Steve Shanafelt - 16 September 2009 09:05 AM

mat catastrophe - 15 September 2009 10:55 PM

Such a Dynamist.

(Maybe I shouldn’t talk shit. She gets half as many hits a day as I have ever gotten, total, for NFD)

Nice blog.

*blush* Thanks.

It was a happy exercise that went nowhere.

For years.

I don’t think it’s a matter of not knowing how to do roll back empire, I think it’s a matter of having no compelling reason to do so from a business, political or military point of view

No question about it..Disney Afghanistan is 30 years Away..Minni Mouse in a Berka ..gotta love it..

Now, all the superpowers really want is for the area to be stable so they can run that oil pipeline and do other trade-related business. No one really cares all that much about “owning” Afghanistan as long as the oil flows and the profits roll in. Why wouldn’t the government and business community want to fight this war? Why would they want to roll back the empire? As long as there’s more profit to be made over the total value of lives lost, it’s good business to be there.

Ya gotta think about the bottom line..

“more profit to be made over the total value of lives lost”  = good business?
That’s cold.  I’ve read some economics but I never saw that rule before.
Are we going to follow this track right up to the very day the oil runs out?

Draining the life blood out of a nation is a tricky business ...ya want to keep the patient alive so you can keep sucking them dry..and you want to keep them weak enough so you can subdue them if they wake up and find you sucking on their neck..Our country, Afghanistan, Japan, every country I can think of…all work pretty much the same..controlling the worlds population is a tough job.. That’s why Obama has lost some of the Giddy is his step..he’s already pooped..

I’m not saying he’s wrong, just that he’s clearly not interested in getting both sides of the story. The assumption is that the U.S. military has either malicious intent, or is simply bumbling, arrogant and stupid.

Of course our military is a bumbling, arrogant and stupid killing machine.. But they are also the greatest nation gobbler the world has ever known..gotta love em..

Oh and they have ” malicious intent” ..talk to a drunken marine after a tour in Afghanistan and you will find out what malicious intent really means..scary…

Robert Baer, former CIA field operative in the Middle East and the author of “See No Evil,” says: “The notion that we are are in Afghanistan to make our country safer is complete bullshit.”

And Graham Fuller, former CIA station chief in Kabul, emphasizes: “Both wars have made the world much more dangerous for Americans and for any American presence overseas.”

No question.. many of those Muslims hate us bad..Thank god they are in the dark ages technologically or they’d definitely be bombing us into dust….

I swear, Glenn Greenwald hits it out of the park every time he starts tapping away at a keyboard.

From yesterday (again, these are just excerpts - read the whole article):

The New York Times’ David Rohde writes about the seven months he was held hostage by a group of extremist Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan and conveys this observation about what motivates them:

  My captors harbored many delusions about Westerners. But I also saw how some of the consequences of Washington’s antiterrorism policies had galvanized the Taliban. Commanders fixated on the deaths of Afghan, Iraqi and Palestinian civilians in military airstrikes, as well as the American detention of Muslim prisoners who had been held for years without being charged.

Apparently, when we drop bombs on Muslim countries—or when Israel attacks Palestinians—that fuels anti-American hatred and militarism among Muslims.  The same outcomes occur when we imprison Muslims without charges in places like Guantanamo and Bagram.  Imagine that.

One could—and should—ask that question every time the U.S. or Israel engages in another military strike that kills Muslim civilians, or for that matter, every day that goes by when we continue to wage war inside Muslim countries.  Rohde adds this about what motivates these Taliban:

  America, Europe and Israel preached democracy, human rights and impartial justice to the Muslim world, they said, but failed to follow those principles themselves.

One of the taboo topics in the American media is how the U.S. Government routinely violates the principles we espouse for, and try to impose on, the rest of the world.  We systematically torture Muslims and then cover it up and protect our torturers while preaching accountability and the rule of law; we condemn deprivations of due process while maintaining and expanding lawless prison systems for Muslims; we demand adherence to U.N. dictates and international law while blocking investigations into U.N. reports of war crimes and possible “crimes against humanity” by our allies; we righteously oppose aggression while invading and simultaneously occupying numerous countries, while threatening to attack still more, and arming countries like Israel to the teeth to wage still other attacks, etc. etc.

imagine that.

thought this part deserved a re-post as well

UPDATE:  From Bryan Bender, The Boston Globe, October 9, 2009 (h/t CarolynC):

  Nearly all of the insurgents battling US and NATO troops in Afghanistan are not religiously motivated Taliban and Al Qaeda warriors, but a new generation of tribal fighters vying for control of territory, mineral wealth, and smuggling routes, according to summaries of new US intelligence reports.

  Some of the major insurgent groups, including one responsible for a spate of recent American casualties, actually opposed the Taliban’s harsh Islamic government in Afghanistan during the 1990s, according to the reports, described by US officials under the condition they not be identified.

  “Ninety percent is a tribal, localized insurgency,’’ said one US intelligence official in Washington who helped draft the assessments. “Ten percent are hardcore ideologues fighting for the Taliban.’’

  US commanders and politicians often loosely refer to the enemy as the Taliban or Al Qaeda, giving rise to the image of holy warriors seeking to spread a fundamentalist form of Islam. But the mostly ethnic Pashtun fighters are often deeply connected by family and social ties to the valleys and mountains where they are fighting, and they see themselves as opposing the United States because it is an occupying power, the officials and analysts said.

One of the most astounding feats in propaganda is how we’ve managed to take people who live in a country which we invade, bomb and occupy—and who fight against us because we’re doing that—and call them “Terrorists,” thereby “justifying” continuing to bomb and occupy their country further (“We have to stay in order to fight the Terrorists:  meaning the people who are fighting us because we stay”).

huh. how about that. the people fighting for their own country are not terrorists, or even members of the so-called ‘taliban’. just people trying to live in their own country. huh. now, how do you get cletus the redneck to see he has more in common with these guys than he does any us politicians?

Thanx for the repost..

Nearly all of the insurgents battling US and NATO troops in Afghanistan are not religiously motivated Taliban and Al Qaeda warriors, but a new generation of tribal fighters vying for control of territory, mineral wealth, and smuggling routes, according to summaries of new US intelligence reports.

I think you could say the same thing about any country where war is being waged..Most folks just want to survive..and are trying to protect their turf..

US commanders and politicians often loosely refer to the enemy as the Taliban or Al Qaeda, giving rise to the image of holy warriors seeking to spread a fundamentalist form of Islam. But the mostly ethnic Pashtun fighters are often deeply connected by family and social ties to the valleys and mountains where they are fighting, and they see themselves as opposing the United States because it is an occupying power, the officials and analysts said.

So now you ask yourself..if these are just some nice moutain folks protecting their home land..what are we doing over there? We are over their cause we can justify it, it’s doable( compared to N. Korea who have a really good military, and are being backed by China..) Afganistan is pretty much in the dark ages, they have a strategic place in the Mideast that we want and we have figured out a way to take them over..I know that has been the plan..Now Obama is maybe thinking that taking Afghanistan over is a bad idea…

One of the most astounding feats in propaganda is how we’ve managed to take people who live in a country which we invade, bomb and occupy—and who fight against us because we’re doing that—and call them “Terrorists,” thereby “justifying” continuing to bomb and occupy their country further (“We have to stay in order to fight the Terrorists:  meaning the people who are fighting us because we stay”).

My favorite word of the decade is insurgent..now that’s a propagandists dream word..

The Truth About Afghanistan has some things to mull over that Noam Chomsky said…

http://www.mountainx.com/forums/viewthread/2341/

here’s an excerpt..

AMY GOODMAN: And the energy resources in Afghanistan?

NOAM CHOMSKY: No, they’re not in Afghanistan. They’re in—mostly in the Gulf, secondarily in Central Asia. But Afghanistan is right in the middle of this system. I mean, there is a pipeline question. How powerful it is, you can speculate. But there have been longstanding plans for a pipeline from Turkmenistan in Central Asia to India, which would go—TAPI, it’s called: Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India.

Now, that’s of significance to the United States for a number of reasons. For one thing, if it—it would run right through Afghanistan and through Kandahar province, one of the most conflicted areas. If it was established, it would, for one thing, reduce the reliance of the Central Asian states on Russia. So it would weaken their role. But more significant, it would bypass Iran. I mean, India needs energy, and the natural source is Iran. And, in fact, they’re discussing an Iran-to-India pipeline. But if you could get natural gas flowing from Central Asia to India, avoiding Iran, that would support the US policy, which is now very clear—in Obama’s case, it’s been made more concrete—of forming an alliance of regional states to oppose Iran.

you really add nothing to the conversation whatsoever. none. nun.

you really add nothing to the conversation whatsoever. none. nun.

Now that is harsh..the reference I gave to the Choamsky interview is worth the price of admission..ease up hippy boy…

richey - 19 October 2009 11:57 AM

you really add nothing to the conversation whatsoever. none. nun.

Now that is harsh..the reference I gave to the Choamsky interview is worth the price of admission..ease up hippy boy…

the part you added after my previous post was at least slightly more useful than just the re-iteration of your own silly regurgitation of the same catch phrases and themes, yes.