And Thirty Years Ago This Month Somebody Else Had A Great Idea About Afghanistan
("They'll greet us with flowers and candy . .. sort of")
Thirty years ago this December, the Soviet Union decided it was a good idea to take advantage of an unstable region by launching an invasion of Afghanistan. Convinced this would be easy and "what the Afghan people wanted", Moscow quickly moved to set up a Soviet backed regime and to fold Afghanistan into the Communist bloc. Or tried to anyway.
Dallas Townsend (CBS News): In recent days U.S. Intelligence has detected the influx of a battalion of Soviet troops, about five hundred men, into Afghanistan.”
Oddly enough, the news warranted only a scant 16 second mention at the end of this CBS World News Roundup broadcast from December 16, 1979. The big news was still the ongoing Hostage drama in Tehran. We were, it seemed, a bit preoccupied to notice what the other hands were doing.
The rest, as they say, is history.
... with money, weapons, and training.
I wonder who is backing them today?
still is. Haven't you seen the stories about paying off the Taliban to let the supply convoys through? The training of the Afghan military and police who then return to the mountains with the Taliban. And as far as weapons and ammo it's the same deal as it was in Vietnam, the "enemy" gets 1/3 to 1/2 of most everything we ship over there.
that's definitely the new question.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
Zbigniew Brzezinski: How Jimmy Carter and I Started the Mujahideen
Democracy is too important to be entrusted to politicians.
Rise Up!
Protest!
In other words, "I didn't throw the first punch, but I did call his mother a slut."
That interview was from 1998. I wonder how he feels about his actions 10+ years later.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
so I am sure he feels A-OK with his actions. May even shear a few tears of pride when reminiscing about them.
Although he must have a bit of a grudge regarding the fact they haven't turned his exciting life into a movie yet.
"It isn't quite that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene, but we knowingly increased the probability that they would." The Afghan government at the time was not unlike the Karzai government. It existed only by the support of an external power, the Soviets, and controlled very little of the country. The Soviets had paid good hard cash for that Afghan government and they weren't about to let anybody intervene. Hence the invasion. It was an irresistible opportunity to cause the Soviets trouble at very low cost much as the Soviets had done to the US in Vietnam. I'm quite certain it was looked at as a winning situation either way: if the Soviets didn't invade their ancient dream of expanding southward to secure a warm weather port would be thwarted and if they did invade the opportunities for bleeding them would be endless. And so it goes.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I find it difficult to believe that the Soviet Union rolled over one day and said, "Damn, there's Muslims in them hills! Let's invade." Indeed, the accounts I've reviewed have described an increasing (and well-founded) paranoia by muslims in Afghanistan concerning Soviet expansion. Accordingly, the suggestion that the American covert aid to Afghan Muslims precipitated the Soviet invasion is disengenuous. I have no doubt it played a part in the timing, but I think it's far-fetched to conclude that Afghan Muslims' pre-invasion perception of the threat of Soviet expansion weren't realistic.
Of course we supplied the mujaheddin the stingers.
Then, when Russia pulled out. So did Reagan.
Charlie Wilson was right. We should have helped the Afghan's.
I wonder. Do you think Obama considered this?
Do you think he doesn't want to make the same mistake Reagan made?
I'm just tryin to figure out why he's doing what he's doing.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Because he's been told to? Or else?
a holiday gift to the people of Afghanistan.
the dough will flow to the war-profiteers who make your uniform, your gun, your ammo, your truck, etc.
trying to whitewash his legacy of hubris
At least Perle has been consistent in gloating about the fact that their only goal was the utter humiliation of the USSR regardless of the aftermath associated with the Russians pulling cold turkey from Afghanistan.
In fact, it was the Russians the one who time after time warned of the consequences of leaving a power vacuum in the area. They even offered the Americans a peace plan, where the Russians could save face and leave the place a few years before the end of their military involvement. But neither Perle, nor Wilson himself, would have any of that.
.... the question was rhetorical, as much as anything. ;\
I think you have to look at the fact that Hamid Karzai was, at one time involved with Unocal. The state we're in now is that nice impossible one where you're damned it you do and damned if you don't. The biggest problem we face, and have always faced, is that America is wonderful at waging war but rotten at waging peace. The reason hardline regimes have existed in the Middle East is because most all of them were masters at manipulating all the divergent groups they represented, and much of that manipulation is subtle. We don't do subtle very well. The second we leave that region - Iraq and well as Afghanistan, the in-fighting, the score settling and the ethnic cleansing will begin. All we have done is stave off the inevitable and that is something we have absolutely no control over. The only thing we can do now is what we are doing and I really hate saying that. Unless we figure out a way to improve their infrastructure - food, roads, education, medical, stabilize the government, recognize the divergent groups (who hate each other anyway - but you've got to start somewhere), stabilize their economy and figure out if you want the Poppy business to still go or offer an alternative - then it's going to be the same all over again. But I think eventually some balance will come. I have no idea when. I just think the presence of oppressive regimes has a life expectancy and none of them have lasted for long (long being over 50 years). We have been handed a rotten bill of goods by people who were deceitful and in charge. They knew when we got involved there was no easy way out. We just have to make sure it never happens again.
Why do we think that we have the right to interfere in their country? Do some people really think the US is morally superior to them? It's not. The idea is laughable, in the most sarcastic way possible. Get. Out. Now.
always so that the US sucked at waging peace Gordon. The Marshall Plan and the reconstruction of Japan weren't just charity they were adroit politics. So too was the the work done to reconstruct South Korea after that war. They were eminently successful in turning adversaries into allies and strengthening the bonds between friendly nations.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
I do agree we had flashes of brilliance in our Foreign Policy in the past. Certainly The Marshall Plan was one of them. However, with the Red Scare of the late 1940's, a lot was done by the right wing to discredit Marshall including accusations of Communist infiltration throughout the State Department (i.e. Alger Hiss). The reconstruction of South Korea would have been under John Foster Dulles' watch and I'm not all that versed as to who was in the State Department during his tenure. But two things stand out there - one was the initial overthrow of the Mossadegh government in Iran (CIA backed which was Allen Dulles) and the fall of Dien Bien Phu, which began the whole "Domino Theory" of Red Scare fears and our involvement in Vietnam. I would venture to guess the credit with Korean reconstruction may actually go to Syngman Rhee.
provided able leadership in re-constructing South Korea I think you'll find that significant US aid in the form of low interest loans and, even more importantly, allowing the Koreans most favored nation trading status were absolutely essential to starting the economic fire in South Korea. The same policy was actually starting to produce results in South Vietnam when the invasion by North Vietnam put a stop to it. I'm not sure how this could work in Afghanistan where the chief products are hash and heroin.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
... that the "Ewoks-take-on-the-Empire-and-win" scenario might not be all that fanciful.
the remains of the Death Star 2 fell out of orbit onto the Ewoks planet.
Skeptical Dems resign themselves to Obama war plan
will scrape together the cash to buy small gifts for our kids, hopefully without having to miss a rent payment or a mortgage payment somehow.
American Ingenuity
1980: the 1979 Soviet intervention in Afghanistan spurred a boycott of the Moscow Olympic Games.
The United States was joined in the boycott by some other populous countries - including Japan, West Germany, China, the Philippines and Canada. Some of these countries competed at the Olympic Boycott Games in Philadelphia. Notably, the United Kingdom, France, and Greece supported the boycott but allowed their athletes to participate if they wished (the U.S. did not).
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Thanks for finally posting something today that Obama's escalation is a bad idea. This and the Kucinich piece are much appreciated. Us on the left need to remind our dear leaders that the war is wrong no matter who is calling the shots.
I hope many here will be drafting letters to their reps to condemn this escalation. (I doubt they read our angry comments on this blog).
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
they even call it "Theater"
Slightly off topic, but you know how some people feel we must be patient with Obama and give him time on healthcare, the economy and now this war? You know, because he's so much smarter than us mere mortals and he's thinking ten steps ahead of everyone else.
I wonder what the defense is for this:
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
Flowers and candy . . oh about six months max . . iraq oil will pay for war . . relax celebrate victory . . yadda yadda
What? Did you really think the criminally incompetent news outlets are a new thing? this has been going on for a long, long time now.
I hear way to many people whining saying Obama is no better, "I wont be voting for him because of the Afghan decision". Let's slow down and think about this. What are our options? Not when it comes to Afghanistan. I'm not happy about it either. I strongly believe we need to cut our loses and leave. But he believes we need to stay and clean up Bush's mess.
With that said we have to look at the bigger picture. He has done some good for us. He did save this country from economic ruin. Sure unemployment is still going up but it will start coming back. But my concern is law. In the next three years he will replace another Supreme Court Justice from someone from the left leaving. He will replace this justice with someone on our side. In the following four years chances are another one will need replaced. This one will be from the right. We have seen what the newly appointed right Supreme Court Justices are. Far right. We CANNOT let the right take over the White House and appoint another Roberts or Alito or all our laws will be based on corporate rights and religious beliefs.
Think about what the right has to offer when it comes beliefs and appointment to the Supreme court. There is no way that any other Democrat other than Obama will become president in 2012. IT's either him or some Palin type. We can change this court to 5-4 in our favor in the next seven years unless everyone gives up on him. If we do give up, no legal abortion for you, Walmart will take your land, small time drug dealers will overflow our prison system.
I hate the fact that we will remain in Afghanistan but that is only part of the big picture. We cannot be like the right and become single issue voters.
is intended to be a factual statement
And I hope you're right. But judging by Obama's appointments so far I wouldn't get too excited about his Supreme Court appointment. I mean, Geithner, Gates, Rahm, Gregg (who withdrew), Jim Leach...
As for saving us from economic ruin... that's very debatable. Are you sure it's not just another bubble created by trillions of government dollars being infused into the economy? What has changed since the crash?
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
is a fake recovery bubble. If you want to call it a recovery.
From what all the respectable economists I've read are saying, it is more likely that the current state of affairs is just duct tape on a breaking dam.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
I don't like where this is going at all.
Just like any recovery employment always lags behind. If he wakes up and and attacks this hard we'll be fine. I hate to cheer lead like Maddow did last night but he just needs to re-evaluate the job situation. IF he doesn't then he's done. I agree with the names you said but I think if he bucks Rahm a couple times he should make a couple of decent moves. If he doesn't, then I'm wrong.
is intended to be a factual statement
But I have serious doubts. We're talking about a president who refused to sign a ban on landmines because "we would not be able to meet our national defense needs nor our security commitments to our friends and allies if we signed this convention."
That doesn't sound like an administration that is concerned about doing the right thing. I mean, they're defending the use of landmines (or as they're often called when we want to distance our methods from the bad guys: IED's).
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
Great point Stupid. One of Obama's biggest faults is he thinks he's going to win the minds of conservatives by catering them on some issues. Obama can claim Bill Kristol as a national treasure and the right would still hate him.
is intended to be a factual statement
He is following the DLC playbook (I assume brought in by Mr. Emmanuel), which basically consists of screwing the liberal base trying to cater to the republicans who would rather stick a forklift up their rectums than vote Dem. Genius strategy!
While political considerations obviously play a role, I think Obama's military advisors believe the threat of an invasion of South Korea by North Korea is real, and that landmines are a deterrent to North Korea aggression.
I'm not defending the policy one way or the other, but all our mines sit near the DMZ.
yes, that is conventional wisdom, but not always true
and, the notion that we are having a recovery is still in contention when the rise in the stock market/GDP/etc is due in large part to bailing out wall st and corporate headcount reductions...
unless there is REAL financial reform and regulation obama and the congress will have failed us, and the next bust will be soon and much worse
... technically, in a normal business cycle. Employment is a lagging indicator.
The issue is that this was not a normal business cycle.
agreed, this is not a normal business cycle.
also, consider that the business cycle is not the best way to understand the US economy, but it is better to understand the consumer cycle... (obv not the mainstream opinion, but--imo--it might be a better way to study/understand)
The U.S. economy, and all its fits, spurts, soaring highs, and sharply diving lows is the product of consumer-driven cycles, and not guided by business cycles as is commonly believed by economists, said Edward Leamer, director of the UCLA Anderson Forecast.
http://www.builderonline.com/economic-conditi...
In any case, unless jobs start to pick up. Obama will find himself in the midst of a double dipped recession. Which why he should have shown some testicular fortitude and stablish a far more "hands on" approach to restart the economy (other than sending a few tens of thousand of troops overseas).
always love to hear other's take on these things, interesting to see all angles and perspectives.
i read the idea of the consumer cycle differently. i didn't see the econ-dude passing the buck to the consumer. to me he seemed to argue (and, granted, neither f us saw his speech and are basing our opinions on an article written about his speech) that fiscally-speaking the govt needs to pay more attention to the needs of consumers. ensuring that consumers can afford to consume (ie livable wages, etc.). and, viewing the econ thru the lens of business cycles always tends to put the needs of business before that of consumer/workers. if we say that consumers are the most important part of the economic equation we might see more progressive legislation...
... I just thought there was a big gaping hole, since the author neglected to mention that since credit is not created by consumers... In my opinion the actions of the consumers then are not the reason for the cycle, but the symptom.
I dunno if that made sense.
...(the gold bubble)
Inflating as we speak!
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
and i would be curious to hear the response from the guy from ucla.
i guess, in some ways, although credit is not created by consumers, it is sought out by consumers... so, yes, financial institutions create credit, and make a hefty profit from that credit, it is reliant on consumers to use said credit. and in periods of personal deleveraging, like now, there is a higher percentage of people looking to unload credit, not take on more, versus times when consumers feel more secure, econ speaking.
and, to borrow your line: I dunno if that made sense
DC is corrupt. The decision coming down from SCOTUS regarding unlimited funding of campaigns by corporations will finish off the process started long ago. The US is owned by corporations. Truth.
With that ruling it was pretty clear there were no branches of government left uncontrolled by corporate interests (As if the private property seizure decision years back wasn't proof enough).
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
illegal wiretaps
illegal detentions
illegal occupations
money to Wall Street, none to Main Street
no prosecutions of the worst crimes in American history - war of aggression and officially sanctioned torture
etc.
http://media3.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...
http://d.yimg.com/a/p/rids/20091202/i/r784384...
the american bully war machine is about to gets its butt kicked again like nam
the caves and the mountains and the safe haven in pak land will do us in
imperialism has a price bankruptcy in treasure and lives and moral values
karma will do its thing and the invaders will suffer for generations
we now have another george bush jr in the white house and this time he gives great speechs
waiting for obama to dance on the white house steps
that will be his second term as americans are dumb enough him to elect him twice; they did bush jr.
make no mistake heard all the same excuses for war during the nam war years. different time and different place same american imperialism and war machine
we are going to fix the second most corrupt nation in the world
the sad part americans are dumb enough to believe this war machine words of imperialism
Afghanistan on a map.
of a war?
You don't need to anymore you just drag people into it.
"This is the way it is and the way it's going to be our security is at stake blah blah"
They got it down so pat people just lay there and go duhhhhh okay
.
Them, (cough) over there. Isn't that always the way?
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
I wouldn't exactly call us dumb for electing him the 1st time, as look at the alternative.
researcher!
in 2008 was between a neo-con and a neo-con-artist. I hope we have somewhat of a better choice in 2012. This sh*t is getting old.
LimpBalls
isn't it?
I keep trying to sell people on this idea. A third party might not win the first time you vote for them, but the more we support them the more vibrant they will become. Unless we have a Kucinich to vote for, why not give the Green Party some support. It can't happen overnight, but it can happen.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
Then we're stuck with a conservative. We bring up a third party when the incumbent isn't a Democrat. This is called American politics.
is intended to be a factual statement
But too many people were excited about Obama and Hillary to care about the third party alternative. (I did vote for Cynthia McKinney instead of Obama). I hope after the disappointment Obama has become on healthcare, war, financial regulation and reform, gay rights, women's rights and just about everything else that liberals will wake up and start giving the "unelectable" candidates a chance.
I've had enough Kerry/Obama/Gore/Dukakis/Clinton garbage to ever vote mainstream Democrat again. I hope more of you have too.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
I tired of them too. It's just that the right has become so extreme that we don't have choice right now. 2016 yes, I will not vote for a Democrat. Hopefully in 2016 the Republican (extreme conservatives) will be dead. Then we'll have a choice between Democrats, Independents and that other party. I do believe that the Republicans have become so far right that by 2016 they will not be factor and we will have choice between a Democrat and a third party be it Independent or Progressive.
is intended to be a factual statement
The dems need to come up with another electoral value propositions other than:
a) Hey, at least they are not republicans
or
b) They'll take care of it next election cycle, promise.
The evil of two lessers becomes rather tiresome after a few decades of the same sh*t.
Strangely, isn't that what more conservatives are doing, like that idiot in NY and of course King of the idiots LIEberman?
Not to mention Perot back in the 90s.
.
As I gave 2 examples of RW idiots not running as Rethugs.
and caucuses with the Dems, so he does not belong to a third party.
The idiots in NY were fighting for the scraps of the GOP carcass in that district.
Independent is the same as running in a third party.
It's not one of the standard 2 so it's a third. The guy did not run as a D or R so guess what, third party. It doesn't have to be a formally recognized group to be considered that.
A 3rd party which gathers enough momentum can become a national viable alternative to the D or R. That is a big f*ck off difference right there.
did exactly that.
It's sematics...Third party is third choice other than D or R.
I don't understand your anger here. I've made no judgment call on the effectiveness of a third party (formal or not) candidate. Just an observation that the RW is dissatisfied with the Repugs as the left is starting to get with the Dems.
I simply answered your statement. We disagree profoundly but nothing that I could call remotely angry about the disagreement.
If you think it is just semantics, I must say that you are not alone. But that is more a symptom of most Americans unwilling to deal with the complexities of a democracy, with things like ideology and politics which add complexity being shun away... Now, people expect everything has to be neatly boxed and abstracted, so it makes sense politics is not an exception.
That is why, for example, in this country pragmatism is seeing as a great quality for a politician. Whereas in a lot of the western world, a complete lack of ideology from a candidate could be considered unacceptable.
Our democracy has devolved in a very significant way.
I interpreted the "F*ck off" as anger.
I guess it was meant with love. ;)
My use of "party" may be better understood as "choice".
The term "big f*ck off thingie" was meant to indicate "something really giganormous thingie" ;-) when my limey friend used it.
In any case, my point still stands. And I find the dilution of ideology from American politics rather troubling. That is why, I think, we have ended up with situations like that if you analize most of Clinton policies... most of them were to the right of Nixon's. Yet the Dems are supposed to be the "liberal" party.
And now with all the blue dogs and whatnot, the whole "big tent" excuse is just an attempt at diluting the blame on the dems for not actually standing for something concrete (ideology wise).
died, I think in the 80s. Clinton was no liberal, I know that. He was a smooth talker like Obama. The left moved slowly right since Reagan cause that was wherre the money was, and no one cared about the long-range consequences. Well, welcome to the consequences. I favor a whole non-party system, where people ran on the important issues at hand, and didn't lie about it. But I believe in Harry Potter, so what do I know.
As for "f*ck off", I get it...I tend to hear the use as "f*ck all".
If you'll remember, Liebermann lost to a true progressive - one of the kinds people like to call "unelectable". If you would read what I said, Unless we have a Kucinich to vote for, why not give the Green Party some support.
So, voting with you conviction is bad now because crazy teabaggers do it?
Please try and think before you spout off.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
All I said, was the conservatives have been running non-standard party tickets also....mostly losing also too. I made no judgement call on it. Don't put words in my mouth. I sense dissatisfaction in both parties is what I'm saying.
There is dissatisfaction by both sides because mainsteam politics is not serving the people, they are serving their largest campaign contributors. The biggest problem is that conservatives and liberals have turned against each other because of social issues like gays and abortion - which has morphed into a total distrust and hatred on both sides (though, measurable more hate coming from the right).
If we could get over our petty differences and realize that we're on the same side of a losing battle, we might be able to make some progress. Think of the Fed Audit bill with Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich on the same side. Think if those two (or two similar types) ran as a presidential ticket on an independent party platform.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
Herding cats on the left...;)
On the right...it's just screeching cats.
"There is dissatisfaction by both sides because mainsteam politics is not serving the people, they are serving their largest campaign contributors."
TRUE. Both sides are fighting to get the lion's share of the pie. They make the campaign promises they think will get them more votes. Sure, they might toss you a few goodies to keep you happy (quiet), but after the election, they're pretty much done with you.
They try to keep everyone (on their side) placated just enough so you'll vote for them again.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
They keep certain issues permanently unresolved so they can be used to corral the sheep:
aka Guns, Gays, and God
And it works every time, no less!!
I guess the American voting public is happy with the few crumbs that fall from the table, and one helluva blood-stirring campaign every 4 years???
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
if Obama did everything the same, but support and managed to pass marriage equality, I'd still criticize a lot of what has been done or not been done. I can't honestly say. I'm still a bit of a sheep.
and torture. Speaking of fat cats - they're popping off like Cheney on a hot tin roof.
...pass the 'i can't believe it's not butter'!
the best is yet to come...
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
WHAT WOULD REALLY BLOW THEIR MINDS is if the left and the right saw common ground, at least for a while, and marched on Washington TOGETHER, and said, "We're tired of ALL OF YOU."
Later you could decide on guns, gays and god.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
That's why this Fed Audit bill is freaking them out.
Bernie Sanders, Ron Paul, Dennis Kucincih, Alan Greyson, Jim DeMint - all on the same side.
If we want a revolution, we need to get stop fighting each other. Maybe we should have a big "Hug A Teabbager Day" and go around letting them know we're on their team.
Seriously though, one of us needs to be strong and make the step toward bringing the sides together and we know if won't be them. So, from now on when talking with a teabagger, try to find common ground.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
Nah, I don't think it's a third party. I think it a take over of the Repig party into a more extreme version that's going fail and become the third party like the Green Party.
If that made any sense.
is intended to be a factual statement
It's no more organized than any so-called left third party. A third party is anyone, not an R or a D. I'm using "party" more as a third choice, not necessarily as a formally recognized group.
Probably 90% of us (you and me) identify ourselves with A Party. It's a long road and many many years before people lose that identity and have the balls to vote for that third party. I did once. I voted for Perot. But I'm afraid to now thinking if I do the Republicans will win because I didn't vote for a Democrat. That fear card really works.
is intended to be a factual statement
But never will vote Repug EVER....I got effed by them a LONG time ago. I've never found a third party candidate to support that wasn't a "former" repug. Unfortunately, since wwe seem to be cemented into a 2 party system....unless you get a really good charismatic uncorrupted individual (hah!) it's just going to be D or R.
Cynthia McKinney was their candidate in 2008 and she is wonderful. Barely got much of a vote, but then again, no one knew who she was. The only time I saw her on TV was the night before the election on C-Span at 3am.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
There are important differences between Democrats and Republicans (the Supreme Court and Justice appointments, social issues, regulations) but they are becoming less defined as the republican moderates jump ship and join the Democrats. We're losing our liberal party and while we must support the true liberals in the Democratic Party, we also must start supporting the ones running on an independet ticket.
The third parties won't win the first time, but hopefully with more people spreading hte word and encouraging others they will. Even if they don't we need to let Democrats know they're not the only party we have to turn to. We can't become concubines to one party.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
why are we sending more troops to afghanistan?
--is it to fight "the war on terror"? if so, this is the exact opposite thing we should be doing. we will only create more terrorists.
--is it to stabilize afghanistan? if so, how will helping to prop up a corrupt and unpopular govt stabilize anything? it will merely forestall the inevitable.
--is it to ensure stability and provide security if/when a TAPI-like oil pipeline is constructed across afghanistan? then, well... the troops will help with that.
unacceptable answer:
-- because we support freedom and human rights and we are going to help the oppressed people of afghanistan
they just come out and say it.
it would actually be better if we were the world's police force. that way, at least, our foreign policy would be consistently applied.
instead our armed forces are often used for corporate security/economic gain--which, depending on the nation/situation, has fostered a glaringly hypocritical and inconsistent foreign policy.
Those are all the reasons they like to trot out to win punlic sympathy and acceptance. It looks honourable and you get to wear the white hat.
I say the real reason is to "protect American interests," which means unlimited access to natural reources (before anyone else gets them). Without the resources, the American lifestyle is OVER.
Resources mean wealth, power, growth and expansion. Every war is fought for the same reason, not matter what they tell us.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
to Muslim extremists then Pakistan would be next, and Pakistan has nuclear missles.
A better solution would be to disarm Pakistan.
And much attention need to be focused on............
WAIT A MINUTE!
Tiger Woods had an AFFAIR!!! AN AFFAIR!!!
Oh, yes, now......
OMG...Meredith Baxter is a LESBIAN!!!!! A LESBIAN!!!
Where was I? It doesn't matter....AN AFFAIR!!!! and A LESBIAN!!!
so people won't focus on things that really matter.
Because I (sadly) browse Yahoo's new headlines....and it's nothing but Tiger, and cute kitty vids, and unbelievably trivial garbage. Really, who GIVES a flying rat's ass about Tiger Woods personal life, that has no effect on anything but himself and his family? Apparently everyone.
At least SOMEONE around here recognises the important news. Up Next: Golf God Tiger Woods has Affair with Lesbian Meridith Baxter. Film and voice mails at 11...
me-oww!
They both just wanted to get into the Women's Open.
Let me file that under "I don't give shit". I'm coming out tomorrow on The Early Show on CBS as a Hetero. It's just as important as Baxter's news. Isn't it?
is intended to be a factual statement
in celebrities coming out...but honestly, with everything going on in the world today, I really care very little about their private lives.
I've been really disappointed with C&L and some of the other progressive blogs today. There is very little outrage in the headlines. It's nothing like when Bush announced the surge in Iraq. All the liberals we shouting, headlines were bold and constant - all denouncing it.
For Obama, we get one Kucinich interview and this look at history. Hypocrisy, plain and simple.
Hopefully humanity will one day learn to be humane.
...against the wars, (who voted for Obama) ever took a look at his voting record?
...the guy (never voted no) on "any" of Bush's war appropriations bills...(whatever Chimpy wanted...
Nobody ever looked at his voting records...(he speaks very well you know)
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
Don't forget we gotta keep Haliburton , Black water and all of the mercenaries in business too . It's the same old shit and it'll be the same result in the end , no question about it . If I ever vote again I will " waste my vote " on some third party candidate or an independent , I will NEVER vote Repug lite again . As for Obama , I want my money back .
for a second i thought you said 'blackwater needs to keep Cheney in business' ...
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
That'll be the next catch phrase.
Maybe McCrystal is going to execute a quick 'blitz' style re-deployment of the troops to new stomping grounds and he wants things to go smooth without ambush... that would explain the extra guys if they are using them as a 'force field' in which people can get on with the return home quick, efficiently, and safely. huh?
"Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob"
-= Franklin Delano Roosevelt =-
Regardless of what you support -- our reasons for going in (or increasing troops) is quite different from what the Russians were doing in the late 70s.
Why so? Really. Educate me.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
Cyrillic. That is a really big difference right there.
I doubt my above subject is correct BTW. ;)
Didn't the Ruskies want to build an oil pipeline thru there also? Maybe I'm wrong...I just remember that from somewhere.
The other Stans that actually had oil were already part of the Soviet Union.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
have too much oil.
But, I was wondering.....although building a oil pipeline through one of the most politically unstable regions in the world, never seemed like a bright idea to me.
last nigh I was called an idiot for not knowing that this pipeline is a oil pipeline. If this link doesn't work for some reason. Try this.
www.stratfor.com/analysis/china_kazakhstan_pi...
I agree, I thought this was a crazy idea. But, it seems someone figured it out.
It appears that both nat gas and oil are in the "Stans".
But I would think Russia would put a stop to it. Unless they're making a boat load of money anyway off of it. Or They get a shitload of the product. See link below.
This. Is the nat gas pipeline.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
The other Stans, have oil (not had), and it was largely discovered after the break up of the Soviet Union.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
...perhaps you mean "Obama's" reasons ?
...or perhaps "mainstream media's" reasons ?
...or the "pentagons" reasons ?
(if you ask me) ...the reasons are all...(the same as they ever were)!
...cuz when you "logically" get down to it...there is only one reason to send a shitload of troops to another country...
Russia wanted a (warm water port)...
we want a pipeline to a (warm water port)...not that much different reasons at all are they?
audit-prosecute-incarcerate
I'm not supporting this -- I wish we were pulling out -- but you really don't know the history of the area if you think the U.S. in 2009 has the same (or even similar) reasons for going into Afghanistan that the Russians did in 1979. Seriously.
That's why I said "educate me."
If you know, please don't keep it all to yourself.
John McCain knows where Osama bin Laden is and he won't share. He could end this thing tomorrow.
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
right about the Russians. They surely did want to expand southward and have since Catherine the Great but I don't buy this pipeline nonsense. Nobody with two brain cells to rub together would build a pipeline through Afghanistan. There is no real reason to do so now although the idea was mooted once upon a time. The serious oil deposits are in the other Stans and the biggest market is now due east. The Chinese have the funds to build the pipelines, the money to pay for the oil and an insatiable growing demand for the stuff.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
nonsense, they have never really bother to locate Afghanistan in a map.
Links? Proof?
The serious oil deposits are in the other Stans and the biggest market is now due east. The Chinese have the funds to build the pipelines, the money to pay for the oil and an insatiable growing demand for the stuff.
Do you think America is planning to sit back and watch the Chinese get at those vast oil reserves???????
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
The truth* is, they were there to spread tyranny and you are there to spread democracy... right?
"If the US government enforced its banking laws like it did its park regulations, we wouldn't be
in this damn park in the first place." OCCUPY.!!
So at most USA has 10 years before total collapse?
Actually, the Conservatives will overthrow the government in 2013 after Palin doesn't win the presidency. After that it's 'The Road' for all of us.
If you just want a war, that is.
The rumors that stuck with me about the Soviet invasion concerned the torture of captured soldiers up in the hills. There was even an underground novelty song back in the day about the homosexual conscripted to Afghanistan which went something like, "Every morning we would find pieces of our comrades distributed about the camp site. Those of them unlucky enough to still be alive were sent to the German Democratic Republic for rehabilitation."
So, is Obama going to send squadrons up into the mountains to make nice with the natives? No Geneva Convention so the stories they'll have to censor won't be pretty. No one is educated by history so I suspect we'll concentrate on a hell of lot of bombing that will cost a hell of a lot of billions and will do about as much to win Hearts and Minds and turn around Afghanistan as bombing Vietnam did.
Comments are closed on this entry