Maybe a dumb question - maybe not - but what is the reason that the US has a large (and growing) contingent in Afghanistan?
Printable View
Maybe a dumb question - maybe not - but what is the reason that the US has a large (and growing) contingent in Afghanistan?
To kill people. (Population reduction program)
Not just the U.S., but N.A.T.O. as a whole. The whole issue of Afghanistan might have already been resolved had Bush-Cheney not had the bright idea of invading Iraq to look for non-existent W.M.D.s'. The longer an occupation of a country goes on the higher the chance that its people will turn against its occupiers. Afghanistan is the type of country that had to "fixed" quickly, though that was quite probably impossible. Anyways, the time for fixing Afghanistan fast has long since passed, and now it can ONLY be a long haul...
To rotate ordnance.
Yes, I know that NATO has a presence in Afghanistan but the US is also operating outside of the NATO force (Isaf). Isaf seems to have a stated objective - albeit pretty vague - but I'm unclear what the mission objective of the other US troops is.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7228649.stm
Is it to "disrupt, dismantle and defeat al-Qaeda" as President Obama said today (guess that he should know!), to destroy the Taleban, to maintain strategic control in the area, to find Osama bin Laden or something else.
Without understanding the mission objective it's impossible to understand if progress is being achieved and what constitutes success.
Where have you been in the past eight years? Does the name Osama bin Laden ring a bell? Al Qaeda?Quote:
Originally Posted by tstv_lover
If anybody had really wanted to get Osama binLaden, he'd be sitting in Attica today. It was just an excuse for bombing somebody, anybody, to appease the vengeful mood of the Aerican people at the time.
The Taliban are assholes, but they're their assholes. They never did anything to us. There were no Afghans on the planes. They weren't looking to pick a fight with the US. They couldn't "hand over binLaden" because they never had him in custody. He wasn't engaged in criminal activity there. They said exactly what we say any time someone requests extradition: "Show us your evidence." We bombed instead.
You never know what you don't know, but I've never seen a coherent reason for going in there in the first place, & I see less reasoning for staying there. The war in Afghanistan is a gigantic fuckup. We should admit it & get the hell out.
The fact that your screen name has the word "hippie" in it automatically voids anything you say.
Conspiracy theorists are so dumb.
Well the mere fact that you'd say something that stupid, about something you obviously know nothing about, pretty much voids your opinions. So what?
You're right about conspiracy theorists though. That's why it was so blatantly dumb to invade Afghanistan in the first place. Lame conspiracy theories were & are the only excuses for the "war on terror".
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090507/...xsbmJzcHN0b3I- Will the US run out of money before Afghanistan runs out of people? Stay tuned.
Actually Zbignew Brzezinski who is the Obamamama's chief foreign policy adviser wrote a book during the time when he served on the Carter administration where he explicitly detailed the importance of securing the gas fields in central Asia. This "war" is not about Osama....or routing or terrorists...it's a natural resource war. Always was....always will be.
I.S.A.F. is N.A.T.O. led and incorporates ONLY two nations that have no ties to it. The American troops in the east of the country are there to control the border with Pakistan.Quote:
Originally Posted by tstv_lover
This is a clash about different cultures, initiated as Hippi quite rightly said by 9/11 and a desire for vengeance. The hijackers were mostly Saudis' but were trained in Afghanistan, because the interests of the Saudi Royal Family are more Western than Islamic. The reverse was most definitely the case in Afghanistan before it was invaded. The "bright idea" that was Gulf War II has served to inflame things further in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Add to that the natural reluctance for any people to be occupied, particularly the Afghanis', and you have the current quagmire.
It's a similar situation to Vietnam and the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, and as with that conflicts it will take a lot, lot more body-bags coming home for any President to pull out without any resemblance of success, which is a relatively stable and unthreatened democracy. Those are indeed the stated aims in the link you've given, and why there are also still troops in Iraq. Study history and animal behavior and you will always find a similar explanation for the way things are today.
Brzezinski isn't chief of anything or advisor of any kind in the current administration. He hasn't had any clout for 30 years. Afghanistan doesn't have any gas or oil to speak of. They're just between Iran & China, so any pipelines have to go through there, or through the even more unstable former Soviet republics.Quote:
Originally Posted by beandip
You're right that this was never about Osama binLaden. We seem to know all about al Qaeda, to hear some tell it. Hell, we kill the #2 or #3 guy every other week, right? I'm starting to think #1 is a myth. His name started popping up within hours of the plane crashes, but I haven't seen any actual evidence that he ordered 9/11. I have serious doubts whenever a face is put on an undefined enemy.
So, it sounds like the US is in Afghanistan either to secure natural resource routes or to destroy the Taleban, who pose no threat to the US and were not involved with 9/11.
The spectre of Osama bin Laden is being used to justify the actions which, given the large number of US forces, inevitably results in civilian casualies. These civilian casualties, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, cause local populations to hate the US.
Osama bin Laden (assuming he exists) may or may not be found as part of this exercise, but President Obama's statements yesterday made no reference to Osama bin Laden.
More troops and funding will continue until "success" is achieved, although no-one is really clear why the US troops are there or what success constitutes.
Have I got that about right?
Yup. That's about the situation. A total clusterfuck.
Onward to "victory", in "the good war".
I do know Cheney went to Khazakstan several times to cut a deal over their crude oil. He came back emptyhanded. Bribery, blackmail and intimidation didn't work.
Economy of war. You get into a war, drop bombs, yet you need to replenish your stock of weapons for the next war, so you need people to work in different industries to create new bombs. Every person involved in the whole process receives a salary with which he/she can buy stuff that is produced by others who are receiving your money as their salary. In the process, the economy moves on and the big vampires of war and death receive the biggest chunk of the gold bar. You see how easy it is making money on top of the skulls of others?
Don't read this unless you have a LOT of time on your hands: http://www.civicworldwide.org/storag...rt%20final.pdf
I agree with that. What's more is the Taliban had actually brought a semblance of order to a place that had known only drug fueled wars and warlordism. What we brought back was more warlordism, and a less stable orderly situation....didn't improve anyone's rights for the most part. They all believed in the Salafi/Wahabi interpretation of Sharia. To top it off these people have known only war and death and so are callous to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
All we have done is bomb rubble and broken buildings until they were dust...then build new buildings and roads only to bomb them again. Ultimately we will leave and whoever we placed in power will fall anyway.
As for Bin Laden he needs kidney dialysis .... in all likely hood he as been in either Pakistan, Egypt, or someplace where he could get his medical care. I don't think he is in Afganistan anymore.
Pipeline Pipeline Pipeline... dummies
Mmm, tell that to the women there...Quote:
Originally Posted by BrendaQG
"If this was happening to any other class of people around the world, there would be a tremendous outcry."
-Eleanor Smeal, President, Feminist Majority Foundation
http://feminist.org/afghan/facts.html
and the Afghan refugees...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghan_refugees
Guess we could have stood by and watched Hitler persecute the Jews, Gypsys, and Slavs (to extinction) also. And the Serbs do the same to the Bosnians. After all, those wars weren't ours were they? We did sit by and watch the Rwandan Genocide though... but then they were just poor Africans. :x
I would have thought that there would have been a bit more egalitarianism on show on this board, but then again, life never FAILS to surprise me.
... just like me having posted a link to a feminist website. OMFG, hahaha. :shock: :o
The Taliban was a product of the cold war following colonialism. When Afghanistan (a creation of European colonial powers with no sense of who's who in the region) was in the Soviet camp, & women were making all those strides, The great egalitarian western powers were wringing their hands & sobbing crocodile tears about how mistreated everybody was under the thumb of the "reds". So we pooled our resources & pressed thos folks to rise up & rid themselves of the tyranny of having to think of women as anyting more than chattel. Property to be traded like a commodity. Subhuman.
Careful what you wish for.
Rwanda (another creation of European colonial powers with no sense of who's who in the region)was on the road to genocide once the social order was turned to an ethnic or genetic based heirarchy by the Germans, Belgians, & the Catholic church. Pre-colonization, the Hutus & Tutsis weren't separate tribes. It was just a social pecking order based on ownership of cattle. Whether through ignorance, hubris, or both, Europeans refused to see anything but a system of peerage royalty & reinforced it. It suited their purpose, which was to virtually enslave the populace, take control of all natural resources, & turn as much arable land as possible to the production of export cash crops.
Before the genocide, it was Hutus who were being persecuted. Those were Hutu refugee camps in the surrounding countries. The genocide was rash to be sure. Harsh beyond comprehension. But to call what happened anything other than the backlash to colonialism is a lie. Western "egalitarians" had nothing to offer but more of the same crap. Harsh as the backlash was, it shattered the peerage system. Things are still in Tutsi control, like they always have been. The difference now, as it was pre-colonialism, is that Hutu can aspire to be & become Tutsi. Cattle were the exchange medium & symbol of wealth at that time. I'm sure it's more complex & complicated today.
Can't do much about the past fraid, Hippi, as time-machines haven't been invented yet. So back to the present, we've got to ask ourselves the following questions:
Were American interests targeted by moslem fundamentalists before 9/11?
Yes or no.
Were the moslem fundamentalists behind 9/11 trained in Afghanistan?
Yes or no.
Was the world's only superpower expected to just shrug off 9/11 without any retaliation?
Yes or no.
Did the Taliban offer any assistance in finding the possible culprits for 9/11 on their soil?
Yes or no.
Do you expect any President to pull out of Afghanistan without either "success" or a lot of casualties?
Yes or no.
Would Afghanistan returning to Taliban control be a good or bad thing?
Yes or no.
Flashback
December 4, 1997: Taliban Representatives Visit Unocal in Texas
Representatives of the Taliban are invited guests to the Texas headquarters of Unocal to negotiate their support for the pipeline. Future President George W. Bush is Governor of Texas at the time. The Taliban appear to agree to a $2 billion pipeline deal, but will do the deal only if the US officially recognizes the Taliban regime. The Taliban meet with US officials. According to the Daily Telegraph, “the US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban’s policies against women and children ‘despicable,’ appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract.” A BBC regional correspondent says that “the proposal to build a pipeline across Afghanistan is part of an international scramble to profit from developing the rich energy resources of the Caspian Sea.” [BBC, 12/4/1997; Daily Telegraph, 12/14/1997] It has been claimed that the Taliban meet with Enron officials while in Texas (see 1996-September 11, 2001). Enron, headquartered in Texas, has an large financial interest in the pipeline at the time (see June 24, 1996). The Taliban also visit Thomas Gouttierre, an academic at the University of Nebraska, who is a consultant for Unocal and also has been paid by the CIA for his work in Afghanistan (see 1984-1994 and December 1997). Gouttierre takes them on a visit to Mt. Rushmore. [Dreyfuss, 2005, pp. 328-329]
The past gives us perspective on the present. Let's look at your questions: (numbers put in by me)Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogers
(1) Which ones? American interests are targeted by everybody, including Americans. Muslim fundamentalists run the gamut of loving us to hating us. In general, the answer is no. Specifically, we can all cite instances of tension turned violent, & all sorts of interference with American interests prior to 9/11. But we're supposed to be in the present. Right?
(2) Not really. They got their flight training here. They took over the planes amed with nothing more than some plastic knives, a couple of razor blades, a lame story about a bomb, a whole bunch of chutzpah, & knowlege of what the flying public had been taught to do in a hijacking since D B Cooper, or even Jesse James.
(3) No, but that's what happened. Retaliate against whom? The hijackers were dead. We took a huge leap of faith when we accepted the idea that there was some Dr Evil type mastermind sitting in Afghanistan pulling the puppet strings. Personally, I'm still not convinced, & I haven't seen anything but a lot of declarations. No evidence. I whacked a sidewinder with a shovel once. Not knowing what hit it, it just started coiling & striking, rapid fire in all directions. Our reaction to 9/11 reminds me of that rattler.
(4) Yes. They said "Show us your evidence.". We turned down their request & bombed the city of Kabul. A lot of people died that had no connection at all to 9/11. Nobody knows how many because nobody ever cared. They're not American so they don't count. Besides, to hear everybody tell it, our bombs are so smart that they just kill Talibans & alQaedas. Well, a few Canadians, but they don't count either.
(5) Whew! Finally back to the present. Yes. I expect any President to be smarter than me. Smarter than to think he can keep up a bunch of false precepts & lame excuses forever to keep the perpetual war going. There's already been casualties. There's going to be more casualties regardless of whether we stay or go. Nobody knows what success in Afghanistan means. There's nobody to defeat because we don't know who the enemy is. It could be that guy walking down the street with a cell phone & briefcase, or the woman in the burqa, or the guy on the prayer rug, or the gal in the designer dress on her way to class at the university. They're back where they were when the Soviets held sway, before the late '70s collapse & the soviet invasion. Mission accomplished. Declare victory & get the hell out.
(6) Not for me to say. Not my decision to make, or anybody else's for that matter. But the assumption that the Taliban would automatically take over if we left is pretty far fetched. Was the Afghan populace disarmed while nobody was looking? The Taliban never had complete control, even while they were considered in charge. We need to get over this idea that there's some sovereign nationality of Afghans. Time for a reality check.
According to Stratfor: "If the Taliban agree to block al Qaeda operations in Afghanistan, the United States will have achieved its goal. Therefore, the challenge in Afghanistan is using U.S. power to give the Taliban what they want — a return to power — in exchange for a settlement on the al Qaeda question."
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20090...rategic_debate
Stratfor do have the ability to maintain the strategic perspective when analysing conflicts. Do you agree with this assessment?
Really?Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
1993 World Trade Center bombing (a dress-rehearsal for 9/11)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_T...C_1993_bombing
1995 Bonjika plot (another dress-rehearsal for 9/11)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Bojinka
1998 United States embassy bombings
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_U.S._embassy_bombings
2000 USS Cole bombing
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Cole_bombing
January 2001 Al Qaeda identified as major threat by Clinton Administration
http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html
Oh really?Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
Bin Laden (?) at an Al-Qaeda camp in Afghanistan:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4540958/
Bin Laden and 9/11 pilots at his home in Afghanistan:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle656440.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle656541.ece
Ben Franklin (very clever man :wink: ) on the Rattlesnake as a Symbol of AmericaQuote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
"a strong picture of the temper and conduct of America"
http://www.greatseal.com/symbols/rattlesnake.html
If the Taliban had one collective brain-cell between them they would have figured out very quickly that they had to let U.S. intel and ground troops find any evidence for themselves. But then what should we expect from people who ban T.V., chess, kites, and force women to be nothing more than slaves for breeding.Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
Saudis secretly funding Taliban (Robert Fisk, 1998)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sa...n-1195453.html
Presidents don't have to be that smart to be elected. Just look at Dumbya, he got re-elected simply because, as far as most are concerned, men in power should never look weak. Obama almost certainly thinks the same way too.Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
Yes, it maybe is time for a reality check...Quote:
Originally Posted by hippifried
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban_treatment_of_women
Taliban Threat Is Said to Grow in Afghan South
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/03/wo.../03afghan.html
Zardari: We Underestimated Taliban Threat
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/...n4800926.shtml
Taliban a threat to Pakistan's 'existence'
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009...ery-existence/
This may prove to be the get-out clause, but it contradicts the stated aims of I.S.A.F.-N.A.T.O..Quote:
Originally Posted by tstv_lover
"Isaf's stated role is to help the government of Afghanistan maintain security across the country by conducting operations in co-ordination with the Afghan National Army. It also mentors and supports efforts by them to disarm illegal militias.
Nato says that the long-term aim is to help establish conditions in which Afghanistan can enjoy a stable and representative government after decades of conflict."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7228649.stm
I.E. To support a democracy!
There are plenty examples of countries which have a "strong and representative government" but are not democracies. You want an example? Oh, say China.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogers
The reality is that Karzai has no popular mandate, is only able to travel outside Kabul under tight security, was appointed by Western countries and will disappear when the US/NATO troops leave. I'm not saying that's good or bad - just reality.
The British discovered over 100 years ago what the Russians encountered in 1980s - Afghanistan is a county of tribal leaders with fierce belief in their historic culture.
The word "democratic" is not mentioned in the ISAF mandate. Leaving the issue of democracy aside for a minute do you believe that a deal between the US and Taliban, which will result in them not supporting al-Qaeda, is both achievable and politically acceptable to the US?
The terms democratic and representative government are "virtually indistinguishable" today. I did say "I.E." (= in essence).Quote:
Originally Posted by tstv_lover
"today representative institutions and democracy appear as virtually indistinguishable"
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogu...sbn=0521458919
Here's another one:
"The notion of democracy is the starting point for understanding representative government. The word democracy means “government by the people”, from the Greek words demos (people) and kratos (rule). The city-states of ancient Greece decided issues through public meetings in the market place that all citizens could attend."
http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/rules/rep/
Early democracies were pale shadows of what they are today. But all representative governments are "by the people"!
"representative government should be understood as a combination of democratic and undemocratic elements."
http://www.cambridge.org/us/catalogu...sbn=0521458919
And since we're trying to be picky about terms here, strong isn't the same thing as stable. You can also have a stable system that is weak. There is both local (weak) and global (strong) stability in systems. I hope everyone is confused now, hahaha.
Karzai's "no popular mandate" as you called it from 2004 (new election later this year):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electio...ntial_election
Sure looks like both a popular mandate and representative DEMOCRACY to me.
Obama will look weak to me and many others if he deals with the Taliban. Do you honestly think you can trust these guys not to co-operate with Al-Qaeda again? FFS, they both share the same political and religious beds. I doubt any American voter is that naive. Al-Qaeda will just throw more money at the Taliban if they have to. This is why the idea is coming from the generals and not the politicans. Cutting a deal with the Taliban may be enough on its own to sound the death knell for Obama's chances of another term. You can try and dress it up anyway you like, but I hope you'll be happy when we see Afghans' flocking to their borders and trying to leave their country again, and all Afghan women forced back in Burkha's when the Taliban come back, once you get your wish. I'm sure we'll see "representative" government in action then. And that WILL be Obama's tombstone.
Now I've said my piece on this thread. I don't see any point in discussing things further with people who are pacifists and appeasers, because I'm not going to change your minds. But I hope you remember what I've said here if the Taliban do indeed return to power.
"An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last."
- Winston Churchill
"First they came..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
[quote="Rogers"][quote="tstv_lover"]Not sure why you think that women wearing Burkhas is my wish????Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogers
I think you've completely misunderstood the Stratfor article. This suggests that Obama - not the generals - would likely do a deal with the Taliban. The article concludes:
"In the end, there is never a debate between U.S. presidents and generals. Even MacArthur discovered that. It is becoming clear that Obama is not going to bet all in Afghanistan, and that he sees Afghanistan as not worth the fight. Petraeus is a soldier in a fight, and he wants to win. But in the end, as Clausewitz said, war is an extension of politics by other means. As such, generals tend to not get their way."
It really isn't a question of pacificm and appeasment. It's a question of the strategic aim of this operation - hence the thread title. Responses to date indicate that there is no clear, consistent and coherent objective - hence the confusion.
The Stratfor article has analysed the situation and suggested how things will pan out. I understand your disbelief at the mere suggestion that a US President will do a deal with the Taliban, however that is what the article suggests.
I'm not a pacifist but, like Winston Churchill who had great experience of 3 major wars, I believe that "jaw jaw is better than war war".
Look at some point one needs to get over the whole looking weak aspect of diplomacy. Unless we're willing to wipe out a good chunk of the billion or so Muslims in the world than we need to do more talking and less fighting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogers
We should also pause and ask ourselves what is behind the severe level of resentment and anger at the US in many parts of the world. While some of it may be misplaced not all of it is. We have supported countless dictators, "terrorists", rebels, etc; all in an effort to achieve questionable foreign policy goals.
As for ensuring or spreading democracy, that can not be done by force on our part. People have to want that particular form of governance, and be willing to fight for it themselves. The constant cycle of war is bankrupting us, and in the long run it is counter-productive to our own national security.
I've read the Stratfor article in full now. I suspect that Obama is trying to simplify the situation on Afghanistan so that it doesn't become HIS WAR. I agreed with Petraeus on Iraq and now on Afghanistan too, and won't be surprised if he attains high political office someday himself. No matter how wrong the reason for initially invading a country is, you simply just can't leave it in a shambles. Two wrongs never make a right.Quote:
Originally Posted by tstv_lover
The long standing plan for Afghanistan was in the B.B.C. link you posted earlier. I thought everyone knew it. This is why I was suspicious of your motives, and my comments weren't entirely directed at you anyway. I'll still be very surprised if Obama deals with the Taliban for the reasons I've already given. If he does, then he shouldn't expect not to be completely shafted sooner or later. Both the U.K. and France are currently increasing their troop numbers there too. It's a shitty situation, but history is littered with them.
It has nothing to do with Afghanistan, but everything to do with Gulf War II, America's unconditional support for Israel no matter how many U.N. resolutions they flout, and the emergence of militant islam which has been as a direct result of the Israel-Palestine conflict. No President has been willing to tackle the root of this problem to date. No one blinked an eye when news about Israel's massive nuclear arsenal was disclosed, but Iran trying to develop one is an absolute no-no. Obama started back-tracking on Israel as soon as he was declared Presidential Candidate. Why are people so fucking blind!Quote:
Originally Posted by NYBURBS
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...21400057137878
The Israel Lobby
"Washington also provides Israel with consistent diplomatic support. Since 1982, the US has vetoed 32 Security Council resolutions critical of Israel, more than the total number of vetoes cast by all the other Security Council members. It blocks the efforts of Arab states to put Israel’s nuclear arsenal on the IAEA’s agenda. The US comes to the rescue in wartime and takes Israel’s side when negotiating peace. The Nixon administration protected it from the threat of Soviet intervention and resupplied it during the October War. Washington was deeply involved in the negotiations that ended that war, as well as in the lengthy ‘step-by-step’ process that followed, just as it played a key role in the negotiations that preceded and followed the 1993 Oslo Accords. In each case there was occasional friction between US and Israeli officials, but the US consistently supported the Israeli position. One American participant at Camp David in 2000 later said: ‘Far too often, we functioned . . . as Israel’s lawyer.’ Finally, the Bush administration’s ambition to transform the Middle East is at least partly aimed at improving Israel’s strategic situation."
"There is no doubt about the efficacy of these tactics. Here is one example: in the 1984 elections, AIPAC helped defeat Senator Charles Percy from Illinois, who, according to a prominent Lobby figure, had ‘displayed insensitivity and even hostility to our concerns’. Thomas Dine, the head of AIPAC at the time, explained what happened: ‘All the Jews in America, from coast to coast, gathered to oust Percy. And the American politicians – those who hold public positions now, and those who aspire – got the message.’"
"The bottom line is that AIPAC, a de facto agent for a foreign government, has a stranglehold on Congress, with the result that US policy towards Israel is not debated there, even though that policy has important consequences for the entire world. In other words, one of the three main branches of the government is firmly committed to supporting Israel. As one former Democratic senator, Ernest Hollings, noted on leaving office, ‘you can’t have an Israeli policy other than what AIPAC gives you around here.’ Or as Ariel Sharon once told an American audience, ‘when people ask me how they can help Israel, I tell them: “Help AIPAC.”’"
"Second, Syria had not been on bad terms with Washington before the Iraq war (it had even voted for UN Resolution 1441), and was itself no threat to the United States. Playing hardball with it would make the US look like a bully with an insatiable appetite for beating up Arab states. Third, putting Syria on the hit list would give Damascus a powerful incentive to cause trouble in Iraq. Even if one wanted to bring pressure to bear, it made good sense to finish the job in Iraq first. Yet Congress insisted on putting the screws on Damascus, largely in response to pressure from Israeli officials and groups like AIPAC. If there were no Lobby, there would have been no Syria Accountability Act, and US policy towards Damascus would have been more in line with the national interest."
"The Lobby’s influence causes trouble on several fronts. It increases the terrorist danger that all states face – including America’s European allies. It has made it impossible to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a situation that gives extremists a powerful recruiting tool, increases the pool of potential terrorists and sympathisers, and contributes to Islamic radicalism in Europe and Asia."
http://www.lrb.co.uk/v28/n06/mear01_.html
The End of Free Speech?
Criminalizing Criticism of Israel
By PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS
May 7, 2009
"It will be a crime to report the extraordinary influence of the Israel Lobby on the White House and Congress, such as the AIPAC-written resolutions praising Israel for its war crimes against the Palestinians in Gaza that were endorsed by 100 per cent of the US Senate and 99 per cent of the House of Representatives, while the rest of the world condemned Israel for its barbarity."
http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts05072009.html
Obama pays homage to AIPAC after he wins the Democratic Party's Candidacy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0cOJNC2EuJw
Iraq: A War For Israel
"Israel’s spy agencies were a “full partner” with the US and Britain in producing greatly exaggerated prewar assessments of Iraq’s ability to wage war, a former senior Israeli military intelligence official has acknowledged. Shlomo Bron, a brigadier general in the Israel army reserves, and a senior researcher at a major Israeli think tank, said that intelligence provided by Israel played a significant role in supporting the US and British case for making war. Israeli intelligence agencies, he said, “badly overestimated the Iraqi threat to Israel and reinforced the American and British belief that the weapons [of mass destruction] existed.” [14]"
http://www.ihr.org/leaflets/iraqwar.shtml
Ex-General Says Israel Inflated Iraqi Threat
"Brom held senior positions in Israeli military intelligence for 25 years before retiring from the army in 1998."
http://articles.latimes.com/2003/dec...ld/fg-isintel5
Ok Rogers, call me spanked on the alQaeda connection to 9/11. I concede.
That still doesn't justify what we're doing or what we've done. Wars of conquest are unamerican. If we really wanted to go get those alQaeda guys back in 2001, the Taliban couldn't have stopped us or even gotten in the way. We bombed for vengeance & didn't care who it was. We bombed the capital city of a non-Arab country over the actions of Arabs who we knew were not residents of that city. At least that was the excuse & still is. We've been making up excuses ever since.
The Taliban was defeated by the "Northern Alliance" before the US army ever stepped on Afghan soil. We could have declared victory & been out of there in a month. I would still have had a problem with the decision to invade, but there would have been no problem with accepting what's already happened & trying to correct the problems.
There's no military solution to social problems, & the military is not a police force, social services, or diplomatic corps. They're the wrong tool for the job. An extremely autocratic organization cannot promote democracy. That's why the US military is under civilian control & not allowed to carry out military operations within our borders, the southern rebellion notwithstanding. We've put them in charge of something they're incapable of doing, & we've made no move to do things right. Maybe this new guy can dial it down. It's a clusterfuck.
The Taliban is resurging because we're still there. It doesn't matter if we pass out candy bars to kids. We're still a military occupation, & nobody likes being occupied. Nobody. The Taliban are their assholes. We're not. Don't kid yourself. The various tribes of Afghanistan look at us the same way they looked at the Soviet invasion force. Intentions don't mean anything when you're staring down a barrel. This has gone on too long & we need to stop before the Taliban gets too powerful for the Afghan people to stop. It may be too late already. They don't need an army. They need a police force. Same goes for Iraq.
Continuing somebody else's inanity by maintaining the same level of incompetence is not a sign of strength. Just the opposite. If the American people wanted perpetual war, they would have voted differently. Weakness is being afraid to stand by your convictions & lying about it. The "war on terrorism" is bullshit because war IS terrorism.
Israel is irrelevant. It's not our job to promote Judaism or zionism, & we're not at war with Islam.
Look I'm no fan of the influence Israel has in our government, nor do I support giving them military aid. However, while it has been a source of contention with Muslims it is not the sole one. It's a great public relations ploy for them, but it's not the end all and be all. Though I would agree with your point on Iran and their nukes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogers
Ah I'm not a supporter of hate crime designations either, but that article you just quoted is misleading at best. Have you read the legislation? I'll quote for you the relevant sections:Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogers
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. R. 1913
To provide Federal assistance to States, local jurisdictions, and Indian tribes to prosecute hate crimes, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
April 2, 2009
SEC. 7. PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN HATE CRIME ACTS.
(a) In General- Chapter 13 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
`Sec. 249. Hate crime acts
`(a) In General-
`(1) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RACE, COLOR, RELIGION, OR NATIONAL ORIGIN- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, or national origin of any person--
`(A) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(B) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(i) death results from the offense; or
`(ii) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(2) OFFENSES INVOLVING ACTUAL OR PERCEIVED RELIGION, NATIONAL ORIGIN, GENDER, SEXUAL ORIENTATION, GENDER IDENTITY, OR DISABILITY-
`(A) IN GENERAL- Whoever, whether or not acting under color of law, in any circumstance described in subparagraph (B), willfully causes bodily injury to any person or, through the use of fire, a firearm, or an explosive or incendiary device, attempts to cause bodily injury to any person, because of the actual or perceived religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person--
`(i) shall be imprisoned not more than 10 years, fined in accordance with this title, or both; and
`(ii) shall be imprisoned for any term of years or for life, fined in accordance with this title, or both, if--
`(I) death results from the offense; or
`(II) the offense includes kidnaping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill.
`(B) CIRCUMSTANCES DESCRIBED- For purposes of subparagraph (A), the circumstances described in this subparagraph are that--
`(i) the conduct described in subparagraph (A) occurs during the course of, or as the result of, the travel of the defendant or the victim--
`(I) across a State line or national border; or
`(II) using a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce;
`(ii) the defendant uses a channel, facility, or instrumentality of interstate or foreign commerce in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A);
`(iii) in connection with the conduct described in subparagraph (A), the defendant employs a firearm, explosive or incendiary device, or other weapon that has traveled in interstate or foreign commerce; or
`(iv) the conduct described in subparagraph (A)--
`(I) interferes with commercial or other economic activity in which the victim is engaged at the time of the conduct; or
`(II) otherwise affects interstate or foreign commerce.
AND...
SEC. 10. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.
Nothing in this Act, or the amendments made by this Act, shall be construed to prohibit any expressive conduct protected from legal prohibition by, or any activities protected by the free speech or free exercise clauses of, the First Amendment to the Constitution.