"We" also have a drinking problem, don't "we" sombody? Should we invade France because of their cognac? California because of their wine? Tennesee because of Jack Daniels? Russia because of their vodka?
Being a drug user or alcohol "consumer" isn't a reason to be at war, right sombody? - else we'd be in Columbia and South America too.
Once again, Sombody=FAIL
Very poorly said- and probably one of the dumbest answers - ever
Of course we are not there for the " poppies "
The people making and controlling US military policy - the ones who profit from violence, - profit when the US is at war. Increasingly US foreign policy is military policy
A good reason why we are there is found in the " JCS strategic document Joint Vision 2020" - it is referred to as "Full-spectrum dominance "- means the ability of U.S. forces, operating alone or with allies, to defeat any adversary and control any situation across the range of military operations"
Such overblown rhetoric is dangerously delusional, and even arguably insane. - but its vital, to those corporations who have become accustomed to profiting from War-
I say bring them all home to protect OUR boarders.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
I say bring them all home to protect OUR boarders.
Wait - I thought the plan was to bring them all home to PAVE our borders, install electric sidewalks coming north, and staff welfare offices so they could get their benefits faster?
Setting an arbitrary 18-month timeline for the end of military operations is like planning to walk away from a baseball game in the 7th inning (regardless of if you are winning or losing), but with much more dire consequences.
A better analogy would be walking away from a baseball game after 9 innings with a tie score, and the coach is not willing to play extra innings to decide the winner.
Let’s not forget, 18 months puts us to about June of 2011, a little more than a year out from his re-election. And we know how early presidential campaigns start nowadays. He will start withdrawing troops during the year leading up to his re-election to appease the anti war left. This IS politically calculated.
Of course it is ... nothing HE does isn't motivated by polls - everything benefits him politically.
If anyone thinks we are in Afghanistan because of this or that president- they must be in a coma - and should seek medical attention asap-
The CIA, without opposition, has become addicted to the use of assets who are drug-traffickers, and there is no reason to assume that they have begun to break this addiction. definitely a --- Drug Problem-
If that was the case, why wouldn't we pull our troops out and allow the drug lords go back to tending their poppy fields. Why would George W Bush displace the drug lords in which the CIA rely on for "assests"? George HW Bush was the head of the CIA, you would think he would have clued his son in on your drug trafficker theory.
If that was the case, why wouldn't we pull our troops out and allow the drug lords go back to tending their poppy fields. Why would George W Bush displace the drug lords in which the CIA rely on for "assests"? George HW Bush was the head of the CIA, you would think he would have clued his son in on your drug trafficker theory.
At the start of the U.S. offensive in 2001, "The Pentagon had a list of twenty-five or more drug labs and warehouses in Afghanistan but refused to bomb them because some belonged to the CIA's new NA [Northern Alliance] allies." UNODC officials said that the Americans knew far more about the drug labs than they claimed to know, and the failure to bomb them was a major setback to the counter-narcotics effort." James Risen reports that the ongoing refusal to pursue the targeted drug labs came from neocons at the top of America’s national security bureaucracy, including Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, and their patron Donald Rumsfeld.
Documented by James Risen, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration (New York: Free Press, 2006), 154, 160-63.
-and Philip Smucker, Al Qaeda’s Great Escape: The Military and the Media on Terror’s Trail (Washington: Brassey’s, 2004), 9. On December 4, 2001, Asia Times reported that a convicted Pakistani drug baron and former parliamentarian, Ayub Afridi, was also released from prison to participate in the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan (http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/CL04Df01.html); Scott, Road to 9/11, 125.
At the start of the U.S. offensive in 2001, "The Pentagon had a list of twenty-five or more drug labs and warehouses in Afghanistan but refused to bomb them because some belonged to the CIA's new NA [Northern Alliance] allies." UNODC officials said that the Americans knew far more about the drug labs than they claimed to know, and the failure to bomb them was a major setback to the counter-narcotics effort." James Risen reports that the ongoing refusal to pursue the targeted drug labs came from neocons at the top of America’s national security bureaucracy, including Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Zalmay Khalilzad, and their patron Donald Rumsfeld.
Documented by James Risen, State of War: The Secret History of the CIA and the Bush Administration (New York: Free Press, 2006), 154, 160-63.
-and Philip Smucker, Al Qaeda’s Great Escape: The Military and the Media on Terror’s Trail (Washington: Brassey’s, 2004), 9. On December 4, 2001, Asia Times reported that a convicted Pakistani drug baron and former parliamentarian, Ayub Afridi, was also released from prison to participate in the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan (http://www.atimes.com/ind-pak/CL04Df01.html); Scott, Road to 9/11, 125.
I'm having trouble following. You are saying we went to war in Afghanistan because we are drug addicts, and the CIA somehow manipulated the war, but the pentagon targeted drug labs, that they wouldn't bomb because they were CIA assets. I'm so confused. Wouldn't it have been easier for the CIA to NOT partner up with the defense department and wage a war on their drug kingdom?
Is it your position that the CIA coerced the defense department and the Bush Administration to invade Afghanistan so they could control the worlds heroin supply??? 9/11 was a staged attack by the CIA, in order to control the poppy fields? WOW!
How do you wake up every morning believing this? I suggest moving to Canada, you would probably sleep easier.
I'm having trouble following. You are saying we went to war in Afghanistan because we are drug addicts, and the CIA somehow manipulated the war, but the pentagon targeted drug labs, that they wouldn't bomb because they were CIA assets. I'm so confused. Wouldn't it have been easier for the CIA to NOT partner up with the defense department and wage a war on their drug kingdom?
Is it your position that the CIA coerced the defense department and the Bush Administration to invade Afghanistan so they could control the worlds heroin supply??? 9/11 was a staged attack by the CIA, in order to control the poppy fields? WOW!
How do you wake up every morning believing this? I suggest moving to Canada, you would probably sleep easier.
You asked the question " Why would George W Bush displace the drug lords in which the CIA rely on for "assests"? George HW Bush was the head of the CIA, you would think he would have clued his son in on your drug trafficker theory "
I gave you a good answer- don't be a knucklehead - take it like a man- and maybe do something to improve your comprehension
Local Afghans oppose troop surge Some fear Obama's strategy for their homeland won't work out
By PAUL GRONDAHL, Staff writer First published in print: Thursday, December 10, 2009
SCHENECTADY-- Local Afghans said they are opposed to sending 30,000 more U.S. soldiers into Afghanistan and beginning a withdrawal in 18 months, fearful the strategy won't work and will turn out to be yet another broken promise in a long history of lies and oppression from outsiders. Members of the local Afghan community, which numbers about 3,000 and includes several hundred in this city, also expressed diminishing support for President Barack Obama. After embracing his campaign of change with great enthusiasm, they're beginning to feel betrayed by what they view as Obama taking a page from the military playbook of the Bush-Cheney administration. As Nore Osmani helped his brothers prepare baba ghanouj and sauces at their family-run Afghan Grill in Latham on Wednesday, customers asked what he thought about Obama's recently announced Afghanistan surge and whether he thinks it will work.
Embedded in Osmani's world-weary sigh is the grim knowledge of ancient, tribal factionalism among the 34 provinces that form the mountainous, impoverished nation of 28 million. It loses some of its zest when not spoken in his native Pashto language, but Osmani's message is this: As an Afghan, you're born into politics, with strands of civil war and anarchy woven into your DNA.
Logged
