US envoy removed from Afghan post by GinoBiffaroni

Nut up, thank you:

Quote:

that is why we he has a secret service

And who do you think shot JFK?
Do you really believe this "I'd get in between that man and a bullet," stuff? I mean, even if that kind of chivalry *did* exist, they would have said to Bush "Sorry, lunch break" and he would have believed them.

The secret service sure, protect the president, but they also serve to keep him from the public, because the special interests don't want to split the pie with the public, and if he gets too out of line, there's someone there to get rid of him.

More than who shot JFK, ask yourself "Why?"

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

Tuesday, October 6, 2009 7:06 AM

UN denies Karzai bias

The United Nations has denied allegations made by one of its former senior officials in Afghanistan that its mission there was biased in favour of President Hamid Karzai.

Peter Galbraith, the UN's former No. 2 official in Afghanistan, was sacked last week after accusing his boss of turning a blind eye to fraud that helped Karzai win the Aug. 20 presidential elections.

"The election was characterized by massive fraud," Galbraith told CBC News from the UN in New York. In certain provinces in the south, for example, there were as many as four to 10 times votes recorded as voters actually appeared," he said.

"By some calculations, up to 30 per cent of the vote for President Karzai were fraudulent."

Preliminary results released last month showed Karzai won the election with 54.6 per cent of the votes, enough to avoid a runoff with second-place finisher Abdullah Abdullah, his former foreign minister.

But the recount and audit ordered by a UN-backed fraud panel could cut Karzai's votes below the 50 per cent threshold needed to win outright.

About 13 per cent of the country's approximately 26,300 polling stations are considered questionable by the fraud panel because they had more than 100 per cent turnout or more than 95 per cent of votes for one candidate.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/10/06/galbraith-un-afghanistan006.h
tml

" 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, October 6, 2009 1:31 PM

Afghan sceptics alarm Nato chief

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8246986.stm

Anders Fogh Rasmussen 2.9.09
Mr Rasmussen says "running for the exits" in Afghanistan is not an option

Nato chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen says he is alarmed by growing scepticism about the war in Afghanistan.

In remarks prepared for a Nato ceremony in the US, Mr Rasmussen says he is worried the public debate "has started to go in the wrong direction".

The secretary general's comments came as EU leaders urged the UN to hold a major summit on Afghanistan's future.

Increasing violence is raising concern about the future of the country eight years after the US-led invasion.

Mounting allied casualties, a rising Afghan civilian death toll and claims of widespread electoral fraud have led to growing opposition to the campaign in Western countries.

"What we need is a clear step towards transition to Afghan leadership in all areas - security, health, education, development and governance," Mr Rasmussen's remarks, released by Nato, say.

He says the fact that Nato countries are losing soldiers in the fight against the Taliban is turning public opinion against the operation.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen's comments show the growing concern within Nato that perceived setbacks in Afghanistan are turning the public mood against the war.

It is a view borne out by the latest public opinion survey from the German Marshall Fund, released today, which shows that nearly two-thirds of Europeans (63%) are pessimistic about stabilising the situation in Afghanistan.

That is why Mr Rasmussen has stressed, like the UK, French and German leaders in their letter to the UN, the need for clear steps towards transition to Afghan leadership.

The danger is though that in signalling such a move to a transition phase - a message that they hope will signal the beginning of the end-game to Western public opinion - the same signal will be seen as a lack of commitment on the ground in Afghanistan itself.

He describes allegations of widespread fraud in last month's presidential election as "disturbing" and says there is a sense among many people in many countries "that we are not making progress fast enough".

But he adds: "We must stay in Afghanistan as long as necessary, and we will stay as long as necessary. Let no-one think that a run for the exits is an option. It is not."

Nato forces comprise about two-thirds of the more than 100,000 international troops based in Afghanistan.

Mr Rasmussen says although progress in the fight against insurgents has not been as fast as some had hoped, the situation on the ground is improving.

"The Taliban have no chance of taking power again, nor do terrorists have any safe haven in Afghanistan from which to threaten the world," he says.

"If we were to walk away... soon there will be terrorists in Afghanistan and attacking from Afghanistan, profound instability in Pakistan and in Central Asia.

"This is simply not a future we can allow to happen."

Summit call

Earlier, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel pressed the UN for a summit to discuss the aftermath of the Afghan elections.

They made the plea in a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

In it they said "benchmarks and timelines" should be agreed "to formulate a joint framework for our transition phase in Afghanistan... to set our expectations of ownership and the clear view to hand over responsibility step-by-step to the Afghans, wherever possible".

On Tuesday, Afghanistan's Election Complaints Commission said it had found "clear and convincing evidence of fraud" in last month's presidential election.

The UN-backed body has ordered a number of recounts and audits of votes.

Earlier, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel pressed the UN for a summit to discuss the aftermath of the Afghan elections.

not that it will do any good, except hopefully bring the bias of the US into the light

" 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, October 6, 2009 3:07 PM

Government trying to muzzle diplomat, lawyer says

The lawyer for a Canadian diplomat called to testify at a hearing into allegations of Afghan prison torture says the Conservative government is trying to keep her client silent.

In a letter sent to the Department of Justice and obtained by CBC News, Lori Bokenfohr said the government has invoked the national security order in response to Richard Colvin's decision to co-operate with the Military Police Complaints Commission.

The commission is examining whether military police officers had a duty to investigate the transfer of detainees when there were allegations of torture in Afghan prisons by Afghans.

But the order prohibits Colvin from telling the commission what he knows.

In the letter, Bokenfohr questions the government’s use of the orders, saying they were not “intended to be used tactically to intimidate witnesses from giving evidence in administrative proceedings carried out by government-created bodies.”

“We raise these issues to emphasize that the interests of justice are not served when an ordinary witness such as Mr. Colvin is threatened by the Department of Justice with severe penalties for abiding by the terms of a subpoena served on him,” Bokenfohr writes.

CBC News earlier reported that Colvin was the author of a 2007 report that contained claims of torture from Afghan detainees.

The report said one detainee claimed to have been beaten with cables and wires and electrocuted.

Another detainee said he was beaten and forced to stand for two days during interrogation. All the abuse was allegedly carried out by Afghans in Afghan prisons.

The report was widely circulated at the senior levels of the defence and foreign affairs departments.

But Defence Minister Peter MacKay has said the government has done nothing wrong in its dealings with the commission process.

"The commission is proceeding with its important work. We have provided thousands of documents, we have co-operated with witnesses, within the mandate of the commission," MacKay told the House of Commons.

NDP defence critic Jack Harris said the Conservative government is trying to keep Colvin from speaking about the abuse of Afghan detainees for fear of what he might say.

"The indication seems to be that much of this evidence might embarrass the government because it might reveal what they knew, when they knew it and whether they did anything about it or not."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/06/diplomat-testimony-afghan.ht
ml

" 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, October 7, 2009 12:00 PM

" 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, October 7, 2009 5:56 PM

Interesting Video

" 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 8, 2009 12:17 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Re: Funny movie line.

Actually that's untrue - one of the reasons Democrats are so less effective at getting things done is that they don't have the zombie like, slavish toeing of the line Republicans do.

Of course, on the one end of that you wind up with a clusterfuck, and on the other, tyranny...

So all hail to the FUBAR, I guess, not that the end result seems to matter too damn much.

Far as Afghanistan goes, I said my piece - and I'll have you know my first reaction when the idea of even floated was to slam my forehead into the keyboard hissing "You Id-i-ots!" - cause the only thing dumber than invading Afganistan is trying to have sex with a running garbage disposal.

-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

Thursday, October 8, 2009 5:14 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Re: Funny movie line.

Actually that's untrue - one of the reasons Democrats are so less effective at getting things done is that they don't have the zombie like, slavish toeing of the line Republicans do.

Of course, on the one end of that you wind up with a clusterfuck, and on the other, tyranny...

So all hail to the FUBAR, I guess, not that the end result seems to matter too damn much.

Far as Afghanistan goes, I said my piece - and I'll have you know my first reaction when the idea of even floated was to slam my forehead into the keyboard hissing "You Id-i-ots!" - cause the only thing dumber than invading Afganistan is trying to have sex with a running garbage disposal.

-Frem

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

I agree with you there, I too was against the original invasion...

and any hope of a pullout anytime soon is gone

Gates: US will stay in Afghanistan
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/10/20091064451860748.h
tml

but whether or not McChrystal is the right guy, I think he has the right, or at least better idea.

and calling Gates and Obama on their bullshit can only be the start. Maybe the best scenario has Obama saying no new troops, no change in direction and McChrystal resigning in protest, in order to bring more pressure to fix it or pull out.

I think the Republicans and the Democrats both for the most part are zombies to their own ideology...

But then I am a middle of the political spectrum kind of guy

" 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 8, 2009 7:32 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Here's my chance to say a generic "I told you so".

WOO HOOO !

I too was against invading Afghanistan, for two reasons.

1) The whole fib about 'we know it was bin Laden but we can't tell' smelled bad. (And then afterwards they spent years scouring the country to find 'proof', scouring caves and homes, translating and pouring over 48 boxcars of papers. Really, if they had proof at the start, why did they need to find it later ?)

2) The Afghanistan government offered to give up bin Laden if the US would communicate why it thought it was him, and as long as he wouldn't go to the US, but to some other body, for example the ICC. But the US blew past that in the gin up to the war. Which should have made anyone wonder - if it was all about bin Laden, why didn't the US settle on getting him without a war ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Thursday, October 8, 2009 7:56 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Here's my chance to say a generic "I told you so".

WOO HOOO !

I too was against invading Afghanistan, for two reasons.

1) The whole fib about 'we know it was bin Laden but we can't tell' smelled bad. (And then afterwards they spent years scouring the country to find 'proof', scouring caves and homes, translating and pouring over 48 boxcars of papers. Really, if they had proof at the start, why did they need to find it later ?)

2) The Afghanistan government offered to give up bin Laden if the US would communicate why it thought it was him, and as long as he wouldn't go to the US, but to some other body, for example the ICC. But the US blew past that in the gin up to the war. Which should have made anyone wonder - if it was all about bin Laden, why didn't the US settle on getting him without a war ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

My feeling is the US is very against the idea of the ICC, because it implies that at some level, everyone, even they can be held responsible for their actions. Same reason why the UN security council has the veto, so they can protect their own bullshit no matter how unjustified.

The UN Security Council has rejected the UN-sanctioned Goldstone report

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/10/20091085482470957
8.html

The open arrest warrant for Kissinger in France

numerous other examples

" 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 8, 2009 8:02 AM

RUE

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Yeah, I realize the US had and maybe still has issues with the ICC. Which to my mind speaks only to the US and its disdain for an international rule of law, since I have yet to find a cogent argument for why the ICC is a bad idea or a good idea executed badly.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

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

Thursday, October 8, 2009 11:02 AM

http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/164/28438.html

By Irune Aguirrezabal Quijera
Coalition for the International Criminal Court
August 4, 2003

As part of the United States' campaign to exclude its citizens and military personnel from the jurisdiction of the ICC, the Bush administration has been approaching countries around the world seeking to conclude Bilateral Impunity Agreements (BIAs), or so called "Article 98" agreements. These agreements prohibit the surrender to the ICC of a broad scope of persons including current or former government officials, military personnel, and US employees (including contractors) and nationals. These agreements, which in some cases are reciprocal, do not include an obligation by the US to subject those persons to investigation and/or prosecution.

While these US-proposed bilateral agreements are purportedly based on Art. 98.2 of the Rome Statute, they are, in fact, a clear violation of the negotiators' intentions and go far beyond the letter and spirit of that article. Drafters of the Statute did not envisage situations of impunity, but sought to create a system to end impunity for the gravest crimes, in accordance with the principle of complementarity. As David Sheffer, former US ambassador for war crimes and a chief negotiator at the Rome Statute drafting conference, said in the Wall Street Journal published on 20 September 2002, "the original intent of the Art. 98 agreements was to ensure that Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) would not be compromised and that Americans on official duty could be specially covered by agreements that fit in the terms of the article".

Approximately 50 states have signed bilateral immunity agreements with the US to date, but few states have ratified these accords. Most of those states that have concluded an agreement have done so under strong US pressure. In some instances, these bilateral agreements have been linked to the American ServicememberÂ´s Protection Act (ASPA), a US law which authorizes the withdrawal of US military assistance from States Parties to the ICC that did not conclude a BIA before 1 July 2003. NATO members, non-NATO allies (Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, The Republic of Korea, and Japan) and Taiwan are specifically exempt from this legislation, which is targeted at States Parties to the Rome Statute. Provisions in the ASPA also allow President Bush to issue waivers to those countries for US national security interests.

However, the Bush administration has been exercising unconscionable diplomatic tactics that go beyond the provisions of the ASPA: threatening poor countries in all regions of the world to violate their international obligations or otherwise lose vital US financial and political support. US Assistant Secretary of State Stephen Rademaker has reportedly threatened to deny benefits of the New Horizons program, which includes funds for hurricane relief and rural dentistry and veterinary efforts, to countries in the Caribbean Community. According to a senior official in the Niger Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the US has threatened to suspend cooperative development projects if Niger does not sign a bilateral immunity agreement. US Ambassador to Bahamas Richard Blankenship has publicly warned that if the Bahamas did not support the US position on the ICC, a significant amount of aid would be withheld, including aid for paving and lighting an airport runway. In the case of Bulgaria, loss of military aid has been linked to NATO membership. US Ambassador in Croatia Lawrence Rossin even published a letter in the Zagreb press warning that Croatia would lose $19 million in military aid unless they sign an immunity deal.

Despite this intense pressure, several states have resisted signing a BIA, and on July 1, the Bush administration announced its intention to impose its threat to cut off military aid to 35 States Parties, including Brazil, Bulgaria, Central African Republic, Colombia, Croatia, Estonia, Fiji, Peru, Slovenia, South Africa, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago, among others. Programs affected included foreign military financing or international military education and training.

On the same day, President Bush issued a White House memorandum in which 22 states were granted waivers from ASPA for different periods of time, in order to allow countries that have signed BIAs to ratify the agreements in Parliament. A number of states received a four-month waiver (as they reportedly signed a BIA before May 1), and several states that signed an agreement after May 1 have received a six-month waiver. A select number of states received a waiver for an indefinite period of time. The Coalition lauds those states that have resisted signing BIAs and urges states to continue to uphold the integrity of the Rome Statute and international law. NGOs and intergovernmental bodies have been denouncing these agreements as unlawful and a violation of the Rome Statute and international law, by permitting impunity for the worst crimes against humanity.

The European Union, for example, issued the General Affairs Council Conclusions and "guiding principles" stating that the US-proposed agreements were clearly inconsistent with the Rome Statute as well as with obligations arising from other international treaties and setting benchmarks to which all agreements (including agreements already concluded) should comply. On the 16 June 2003, the Council of the European Union approved a new Common Position on the ICC, which called on EU member states to prevent the conclusion of BIAs by committing to: "continue, as appropriate, to draw the attention of third States to the Council Conclusions of 30 September 2002 on the International Criminal Court and to the EU Guiding Principles annexed thereto, with regard to proposals for agreements or arrangements concerning conditions for the surrender of persons to the Court." On June 25, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe subsequently adopted Resolution 1336, "Threats to the International Criminal Court," condemning the agreements as a violation of the Rome Statute and international law and supporting those states that have resisted US pressure to sign BIAs. The Caribbean Community (CARICOM) has also issued a statement on US-proposed bilateral accords, reaffirming "their strong support for the principles and purposes of the ICC" and condeming the US action to withhold military assistance from the 6 CARICOM countries that are States Parties to the ICC. Indeed, the United States is isolated in its aggressive, disrespectful and unfair campaign aimed at undermining the authority and effectiveness of the ICC. Victims and the world community view the US as a hegemonic super power that refuses to be under the rule of law, and yet imposes its own order to other states and citizens. The US' intention to create a two-tier justice system, one for the rest of the world and one for Americans is just unacceptable. The US cannot be above the law. In a recent article in Foreign Affairs (May/June 2003), Michael J. Glennon explains that James Madison was confronted with the same dilemma when drafting the Constitution. "The question was why the powerful should obey the law. Madison answer was that the incentive lies in an assessment of future circumstances, in the unnerving possibility that the strong may one day become weak and then need the protection of the law... Hegemony thus sits in tension with the principle of equality."

" 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 8, 2009 3:00 PM

Quote:
...cause the only thing dumber than invading Afganistan is trying to have sex with a running garbage disposal.

That's about the best analogy for it I've ever heard. And you're absolutely right - screwing the disposal WOULD be dumber, but you only get one crack at it, and then you thankfully won't reproduce, so the world need never worry about THAT genetic abnormality becoming the new norm...

For some besotted reason, though, every so often, some band of idiots decides that THEY are going to be the ones to do it RIGHT, and show the rest of the world how great they are, and do Afghanistan the right way. This generally precedes their utter failure as an empire by just a few years, it would seem.

So, folks - been nice knowin' ya, but I'm afraid the US-of-Fuckin'-A is well and truly down the shitter this time. Maybe future generations will "mis-remember" Dubya fiddling while the towers burned.

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 8, 2009 4:04 PM

The Daily Show's John Oliver recently did a run down of Empires defeated in Afghanistan. Alas, it's incomplete.

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

Sunday, October 11, 2009 8:48 AM

Afghan vote fraud 'widespread': UN official

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/10/11/afghan-vote-fraud.html

The head of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan said Sunday there was "widespread fraud" in August's presidential election, but denied allegations he tried to cover up evidence of cheating on behalf of President Hamid Karzai.

Kai Eide was responding to accusations from his former deputy, Peter Galbraith, who was fired on Sept. 30 by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon due to the public dispute over how to deal with the fraud allegations.

The Norwegian diplomat refused to reveal any numbers showing the extend of fraud, saying "any specific figures would be speculative" before a recount is complete.

He would only say that irregularities have been discovered in some polling stations in the south and southeastern areas of Afghanistan.

Eide made the comments at a news conference in Kabul, where he appeared alongside ambassadors from the United States, France and Britain.

He referred to Galbraith's allegations as "personal attacks" against his integrity, adding they have "affected the whole election process."

Election workers began a partial recount, 12 per cent of the ballot boxes, on Oct. 5. A final result is expected in the coming days.

Preliminary results released last month showed Karzai the voting with 54.6 per cent, enough to avoid a run-off with second-place finisher Abdullah Abdullah, his former foreign minister.

But the recount and audit ordered by a UN-backed fraud panel could cut Karzai's votes below the 50 per cent threshold needed to win outright.

1. Are we all agreed they would have covered this up if Galbraith had not of came forward ?

2. If Karzai was cheating... should he not be disqualified from running again ?

3. What, if anything will come of this ?

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

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

Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:14 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

For some besotted reason, though, every so often, some band of idiots decides that THEY are going to be the ones to do it RIGHT, and show the rest of the world how great they are, and do Afghanistan the right way. This generally precedes their utter failure as an empire by just a few years, it would seem.

No offense to any poster, but if "we" are smart enough to see that being in Afghanistan is a Major Fubar move, then TPTB know it too, and they know'd it before we did. I refuse to believe the "they're incompetent" explanation - that's too easy. I can just hear them saying, "let them think we're idiots, that's what they want to think anyway." There's something(s) else going on.

Gino - What's next? There will be a fully sanctioned (and sanitized) run-off recount and guess who'll win? There will be lots of official finger wagging too. "We warned them not to do it again and they said they wouldn't."

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

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

Sunday, October 11, 2009 10:55 AM

Quote:

No offense to any poster, but if "we" are smart enough to see that being in Afghanistan is a Major Fubar move, then TPTB know it too, and they know'd it before we did. I refuse to believe the "they're incompetent" explanation - that's too easy. I can just hear them saying, "let them think we're idiots, that's what they want to think anyway." There's something(s) else going on.

I don't buy that "they" are smart enough to know how screwed "they" are. I mean, they *knew* how screwed we were in 1967, according to internal documents, yet stayed for another eight years. And the majority of U.S. soldier who died in Vietnam did so AFTER it was already known by TPTB that it was a war we could NEVER win.

So no, I don't think "they" know all this, if past events are any indication. Also, bear in mind that "they" thought Iraq was a great idea, too. Well, they either actually thought that, or they really ARE incompetent, depending on who you believe. These are many of the same people in the trenches who sat there and said that the Iraq occupation would take no more than days, possibly weeks, and cost the U.S. at most $17 billion.

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 11, 2009 2:05 PM

What lies beneath the war in Afghanistan

By ERIC MARGOLIS, SUN MEDIA

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/eric_margolis/2009/10/11/
11369636-sun.html

Truth is war's first casualty. The Afghan war's biggest untruth is, "we've got to fight terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them at home."

Many North Americans still buy this lie because they believe the 9/11 attacks came directly from the Afghanistan-based al-Qaida and Taliban movements.

False. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Germany and Spain, and conducted mainly by U.S.-based Saudis to punish America for supporting Israel.

Taliban, a militant religious, anti-Communist movement of Pashtun tribesmen, was totally surprised by 9/11. Taliban received U.S. aid until May, 2001. The CIA was planning to use Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida to stir up Muslim Uighurs against Chinese rule, and Taliban against Russia's Central Asian allies.

Al-Qaida only numbered 300 members. Most have been killed. A handful escaped to Pakistan. Only a few remain in Afghanistan. Yet President Barack Obama insists 68,000 or more U.S. troops must stay in Afghanistan to fight al-Qaida and prevent extremists from re-acquiring "terrorist training camps."

This claim, like Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, is a handy slogan to market war to the public. Today, half of Afghanistan is under Taliban control. Anti-American militants could more easily use Somalia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, North and West Africa, or Sudan. They don't need remote Afghanistan. The 9/11 attacks were planned in apartments, not camps.

The United States should not be waging war on Taliban. However backwards and oafish its Pashtun tribesmen, they have no desire or interest in attacking America. Even less, Canada.

Taliban are the sons of the U.S.-backed mujahidin who defeated the Soviets in the 1980s. As I have been saying since 9/11, Taliban never was America's enemy. Instead of invading Afghanistan in 2001, the U.S. should have paid Taliban to uproot al-Qaida.

The Pashtun tribes want to end foreign occupation and drive out the Afghan Communists, who now dominate the U.S.-installed Kabul regime. But the U.S. has blundered into a full-scale war not just with Taliban, but with most of Afghanistan's fierce Pashtun tribes, who comprise over half the population.

Obama is wrestling with widening the war. After eight years of military operations costing $236 billion US, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan just warned of the threat of "failure," a.k.a. defeat. Canada has so far wasted $16 billion Cdn. on the war. Western occupation forces will be doomed if the Afghan resistance ever gets modern anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles.

The U.S. is sinking ever deeper into the South Asian morass. Washington is trying to arm-twist Pakistan into being more obedient and widening the war against its own independent-minded Pashtun tribes -- wrongly called "Taliban."

Washington's incredibly ham-handed efforts to use $7.5 billion US to bribe Pakistan's feeble, corrupt government and army, take control of military promotions, and get a grip on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, have Pakistan's soldiers on the verge of revolt.

Obama has been under intense pressure from flag-waving Republicans, much of the media, and the hawkish national security establishment to expand the war. Israel's supporters, including many Congressional Democrats, want to see the U.S. seize Pakistan's nuclear arms and expand the Afghan war into Iran.

Obama should admit Taliban is not and never was a threat to the West; that the wildly exaggerated al-Qaida has been mostly eradicated; and that the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan is causing more damage to U.S. interests in the Muslim world -- now 25% of all humanity -- than Bin Laden and his few rag-tag allies. The bombing in Madrid and London, and conspiracy in Toronto, were all horribly wrongheaded protests by young Muslims against the Afghan war.

We are not going to change the way Afghans treat their women by waging war on them, or bring democracy through rigged elections.

I wish Obama would just declare victory in Afghanistan, withdraw western forces, and hand over security to a multi-national stabilization force from Muslim nations. Good presidents, like good generals, know when to retreat.

ERIC.MARGOLIS@SUNMEDIA.CA

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

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

Sunday, October 11, 2009 2:08 PM

Thought this was good too, Not Afghanistan, but brought to you by the same idiots

THOSE TRICKY IRANIANS ARE NOW THREATENING TO COOPERATE
NEW YORK October 05, 2009
The confusion over Iran’s nuclear program mounts as accusations and denials intensify.
In an effort to browbeat Iran into nuclear submission, the US, Britain and France staged a bravura performance of political theatre last week by claiming to have just `discovered’ a secret Iran uranium enrichment plant near Qum. On cue, a carefully orchestrated media blitz trumpeted warnings of the alleged Iranian nuclear threat and `long-ranged missiles.’

In reality, the Qum plant was detected by US spy satellites over two years ago, and was known to the intelligence community. Iran claimed the plant will not begin enriching uranium for peaceful power for another 540 days. UN nuclear rules, to which Iran adheres, calls for 180 days notice.

But Iran cast suspicion on itself by hastily alerting the UN’s nuclear agency, IAEA, right after the `revelation’ of the Qum plant and inviting inspection. Iran may not have been actually guilty of anything, but it looked guilty – in western eyes.

Iran can hardly be eager to reveal the locations of its nuclear sites or military secrets given the steady stream of threats by Israel to attack Iran’s nuclear plants and the beating of war drums in the United States. Iran also recalls Iraq, where half the UN `nuclear inspectors’ were actually spies for CIA or Israel’s Mossad. This may explain some of Iran’s secretive behavior.

The US, Britain, France and Israel have been even less forthcoming about their nuclear secrets. Israel and India reject all outside requests for information.

Iran’s test of some useless short ranged missiles, and an inaccurate 2,000-km medium ranged Shahab-3, provoked more hysteria. In a choice example of media scaremongering, one leading North American newspaper printed a picture of a 1960’s vintage SAM-2 antiaircraft missile being launched, with a caption warning of the `grave threat’ Iran posed to `international peace and security.’

Welcome to Iraq déjà vu, and another manufactured crisis. US intelligence and UN inspectors say Iran has no nuclear weapons and certainly no nuclear warheads and is only enriching uranium to 5%. Nuclear weapons require 95%. Iran’s nuclear facilities are under constant UN inspection and US surveillance.

The US, its allies, and Israel insist Iran is secretly developing nuclear warheads. They demand Tehran prove a negative: that is has no nuclear weapons. Iraq was also put to the same impossible test, then attacked when it naturally could not comply.

Now, the US government is again leaking claims that Iran is working on a nuclear warhead for its Shahah-3 medium-ranged missile. Iran says the data supposedly backing up this claim is a fake concocted by Israel’s Mossad. Forged data was also used to accuse Iraq.

Israel is deeply alarmed by Iran’s challenge to its Mideast nuclear monopoly. Chances of an Israeli attack on Iran are growing weekly, though the US is still restraining Israel.

The contrived uproar about the Qum plant was a ploy to intensify pressure on Iran to cease nuclear enrichment – though it has every right to do so under international agreements. The problem is that Iran has many good reasons for developing nuclear weapons for self-defense even though Tehran insists it is not.

More pressure was applied at last week’s meeting near Geneva between the Western powers and Iran. The Iranians then fooled everyone by actually agreeing to ship a good part of their enriched uranium to Russia for safekeeping, thus taking the wind out of the sails of the war party in Washington, London and Paris – at least for a while.

You could almost hear the outraged neocons in Washington yelling, `hey you sneaky Iranians, fight fair!’

Why does Ahmadinejad antagonize the West and act belligerent when he should be taking a very low profile? Why would Iran face devastating Israeli or US attack to keep enriching uranium when it can import such fuel from Russia?

Civilian nuclear power has become the keystone of Iranian national pride. As noted in my new book, `American Raj,’ Iran’s leadership insists the West has denied the Muslim world modern technology and tries to keep it backwards and subservient. Tehran believes it can withstand all western sanctions.

In my view, Iran appears to be very slowly developing a `breakout’ capability to produce a small number of nuclear weapons on short notice - for defensive purposes. Iraq’s invasion of Iran cost Iran one million casualties. Iran demands the same right of nuclear self defense enjoyed by neighbors Israel, India and Pakistan.

But Iran’s multi-level leadership is also split over the question of whether or not to actually build nuclear weapons. Iran is just as fearful of an Israeli nuclear attack as Israel is of an Iranian nuclear attack. For the record, President Ahmadinejad did not call for Israel to be `wiped off the face of the map,’ but quoted an old Imam Khomeini speech calling for Zionism to be wiped away and replaced by a state for Jews, Muslims and Christians.

What Iran really wants is an end to 30-years of US efforts to overthrow its Islamic regime. The US is still waging economic warfare against Iran and trying to overthrow the Tehran government. Like North Korea, Iran wants explicit guarantees from Washington that this siege warfare will stop and relations with the US will be normalized.

As Flynt and Hillary Leverett conclude in their excellent, must-read 29 September NY Times article about Iran’s nuclear program, détente with Iran will be bitterly opposed by `those who attach value to failed policies that have damaged America’s interests in the Middle East…’

http://www.ericmargolis.com/political_commentaries/those-tricky-irania
ns-are-now-threatening-to-coope.aspx

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

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

Monday, October 12, 2009 3:28 AM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:

No offense to any poster, but if "we" are smart enough to see that being in Afghanistan is a Major Fubar move, then TPTB know it too, and they know'd it before we did. I refuse to believe the "they're incompetent" explanation - that's too easy. I can just hear them saying, "let them think we're idiots, that's what they want to think anyway." There's something(s) else going on.

I don't buy that "they" are smart enough to know how screwed "they" are. I mean, they *knew* how screwed we were in 1967, according to internal documents, yet stayed for another eight years. And the majority of U.S. soldier who died in Vietnam did so AFTER it was already known by TPTB that it was a war we could NEVER win.

So no, I don't think "they" know all this, if past events are any indication. Also, bear in mind that "they" thought Iraq was a great idea, too. Well, they either actually thought that, or they really ARE incompetent, depending on who you believe. These are many of the same people in the trenches who sat there and said that the Iraq occupation would take no more than days, possibly weeks, and cost the U.S. at most $17 billion.

Heh - sadly it comes down to I don't trust them and you think they're incompetent, which doesn't rule out us both being right.

And looks like I was wrong about covering up the voter fraud - just saw cnn report the UN acknowledged as much... but what will they do next...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/11/afghanistan.un/index.html

Also:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2359652/posts

Barack Obama ready to pay Afghan fighters to ditch the Taliban
London Times ^ | 10/10/2009

Mike, I know you have been saying something like this recently...

"Afghans are known for changing sides back and forth during their long years of war — there is an old saying that “you can rent an Afghan but never buy one” — and battles have often been decided by defections rather than combat.

Paying Taliban foot-soldiers to switch sides could spare US lives and save money, say its advocates. A recent report by the Senate foreign relations committee estimated the Taliban fighting strength at 15,000, of whom only 5% are committed idealogues while 70% fight for money — the so-called $10-a-day Taliban..."

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

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

Tuesday, October 13, 2009 12:56 PM

Looks like if the UN tries to fix anything to do with the fraud in this election Karzai is going to call it foreign interference by the infidels

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8304592.stm

But it doesn't matter anyway because Abdullah was paid off by someone, and the ECC is trying to fudge the math to avoid a runoff election...

If it were my country, I would be planting IEDs too

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

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

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 12:57 PM

"If a foreign army invaded your country, then what in the fuck would you do? Yes, what in the fuck would you do?"

Wasn't Karzai the one who when he was elected had his place of legal residence in New Mexico or something, while working for what was not officially the CIA?

Why do I think it wasn't really the Taliban chopping off fingers to discourage voters. Oh right, the polls. Yeah, curious how someone with 24% or so can win an election...

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

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 1:23 PM

Okay, I know this is going to sound right out of PN's loony-tunes playbook, and I've never really been able to figure out the why's and how's of it, but the day before the Afghanistan election, I was watching the news, and they were talking about possible problem areas, and showing U.S. troops patrolling and practicing taking buildings - and they were showing them "practicing" on an odd-looking building - modern, multi-story, but with staircases on the outside, which struck me as strange.

And then, the next day, the "news" reports that the Taliban had taken a large building in Kabul - and they show that exact same building as the one the Taliban occupied and controlled for most of the day.

It struck me as incongruous, made me wonder, "What the fuck?" - I mean, we were just there, IN that building, showing how we were protecting everybody, and then the very next day it's taken by Taliban? Really?

Seems more than a little coincidental.

And I'm not even a paranoid, just paying attention.

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

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 1:28 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Heh - sadly it comes down to I don't trust them and you think they're incompetent, which doesn't rule out us both being right.

Too true. That we don't necessarily agree on the reasons doesn't change the outcome...

Quote:

Barack Obama ready to pay Afghan fighters to ditch the Taliban
London Times ^ | 10/10/2009

Mike, I know you have been saying something like this recently...

"Afghans are known for changing sides back and forth during their long years of war — there is an old saying that “you can rent an Afghan but never buy one” — and battles have often been decided by defections rather than combat.

Paying Taliban foot-soldiers to switch sides could spare US lives and save money, say its advocates. A recent report by the Senate foreign relations committee estimated the Taliban fighting strength at 15,000, of whom only 5% are committed idealogues while 70% fight for money — the so-called $10-a-day Taliban..."

Well, I hate to suggest that Afghan warriors are for sale to the highest bidder, because I think they're a proud and fierce people with a long history of being shat on and resisting that shit at every opportunity, but if they're willing to switch allegiances or even just leave our guys alone for cash, let's pay up.

You know what's funny about this? How long do you think it will be before the right-wing nutjobs start whinging about "negotiating with terrorists" or paying them off? How long? Never mind the fact that that is EXACTLY what was done in the famous "Surge" in Iraq, and the only reason it worked as well as it did.

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

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 2:03 PM

FREMDFIRMA

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And I'm not even a paranoid, just paying ENOUGH attention.

Fixed that for you.

Now go back and take a closer look at some other stuff, like the background aftermath of WTC, or Nick Berg - ain't the front and center that gives shit away, it's whats in the backgrounds that folks forget to hide.

Then you'll really be pissed off.

-F

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

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 2:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And I'm not even a paranoid, just paying ENOUGH attention.

Fixed that for you.

Now go back and take a closer look at some other stuff, like the background aftermath of WTC, or Nick Berg - ain't the front and center that gives shit away, it's whats in the backgrounds that folks forget to hide.

Then you'll really be pissed off.

-F

What's really scary is that on so much stuff, I'm really NOT paying much attention. It's just that I have a near-constant stream of inputs, often several sources at once - radio, TV, print, internet, podcasts, actual obvervations and conversations - that I start seeing patterns coming up through all the weft and warp.

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

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 4:24 PM

Frem,

Re: Backgrounds

So you noticed that too... Most people miss that. Backgrounds are very telling. I would'a pegged Berg's execution as Abu Ghraib, from the background, but I'd be willing to grant a similar structure to like places constructed under socialist rule, but we were given no indication that insurgent groups had control of any of these. I wasn't sure about the weapons, uniforms that appear in the background, I wasn't able to sort that out.

I'm curious though, re: 9/11. What's the particular background points you have picked out, and have you checked them against the FOX video. I take the FOX video of the event as probably the most credible piece of footage, since apparently there was some memo put out that said "don't shoot this stuff, and if you do, hand us your tapes" and the fox guys missed the meeting, 'cause they'd already aired it. Also, of course, there are random people with cameras, which work if you have different people with cameras showing the same background anomalies, otherwise, you're in danger of conspiracy modified data, and the conspiracy crowd will do this sort of thing just as fast as the MSM or the admin, just to get loyal followers...

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

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 5:54 PM

FREMDFIRMA

DT - I DO know what a cutter charge looks like, and there's some damned obvious shots in the book AFTERMATH which are very telling evidence of their use - I-beams do NOT break at perfect 45 degree angles when hit, warped, or melted.

Plus I know what they sound like, you know - I DO know a lil bit about blowin shit up.

-F

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

Wednesday, October 14, 2009 7:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Heh - sadly it comes down to I don't trust them and you think they're incompetent, which doesn't rule out us both being right.

Too true. That we don't necessarily agree on the reasons doesn't change the outcome...

Quote:

Barack Obama ready to pay Afghan fighters to ditch the Taliban
London Times ^ | 10/10/2009

Mike, I know you have been saying something like this recently...

"Afghans are known for changing sides back and forth during their long years of war — there is an old saying that “you can rent an Afghan but never buy one” — and battles have often been decided by defections rather than combat.

Paying Taliban foot-soldiers to switch sides could spare US lives and save money, say its advocates. A recent report by the Senate foreign relations committee estimated the Taliban fighting strength at 15,000, of whom only 5% are committed idealogues while 70% fight for money — the so-called $10-a-day Taliban..."

Well, I hate to suggest that Afghan warriors are for sale to the highest bidder, because I think they're a proud and fierce people with a long history of being shat on and resisting that shit at every opportunity, but if they're willing to switch allegiances or even just leave our guys alone for cash, let's pay up.

You know what's funny about this? How long do you think it will be before the right-wing nutjobs start whinging about "negotiating with terrorists" or paying them off? How long? Never mind the fact that that is EXACTLY what was done in the famous "Surge" in Iraq, and the only reason it worked as well as it did.

I doubt it would work, How big is the price on BinLadens head?

and how much and how long are you willing to spend money? hell I'd go to ground for a week or a month for a big pay day, then I'd go looking for another...

Why not pay off the guys in Somalia too, after all they have a pretty good list of wrongs... call it reparations

Besides, most of the Taliban who laid down the gun, were harassed and tortured by your local allies... and were driven back into the fight. What is fool me once in Pashtun ???

Maybe a biggish payment and a withdrawl with a binding promise to not come around here no more...

and leave Karzai and his asshole to face his people, then maybe

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

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

Thursday, October 15, 2009 9:08 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8309464.stm

Italy fury at 'Taliban pay' claim
Italian troops in Afghanistan (file pic)
Italy has strongly denied that it pays militants to reduce casualties

Italy has angrily denied a UK newspaper report that it paid Taliban fighters in Afghanistan to keep the peace.

Italy's defence minister said his country was planning to sue the Times newspaper over the claims.

French forces took over the area unaware of the policy, leaving them unaware of the risks, the paper says. Ten soldiers were killed within weeks.

In France, opposition socialists demanded the defence minister should answer questions on the claims.

The Times' report, quoting Western military officials, says the policy was operated by Italian secret services in Afghanistan's Sarobi area, east of Kabul.

A lot of Nato countries with troops operating in the rural areas of Afghanistan pay the insurgents so not to be attacked
Anonymous Afghan commander to AFP agency

Warlords as well as Taliban commanders were paid, the paper says, with the amounts running to tens of thousands of dollars.

France took over control of the region in 2008, apparently believing it to be a low-risk area, the paper says, as only one Italian had died in the previous year.

But within a month of the French take-over, 10 soldiers were killed and 21 injured in a mountain ambush.

An unnamed Afghan army officer also told French news agency AFP that Italy had paid the Taliban to avoid casualties.

"We knew that Italian forces were paying the opposition (fighters) in Sarobi so they would not be attacked. We have information on similar agreements made in the western Herat province by Italian soldiers under Nato command there," he said.

"A lot of Nato countries with troops operating in the rural areas of Afghanistan pay the insurgents so not to be attacked."

'Garbage'

But Italy, France and Nato dismissed the claims.

"These are rumours, and it is not the first time we have heard them," said French Admiral Christophe Prazuck.

If it does go on, it's the Afghan government (that does it) rather than international forces
Nato spokesman General Eric Tremblay

In Italy, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's office also rejected the report.

"The Berlusconi government has never authorised or allowed any form of payment of sums of money in favour of members of the insurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, and is not aware of similar initiatives by the previous government," it said in a statement.

Italian Defence Minister Ignazio La Russa described the report as "garbage" and "offensive" and said staff were preparing a lawsuit against the newspaper.

Map

Nato spokesman General Eric Tremblay said he was "not aware" of Italy having paid off Taliban militants.

"If it does go on, it's the Afghan government (that does it) rather than international forces," he told French news agency AFP.

France's Socialist Party opposition said Defence Minister Herve Morin should appear before parliament's defence committee to provide an explanation.

Italy also denied a separate element of the Times' report, which said the US ambassador had submitted a formal complaint after discovering Italians had been buying off insurgents in the far-west Herat province.

A US spokeswoman in Rome said the embassy did not comment "on internal diplomatic conversations that may or may not have occurred"

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

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

Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:25 PM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I doubt it would work, How big is the price on BinLadens head?

and how much and how long are you willing to spend money? hell I'd go to ground for a week or a month for a big pay day, then I'd go looking for another...

Why not pay off the guys in Somalia too, after all they have a pretty good list of wrongs... call it reparations

Besides, most of the Taliban who laid down the gun, were harassed and tortured by your local allies... and were driven back into the fight. What is fool me once in Pashtun ???

Maybe a biggish payment and a withdrawl with a binding promise to not come around here no more...

and leave Karzai and his asshole to face his people, then maybe

You say "you/your" like you think we represent our government - or am I reading that wrong?

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

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

Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:

You say "you/your" like you think we represent our government - or am I reading that wrong?

I think it's generic as in if we voted for Bush we want war & if we voted for Obama we want social reform, or some such.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:49 PM

I think he means the royal "you". As in, "you", the American people. Your nation. You.

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

Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:52 PM

Your government acts on your behalf, who takes the heat when they F**K up

Some times it cost you money, sometimes your friends

but if people felt more responsibility for the actions of their government, perhaps those governments wouldn't run amuck, or at least be held accountable

when the US firebombed Japan, for example... those people were paying the price for a government they had little control over, you figure a democracy would take a little more ownership, because in theory at least they have the most say.

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

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

Thursday, October 15, 2009 3:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I doubt it would work, How big is the price on BinLadens head?

and how much and how long are you willing to spend money? hell I'd go to ground for a week or a month for a big pay day, then I'd go looking for another...

Why not pay off the guys in Somalia too, after all they have a pretty good list of wrongs... call it reparations

Besides, most of the Taliban who laid down the gun, were harassed and tortured by your local allies... and were driven back into the fight. What is fool me once in Pashtun ???

Maybe a biggish payment and a withdrawl with a binding promise to not come around here no more...

and leave Karzai and his asshole to face his people, then maybe

Good point(s). It may be that they see an offer of $20,000,000 as just bullshit, or pure fantasy, as in "that's so much money it's not possible". Make it $200, and we might get somewhere.

And honestly, with 20 million bucks, what the hell are you going to do in Afghanistan? What will you buy? A mustache factory? A mud assembly line? A big pile of rocks, and another big pile of rocks to put them on? A giant pile of heroin for which you have no real use or market?

Maybe the only play left for us is to say, "You pick your government that YOU want, and as long as you don't fuck with America, we won't fuck with you, and if you decide you want to educate your women or modernize your lives, we'll be happy to try to help, and we can maybe get the rest of the world to help, too - starting with a coalition of Islamic countries."

I mean, at this point, we have no idea what DOES work as far as Afghanistan goes, but we have some very solid evidence of what DOESN'T work, and we seem to be just rewriting that same playbook in a much larger font right now.

And it's very tempting to just walk away from Afghanistan and Iraq, but that's what Colin Powell warned against when he said it was the "Pottery Barn foreign policy". You break it, you own it. We broke the shit out of both those countries. Truth be told, Afghanistan was horribly broken to start with, but we smashed it to splinters, and now it's ours. Ditto Iraq. That's what Bush never got: Powell was warning him against going into Iraq, because once you're there, you're fucked, and you're stuck. Afghanistan, if anything, looks like it's shaping up to be an even worse mess.

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 15, 2009 4:00 PM

Quote:

You say "you/your" like you think we represent our government - or am I reading that wrong?

And, ya know, it's actually supposed to be the other way 'round. Not that we've ever seen much evidence of that...

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

Thursday, October 15, 2009 4:04 PM

Quote:

when the US firebombed Japan, for example... those people were paying the price for a government they had little control over, you figure a democracy would take a little more ownership, because in theory at least they have the most say.

What have you been smoking?

I think you have no idea how it really works in the U.S. Remember, this is the place where Obama won a resounding majority in the election, and Democrats swept in in a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and picked up even more seats in the House, and we STILL have people running scared because there are nutjob teabaggers jumping up and down and screaming "This isn't what we voted for!" - when clearly, it IS exactly what "we" voted for!

So yeah, we're really good about owning our decisions, until those decisions don't turn out the way we'd hoped they would...

America: Give me liberty, or give me something else.

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 15, 2009 4:47 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

I think you have no idea how it really works in the U.S.

Hahahaha, WE have no idea, how can peeps outside???

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Thursday, October 15, 2009 4:55 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

I think you have no idea how it really works in the U.S.
Hahahaha, WE have no idea, how can peeps outside???

The laughing Chrisisall

No kidding.

I was just yanking Gino's chain a bit. He seems a good sport, and I think he'll get the joke.

Mike

Let the wild rumpus start!

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

Thursday, October 15, 2009 5:01 PM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I think he means the royal "you". As in, "you", the American people. Your nation. You.

Yeah, um, geee, thx?

This is a forum where U S of A folk repeatedly bitch about their GOV, from all sides, I thought it was appropriate to point out to Gino - by way of a direct question - that *we* are not *you* or "them." "We" do not make policy and "we" do not bomb Afghans, etc. etc. I dislike the connections - I want to see if Gino blindly "hates Americans" as his one time signature might suggest, or if he just hates American Policy.

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

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

Thursday, October 15, 2009 5:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:

No kidding.

Wow. It's late, and I have munchings to go before I sleep.
Later.

The hungry Chrisisall

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

Thursday, October 15, 2009 5:04 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I want to see if Gino blindly "hates Americans" as his one time signature might suggest, or if he just hates American Policy.

Pardon me for speaking for you Gino, but I believe you hate policy over peeps.

The laughing Chrisisall

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

Thursday, October 15, 2009 5:59 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I think he means the royal "you". As in, "you", the American people. Your nation. You.

Yeah, um, geee, thx?

This is a forum where U S of A folk repeatedly bitch about their GOV, from all sides, I thought it was appropriate to point out to Gino - by way of a direct question - that *we* are not *you* or "them." "We" do not make policy and "we" do not bomb Afghans, etc. etc. I dislike the connections - I want to see if Gino blindly "hates Americans" as his one time signature might suggest, or if he just hates American Policy.

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

Hate against such a large body of people would be quite challenging...

So where does the buck stop ?

Let say Iraqi torture as a case...

Bush, Cheney, Rice... lots of documents pointing at them, responsibility .... no

The CIA and Military guys who followed orders doing the deed...

minimal responsibility, sure some guys were held out, for either went too far or for PR... but Obama pretty much gave them all a pass too

So now who is responsible, who lets it go on, or fails to do anything about it?

The US public, I think if justice was blind we'd have no terrorism

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

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

Thursday, October 15, 2009 6:11 PM

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

The US public, I think if justice was blind we'd have no terrorism

Gino - just for the official FFF record I welcome your posts, I WANT your posts, I want a non-US, an outsider's perspective. I just don't want it to be a hater's perspective.

I actually find a majority of what you post to be in line with a number of the Americans who post here in that it is PURE FANTASY, as in wishful thinking.

Sorry, I wish for many things too, I even wish for the same things - in Afghanistan we are in total agreement - who the eff are we to even be there? MY America only goes somewhere to help. I'm obviously out of the loop.

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

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

Thursday, October 15, 2009 10:10 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:

The US public, I think if justice was blind we'd have no terrorism

Gino - just for the official FFF record I welcome your posts, I WANT your posts, I want a non-US, an outsider's perspective. I just don't want it to be a hater's perspective.

I actually find a majority of what you post to be in line with a number of the Americans who post here in that it is PURE FANTASY, as in wishful thinking.

Sorry, I wish for many things too, I even wish for the same things - in Afghanistan we are in total agreement - who the eff are we to even be there? MY America only goes somewhere to help. I'm obviously out of the loop.

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

I had to think about what line you were talking about...

I have one of the flues and am running a 40 degree fever

it was a line from the Simpsons,

They don't hate America, they hate Americans

kinda a shot at the people who think the war on terror is caused by some form of jealously, or envy.

It is not the ideal or dream of American they hate, it is the Americans who run around pulling shit in the name of that dream

sigh, not think straight tonight

as for Afghanistan, I honestly think they cannot allow the Karzai government to stand, and maintain any credibility with the people there.

Love to hear what McCrystal has to say about that one

Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists

Lets party like its 1939

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

Monday, October 19, 2009 5:50 AM