there's nothing to suggest that we can, and certainly if it is possible we're looking at how many more years to gain trust? Do we think the Afghans are that easy?

Also -

a) ask a military person what the solution is and you'll get a military answer - what general is going to say "we can't win this one."

b) "mix with the Afghan people" sounds like what a military guy would say to the new liberal president and his liberal followers - it's nicer. Sounds like a stall imho.

And just happened yesterday:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?hp

"KABUL, Afghanistan — Insurgents besieged two American outposts in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday, American and Afghan officials said, killing eight Americans and two Afghan policemen in a bold daylight strike that was the deadliest for American soldiers in more than a year (Wanat)."

It does feel like we're being played.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 4, 2009 4:59 AM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Pizmo: Yup. Ask for another 20,000 troops here and 60,000 there, and before you know it, you've got 500,000 American soldiers on the ground in hostile territory. Sound familiar?

More importantly, I have yet to hear a comprehensive answer for what exactly constitutes a "win". At what point are we able to say "That's it - mission accomplished; let's go home."? You know that no one has an answer when they refuse to give you one. What I'm hearing now, and ALL I'm hearing lately, is things like "well, we don't want to pick a 'date-certain' for withdrawal..." and things like that - the EXACT SAME things we were told about Iraq when it was realized that what we had there was a clusterfuck of biblical proportions, with no way out and no end in sight.

We are now hearing more support for a "surge" in Afghanistan, with lots of backslapping about how "successful" the surge in Iraq was, and all they're talking about in terms of this "surge" is more boots on the ground. It wasn't the number of soldiers that helped in Iraq - it was the fact that we actually started paying the enemy cashy money to stop attacking us. Nobody likes to talk about that aspect of it, but the plain simple fact of it is that there were people there who were getting tired of the infighting, and we took advantage of the situation by offering them cash to not kill us. So far, I'm not hearing anything of the kind coming out of Afghanistan.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 4, 2009 5:59 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/world/asia/13military.html

From Oct 3rd, describes a new manual of operations having been written based on mistakes that were made in a July 2008 disaster at Wanat:

"More than a year has passed since an Afghan police commander turned on coalition forces and helped insurgents carry out a surprise attack that killed nine Americans, wounded more than 30 United States and Afghan troops and nearly resulted in the loss of an allied outpost in one of the deadliest engagements of the war."

"The handbook, “Small-Unit Operations in Afghanistan,” strikes a tone of respect for the Taliban and other insurgent groups, which are acknowledged to be extremely experienced fighters; even more, American soldiers are warned that the insurgents rapidly adapt to shifts in tactics."

"The manual includes a chapter titled “Cultural Engagements,” offering guidance to small-unit leaders on building relationships with wavering village elders and trust among distrustful village residents — a process that cannot be left to senior officers who may be back at headquarters.

The manual describes how to train better for the defense of remote forward operating bases in harsh Afghan terrain, especially in contested areas where the loyalties of local people are uncertain. The detailed “how to” lists include instructions on such battlefield techniques as deploying mortars more effectively than soldiers did at Wanat, where they did not take into account terrain that provided cover for attackers."

Sadly, it sounds like 8 years in and we're still learning the hard way and basically "tweaking."

I don't buy the "winning hearts and minds" there's nothing to suggest that we can, and certainly if it is possible we're looking at how many more years to gain trust? Do we think the Afghans are that easy?

Also -

a) ask a military person what the solution is and you'll get a military answer - what general is going to say "we can't win this one."

b) "mix with the Afghan people" sounds like what a military guy would say to the new liberal president and his liberal followers - it's nicer. Sounds like a stall imho.

And just happened yesterday:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?hp

"KABUL, Afghanistan — Insurgents besieged two American outposts in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday, American and Afghan officials said, killing eight Americans and two Afghan policemen in a bold daylight strike that was the deadliest for American soldiers in more than a year (Wanat)."

It does feel like we're being played.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com






I agree and disagree

If back in 2002 things had not been so badly mismanaged, I think the Afghan people would have more willing to accept a new political system and all the change that goes with it...

But idiots screwed it all up by overuse of airstrikes and drones, treating the Afghans as a second class people, acting like an occupation force, installing the most ineffective corrupt regime imaginable, etc, etc, etc


I think there is nothing to do at this point but slink away with your tail between your legs... but that too has consequences


Also, the people who planned and executed this debacle need to be recognized as the idiots they are... or maybe they will be right back in positions of trust again... And I do mean the idiots at the political end.

Public tar and feathering works for me, but at least a public acknowledgment would be nice.


" small-unit leaders on building relationships with wavering village elders and trust among distrustful village residents "

can never work when on the larger scale your actions are build hate and distrust across the country...





" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 4, 2009 8:28 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Pizmo: Yup. Ask for another 20,000 troops here and 60,000 there, and before you know it, you've got 500,000 American soldiers on the ground in hostile territory. Sound familiar?

More importantly, I have yet to hear a comprehensive answer for what exactly constitutes a "win". At what point are we able to say "That's it - mission accomplished; let's go home."? You know that no one has an answer when they refuse to give you one. What I'm hearing now, and ALL I'm hearing lately, is things like "well, we don't want to pick a 'date-certain' for withdrawal..." and things like that - the EXACT SAME things we were told about Iraq when it was realized that what we had there was a clusterfuck of biblical proportions, with no way out and no end in sight.

We are now hearing more support for a "surge" in Afghanistan, with lots of backslapping about how "successful" the surge in Iraq was, and all they're talking about in terms of this "surge" is more boots on the ground. It wasn't the number of soldiers that helped in Iraq - it was the fact that we actually started paying the enemy cashy money to stop attacking us. Nobody likes to talk about that aspect of it, but the plain simple fact of it is that there were people there who were getting tired of the infighting, and we took advantage of the situation by offering them cash to not kill us. So far, I'm not hearing anything of the kind coming out of Afghanistan.

Mike

The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams




I know you guys have a hate on for McChrystal, but I think he is trying to do this...

By calling for more troops and some policy guidance from Washington ( publicly ) he is calling out Obama to define exactly what the mission is, and to support it or end it.

" Last week, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, said the military situation in the country is in "some ways deteriorating," and that foreign forces must "redefine" their strategy. "

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/10/04/afghanistan-nuristan-battle.h
tml


and the waffling assholes on the council of foreign relations really hate that

" Richard Haass: It is fine for generals and civilians to ask for more resources. One of their responsibilities is to speak truth to power if they think they need more resources to accomplish the mission. To do that in public is not appropriate, though. The president deserves to have these issues debated in private. Whoever leaked General McChrystal's memorandum, acted unfairly and unprofessionally. "

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,651782,00.html

meanwhile in Iraq, the game continues and Iran is probability going to win

" After six years of rebuilding and reforming, southern Iraq has become a de facto theocratic Shia state, with widespread dissension among feuding movements and leaderships. There is no single dominant grouping in this internal struggle for power. Paradoxically, the longer infighting continues the more Iran benefits, spreading Shia influence deep into the Sunni Arab heartland. "

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-forces-that-assure-ir
aqs-demise/article1307578
/



" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 4, 2009 12:36 PM

FREMDFIRMA



Oh I don't doubt that McChrystal is tryin, but he's gettin in his own way, I worry that his prejudices are tripping him up, and really, how DO you pull off the insane, impossible, and ridiculous ?

Same problem Gates had at the beginning of this, and one reason I do respect him, cause no matter how stupid the orders, he will at least TRY to carry them out without getting too political about it - problem is that he's ambitious, and yeah, he did climb into that chair on a knife planted solidly in Pace's back, which I am sure Pace ain't too damn happy about.

Thing is, if you're GOING to do something this insane and try to make it work, you need an officer who is going to get out there on the ground and kick the staff officers hard enough to dislodge their head from the brown-round, and a chair polisher like McChrystal ain't gonna do that - you can NOT do this from washington, and you can't do it from an air conditioned office in the capital neither - you have GOT to go into the teeth of it, hands on, and for that (no offense you Army grunts) you need a fuckin Marine.

Of course, we *could* use the GOTH plan Gates came up with a while back, and write the whole situation off - I got no problem with that, but I am sure some would.

-Frem

GOTH Plan = GO To Hell plan, what you do when it all goes to hell on you, not that you can plan it too deeply, but having SOME idea of what to do in advance is handy.

Basically, 48 hours, spike and ditch any equipment that cannot be handed off to friendlies and recovered, and get the troops stateside ASA-F-P, then sort it out once they're here.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 4, 2009 4:08 PM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up


Straight from the source, Mr. Galbraith's op-ed in the Sunday Washington Post. I'll copy the entire thing for those who don't have Post logins.

Quote:

By Peter W. Galbraith
Sunday, October 4, 2009

Before firing me last week from my post as his deputy special representative in Afghanistan, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon conveyed one last instruction: Do not talk to the press. In effect, I was being told to remain a team player after being thrown off the team. Nonetheless, I agreed.

As my differences with my boss, Norwegian diplomat Kai Eide, had already been well publicized (through no fault of either of us), I asked only that the statement announcing my dismissal reflect the real reasons. Alain LeRoy, the head of U.N. peacekeeping and my immediate superior in New York, proposed that the United Nations say I was being recalled over a "disagreement as to how the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) would respond to electoral fraud." Although this was not entirely accurate -- the dispute was really about whether the U.N. mission would respond to the massive electoral fraud -- I agreed.

Instead, the United Nations announced my recall as occurring "in the best interests of the mission," and U.N. press officials told reporters on background that my firing was necessitated by a "personality clash" with Eide, a friend of 15 years who had introduced me to my future wife.

I might have tolerated even this last act of dishonesty in a dispute dating back many months if the stakes were not so high. For weeks, Eide had been denying or playing down the fraud in Afghanistan's recent presidential election, telling me he was concerned that even discussing the fraud might inflame tensions in the country. But in my view, the fraud was a fact that the United Nations had to acknowledge or risk losing its credibility with the many Afghans who did not support President Hamid Karzai.


I also felt loyal to my U.N. colleagues who worked in a dangerous environment to help Afghans hold honest elections -- at least five of whom have now told me they are leaving jobs they love in disgust over the events leading to my firing.

Afghanistan's presidential election, held Aug. 20, should have been a milestone in the country's transition from 30 years of war to stability and democracy. Instead, it was just the opposite. As many as 30 percent of Karzai's votes were fraudulent, and lesser fraud was committed on behalf of other candidates. In several provinces, including Kandahar, four to 10 times as many votes were recorded as voters actually cast. The fraud has handed the Taliban its greatest strategic victory in eight years of fighting the United States and its Afghan partners.

The election was a foreseeable train wreck. Unlike the United Nations-run elections in 2004, this balloting was managed by Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission (IEC). Despite its name, the commission is subservient to Karzai, who appointed its seven members. Even so, the international role was extensive. The United States and other Western nations paid the more than $300 million to hold the vote, and U.N. technical staff took the lead in organizing much of the process, including printing ballot papers, distributing election materials and designing safeguards against fraud.

Part of my job was to supervise all this U.N. support. In July, I learned that at least 1,500 polling centers (out of 7,000) were to be located in places so insecure that no one from the IEC, the Afghan National Army or the Afghan National Police had ever visited them. Clearly, these polling centers would not open on Election Day. At a minimum, their existence on the books would create large-scale confusion, but I was more concerned about the risk of fraud.

Local commission staff members were hardly experienced election professionals; in many instances they were simply agents of the local power brokers, usually aligned with Karzai. If no independent observers or candidate representatives, let alone voters, could even visit the listed location of a polling center, these IEC staffers could easily stuff ballot boxes without ever taking them to the assigned location. Or they could simply report results without any votes being in the ballot boxes.

Along with ambassadors from the United States and key allies, I met with the Afghan ministers of defense and the interior as well as the commission's chief election officer. We urged them either to produce a credible plan to secure these polling centers (which the head of the Afghan army had told me was impossible) or to close them down. Not surprisingly, the ministers -- who served a president benefiting from the fraud -- complained that I had even raised the matter. Eide ordered me not to discuss the ghost polling centers any further. On Election Day, these sites produced hundreds of thousands of phony Karzai votes.

At other critical stages in the election process, I was similarly ordered not to pursue the issue of fraud. The U.N. mission set up a 24-hour election center during the voting and in the early stages of the counting. My staff collected evidence on hundreds of cases of fraud around the country and, more important, gathered information on turnout in key southern provinces where few voters showed up but large numbers of votes were being reported. Eide ordered us not to share this data with anyone, including the Electoral Complaints Commission, a U.N.-backed Afghan institution legally mandated to investigate fraud. Naturally, my colleagues wondered why they had taken the risks to collect this evidence if it was not to be used.

In early September, I got word that the IEC was about to abandon its published anti-fraud policies, allowing it to include enough fraudulent votes in the final tally to put Karzai over the 50 percent threshold needed to avoid a runoff. After I called the chief electoral officer to urge him to stick with the original guidelines, Karzai issued a formal protest accusing me of foreign interference. My boss sided with Karzai.

Afghanistan is deeply divided ethnically and geographically. Both Karzai and the Taliban are Pashtun, Afghanistan's dominant ethnic group, which makes up about 45 percent of the country's population. Abdullah Abdullah, Karzai's main challenger, is half Pashtun and half Tajik but is politically identified with the Tajiks, who dominate the north and are Afghanistan's second largest ethnic group. If the Tajiks believe that fraud denied their candidate the chance to compete in a second round, they may respond by simply not recognizing the authority of the central government. The north already has de facto autonomy; these elections could add an ethnic fault line to a conflict between the Taliban and the government that to date has largely been a civil war among Pashtuns.

Since my disagreements with Eide went public, Eide and his supporters have argued that the United Nations had no mandate to interfere in the Afghan electoral process. This is not technically correct. The U.N. Security Council directed the U.N. mission to support Afghanistan's electoral institutions in holding a "free, fair and transparent" vote, not a fraudulent one. And with so much at stake -- and with more than 100,000 U.S. and coalition troops deployed in the country -- the international community had an obvious interest in ensuring that Afghanistan's election did not make the situation worse.

President Obama needs a legitimate Afghan partner to make any new strategy for the country work. However, the extensive fraud that took place on Aug. 20 virtually guarantees that a government emerging from the tainted vote will not be credible with many Afghans.

As I write, Afghanistan's Electoral Complaints Commission is auditing 10 percent of the suspect polling boxes. If the audit shows this sample to be fraudulent, the commission will throw out some 3,000 suspect ballot boxes, which could lead to a runoff vote between Karzai and Abdullah. By itself, a runoff is no antidote for Afghanistan's electoral challenges. The widespread problems that allowed for fraud in the first round of voting must be addressed. In particular, all ghost polling stations should be removed from the books ("closed" is not the right word since they never opened), and the election staff that facilitated the fraud must be replaced.

Afghanistan's pro-Karzai election commission will not do this on its own. Fixing those problems will require resolve from the head of the U.N. mission in Afghanistan -- a quality that so far has been lacking.

galbraithvt@gmail.com

Peter W. Galbraith served as deputy special representative of the United Nations in Afghanistan from June until last week.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/02/AR2009
100202855.html?hpid=opinionsbox1





"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 4, 2009 5:32 PM

DREAMTROVE


I think Mike hit it: Depends on the goal.

Here's some possible goals:

1. foster chaos, grow opium, aid terrorism, hope it spills over into neighboring countries.

2. Set up military bases in the west to attack Iran with

3. Keep a secure green zone with an internationally recognized puppet govt. that can sign treaties and include Afgh. in some globalist supernation.

Anything else I'll mark down for 0% chance.

1, we're fostering chaos, but it's coming back to bite us in the ass rather than spreading. Sure, it's spread to "pakistan" but not to any part of Pakistan that's controlled from Islamabad.

2, that's going to be tricky, depends on our definition of base, but we're working on it.

3, I don't think it's going to last. It would take a lot of troops just to hold down the fort, and we're losing ground. Kabul isn't the power center that Baghdad is. If I were Hamid Karzai I would be making peace with my creator right about now.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Sunday, October 4, 2009 9:20 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Oh I don't doubt that McChrystal is tryin, but he's gettin in his own way, I worry that his prejudices are tripping him up, and really, how DO you pull off the insane, impossible, and ridiculous ?

Same problem Gates had at the beginning of this, and one reason I do respect him, cause no matter how stupid the orders, he will at least TRY to carry them out without getting too political about it - problem is that he's ambitious, and yeah, he did climb into that chair on a knife planted solidly in Pace's back, which I am sure Pace ain't too damn happy about.

Thing is, if you're GOING to do something this insane and try to make it work, you need an officer who is going to get out there on the ground and kick the staff officers hard enough to dislodge their head from the brown-round, and a chair polisher like McChrystal ain't gonna do that - you can NOT do this from washington, and you can't do it from an air conditioned office in the capital neither - you have GOT to go into the teeth of it, hands on, and for that (no offense you Army grunts) you need a fuckin Marine.

Of course, we *could* use the GOTH plan Gates came up with a while back, and write the whole situation off - I got no problem with that, but I am sure some would.

-Frem

GOTH Plan = GO To Hell plan, what you do when it all goes to hell on you, not that you can plan it too deeply, but having SOME idea of what to do in advance is handy.

Basically, 48 hours, spike and ditch any equipment that cannot be handed off to friendlies and recovered, and get the troops stateside ASA-F-P, then sort it out once they're here.



on reflection, Pace was CJCS or VCJCS during the planning and execution of this entire debacle

If he wasn't in agreement with the failed strategy and or the execution of it... he sure had some opportunity to either fix it or otherwise address these problems from the initial planning up to the point he was relieved.

So either he was in agreement with how things went down ( minus the torture in Iraq, I know he spoke out on that )

or he was a yes man for the Bush stooges

either way. I say no... he isn't the guy for the job he already dropped that ball


Problem is Obama has to get off his ass and decide to shit or go home, he doesn't reinforce how can he ask NATO to send more troops into an American made debacle...

If he decides to pull out, write off Pakistan which might not have been a problem if the US had of left Musharraf alone and stirring the hornets nest with your drones... not a good idea

Iraq will likely flame up again ( not that it died down much )

and a variety of other fun consequences that erode US credibility



" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 5, 2009 7:51 AM

GINOBIFFARONI


War advisers must be candid but discreet: Gates

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN3024169220091005

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday called for patience and discretion as President Barack Obama decides how to conduct the war in Afghanistan, urging advisers to speak "candidly but privately" on strategy.

Gates did not single out anyone in his address at an Army convention in Washington, but his comments followed very public remarks by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan as well as Obama's national security adviser.

"I believe that the decisions that the president will make for the next stage of the Afghanistan campaign will be among the most important of his presidency," Gates said.

"So it is important that we take our time to do all we can to get this right. And in this process, it is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations -- civilians and military alike -- provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately."

Obama is convening his top foreign policy advisers for a series of meetings to consider options for the eight-year-old war, in the face of rising casualties and souring public opinion. His administration is split over whether to boost U.S. forces or take an alternative path.

Vice President Joe Biden has privately proposed narrowing the mission in Afghanistan, concentrating instead on attacking al Qaeda targets that are based primarily in neighboring Pakistan.

General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, last week told the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London such a strategy would probably be "shortsighted."


Don't tell us to make a decision, we will make it on our own time, and still find a way to blame the military for it!!!






" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 5, 2009 1:46 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


bump



Sacked UN man attacks mission
Peter Galbraith
Mr Galbraith had been critical of the Afghan election commission

The UN official removed from his post after criticising Afghanistan's presidential election has lashed out at the UN mission in the country.

Peter Galbraith said the $300m mission is now "leaderless", calling the UN special envoy a "terrible manager".

Speaking to BBC News, he also accused Norwegian Kai Eide of failing to act upon evidence of electoral fraud.

Mr Eide responded by saying he had the full backing of the international community and the US administration.

"I feel that Galbraith is on a personal campaign for revenge, after what happened to him," Mr Eide said, adding: "It wasn't me who got fired, it was him."

Mr Galbraith angered Afghan President Hamid Karzai by reportedly calling for a complete recount of the vote.

The election has been overshadowed by widespread allegations of fraud. According to EU election observers, about 1.5m votes - about a quarter of all ballots - cast in August's presidential vote could be fraudulent.

They say that 1.1 million votes cast for President Karzai are suspicious.

"Once it became clear to Kai Eide that this evidence would be harmful to President Karzai, he ordered us to do nothing with it," he told BBC World News America.

"He had good relations with Karzai, and he became Karzai's man in the United Nations, rather than the United Nations representative to Karzai."

'Certainly concerned'

Mr Galbraith also launched a personal attack on his former boss, saying he had lost the confidence of many of the country's political opposition figures and was mistrustful of his own staff.

"So we now have a mission that costs over $300m a year with several thousand employees, that's leaderless," he said.


PETER GALBRAITH: KEY DATES
1979-1993: Senior adviser to US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
1993-1998: First US Ambassador to Croatia, and co-author of Erdut Agreement that ended the war in Croatia
2000-2001: Director of Political, Constitutional and Electoral Affairs for the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor
2003: Resigns from the US government to write The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End

Profile: Peter Galbraith
UN mission split over Afghan poll

UN sources say Secretary General Ban Ki-moon decided to end Mr Galbraith's mission after it became clear he was no longer able to carry out his work in Afghanistan. Some Afghan cabinet ministers had said they no longer wanted to work with him.

A UN spokeswoman at the headquarters in the US said the body was "certainly concerned" about the allegations of fraud.

"We're trying to do as much as we can to specify what the UN role exactly was, and what the UN role still is," Michele Montas said from New York.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8291920.stm




The key line : Mr Eide responded by saying he had the full backing of the international community and the US administration.


So the US is a co conspirator in the election fraud then?




" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 5, 2009 3:38 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Oh I don't doubt that McChrystal is tryin, but he's gettin in his own way, I worry that his prejudices are tripping him up, and really, how DO you pull off the insane, impossible, and ridiculous ?

Same problem Gates had at the beginning of this, and one reason I do respect him, cause no matter how stupid the orders, he will at least TRY to carry them out without getting too political about it - problem is that he's ambitious, and yeah, he did climb into that chair on a knife planted solidly in Pace's back, which I am sure Pace ain't too damn happy about.

Thing is, if you're GOING to do something this insane and try to make it work, you need an officer who is going to get out there on the ground and kick the staff officers hard enough to dislodge their head from the brown-round, and a chair polisher like McChrystal ain't gonna do that - you can NOT do this from washington, and you can't do it from an air conditioned office in the capital neither - you have GOT to go into the teeth of it, hands on, and for that (no offense you Army grunts) you need a fuckin Marine.

Of course, we *could* use the GOTH plan Gates came up with a while back, and write the whole situation off - I got no problem with that, but I am sure some would.

-Frem

GOTH Plan = GO To Hell plan, what you do when it all goes to hell on you, not that you can plan it too deeply, but having SOME idea of what to do in advance is handy.

Basically, 48 hours, spike and ditch any equipment that cannot be handed off to friendlies and recovered, and get the troops stateside ASA-F-P, then sort it out once they're here.




You want a go to hell plan, something that may help the US both save face and maybe turn the situation around?

Dig through the files on the Afghan government, I'm sure they must exist, and have a real good look at who has been involved in the heroin trade, who has committed or ordered atrocitys and or torture, every asshole who committed a crime...

Pick a day and round them all up, fold that government on the basis of the fraudulent election and pass over all the evidence and accused to the ICC for trial.

Declare a unilateral ceasefire, and reorganize... The Taleban, I think would likely lay low until they figured out what was what, and then you make somekind of amnesty offer that would allow them to help shape their country. A parliamentary style government could be formed over say six months, including the people fighting you now because the system you installed was corrupted.
Then, pull out... militarily, politically, economically. Everything.


Meanwhile, Obama signs on to the ICC and along with the Afghan files, he turns over ALL the files on the alphabet thugs, politicians, lawyers, and CFR types and allows indictments and trials on them at the Hague. No findings that it wasn't against American law, no Presidential pardons later.

Better still, clear out GITMO and turn it over to the ICC for their use in this matter ( probably a shortage of cells at the Hague ) it would tickle me to hear that Cheney was sharing a cell there with Wolfie.

This wouldn't solve every problem, but it sure as hell would give pause to any reoccurance

and maybe then you could change the way you deal with Israel...










" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 5, 2009 3:51 PM

DREAMTROVE


sounds like a nice fantasy. Of course, as much as I'd like to see the CFR rounded up and sent to Gitmo, I suspect they would assassinate Obama first.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 5, 2009 3:51 PM

DREAMTROVE


Gino is about to forget something

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 5, 2009 3:59 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)


Quote:

Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

You want a go to hell plan, something that may help the US both save face and maybe turn the situation around?

Dig through the files on the Afghan government, I'm sure they must exist, and have a real good look at who has been involved in the heroin trade, who has committed or ordered atrocitys and or torture, every asshole who committed a crime...

Pick a day and round them all up, fold that government on the basis of the fraudulent election and pass over all the evidence and accused to the ICC for trial.

Declare a unilateral ceasefire, and reorganize... The Taleban, I think would likely lay low until they figured out what was what, and then you make somekind of amnesty offer that would allow them to help shape their country. A parliamentary style government could be formed over say six months, including the people fighting you now because the system you installed was corrupted.
Then, pull out... militarily, politically, economically. Everything.


Meanwhile, Obama signs on to the ICC and along with the Afghan files, he turns over ALL the files on the alphabet thugs, politicians, lawyers, and CFR types and allows indictments and trials on them at the Hague. No findings that it wasn't against American law, no Presidential pardons later.

Better still, clear out GITMO and turn it over to the ICC for their use in this matter ( probably a shortage of cells at the Hague ) it would tickle me to hear that Cheney was sharing a cell there with Wolfie.

This wouldn't solve every problem, but it sure as hell would give pause to any reoccurance

and maybe then you could change the way you deal with Israel...



Too bloody right!

Clear them out, turn them over, pledge to work WITH all parties involved to form a government that THEY want - the people who have to live under it - and then pledge to HELP THEM.

Quote:


The key line : Mr Eide responded by saying he had the full backing of the international community and the US administration.


So the US is a co conspirator in the election fraud then?



Could well be. If nothing else, it now APPEARS that we're complicit, or at least complacent. Neither helps our cause, as far as I can see.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 5, 2009 7:55 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by Kwicko:


So the US is a co conspirator in the election fraud then?

Could well be. If nothing else, it now APPEARS that we're complicit, or at least complacent. Neither helps our cause, as far as I can see.



And it hurts the international election monitoring process

They let this stand, what can they say to Iran, or the Ukraine, or Honduras coming up. This doesn't just effect Afghanistan, it kills the ability to do anything positive in this reguard anywhere, and I suspect that is part of why this guy is so upset.




" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Monday, October 5, 2009 8:00 PM

GINOBIFFARONI


Quote:

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
sounds like a nice fantasy. Of course, as much as I'd like to see the CFR rounded up and sent to Gitmo, I suspect they would assassinate Obama first.



that is why we he has a secret service

time to nut up or shut up






" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "

" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson


Lets party like its 1939

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

OTHER TOPICS

DISCUSSIONS
Elections; 2024
Wed, December 4, 2024 13:42 - 4886 posts
In the garden, and RAIN!!! (2)
Wed, December 4, 2024 13:16 - 4813 posts
Is Elon Musk Nuts?
Wed, December 4, 2024 12:37 - 427 posts
Pardon all J6 Political Prisoners on Day One
Wed, December 4, 2024 12:31 - 7 posts
Russia Invades Ukraine. Again
Wed, December 4, 2024 07:25 - 7538 posts
My Smartphone Was Ruining My Life. So I Quit. And you can, too.
Wed, December 4, 2024 06:10 - 3 posts
Thread of Trump Appointments / Other Changes of Scenery...
Tue, December 3, 2024 23:31 - 54 posts
Vox: Are progressive groups sinking Democrats' electoral chances?
Tue, December 3, 2024 21:37 - 1 posts
human actions, global climate change, global human solutions
Tue, December 3, 2024 20:35 - 962 posts
Trump is a moron
Tue, December 3, 2024 20:16 - 13 posts
A thread for Democrats Only
Tue, December 3, 2024 11:39 - 6941 posts
You can't take the sky from me, a tribute to Firefly
Mon, December 2, 2024 21:22 - 302 posts

FFF.NET SOCIAL