Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marcospinelli
an old liberal Democrat, a 'New Deal'-Democrat
01:35 PM on 06/29/2010
Pentagon reporters, journalists in Afghanistan and retired general pundits on the cable news channels (CNN, CNBC & MSNBC) is that the understanding within the US government and the Karzai government is that "starting to leave Afghanistan" is a term of wordsmithing for the benefit of American politicians to get past the 2010 elections, to fool the American people, and that we're in Afghanistan "at least until 2014, and hopefully longer", "for at least another 5 to 10 years in considerably force", and "there will always be military personnel there".

It's an occupation for oil.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LouGots
02:45 PM on 06/29/2010
OK. It's an occupation for oil, and for cementing out dominion over the Middle East, and for perfecting the abasement of a certain failed culture in the clash of civilizations. If it's all of those, what difference does it make?. Does anyone actually believe that we entered the Mexican War because oif the Thornton Affauir, or the Spanish War because of the predations of Beast Weyler, or WWI because of those Belgian babies on the German bayonets? .
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marcospinelli
an old liberal Democrat, a 'New Deal'-Democrat
03:04 PM on 06/29/2010
OK. It's an occupation for oil, and for cementing out dominion over the Middle East, and for perfecting the abasement of a certain failed culture in the clash of civilizations. If it's all of those, what difference does it make?
=====================================

If it means it's for oil, for imperialism, as Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski (retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel whose assignments included a variety of roles for the National Security Agency & who spent her last 4 1/2 years working at the Pentagon with Donald Rumsfeld) said:

"If you map the proposed pipeline route across Afghanistan & you look at our bases? Matches perfectly. Our bases are there to solve a problem that the Taliban couldn't solve. Taliban couldn't provide security in that part of Afghanistan -- Well now that's where our bases are. So, does that have to do with Osama Bin Laden? It has nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden. It has everything to do with the longer plan, in this case a strategy which I wouldn't necessarily call neoconservative, however it fits perfectly in with the neoconservative ideology which says, 'If you have military force and you need something from a weaker country, then you need to deploy that force and take what you need because your country's needs are paramount'. It's the whole idea of unilateralism, of using force to achieve your aims." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUxI3rSLDO8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SltOy_F6ZII

Then who the heII are we?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marcospinelli
an old liberal Democrat, a 'New Deal'-Democrat
03:06 PM on 06/29/2010
We've been pursuing an energy policy that leads to our ruin. And we don't need to. We've been pursuing a lifestyle that hasn't led to our happiness or enrichment -- 2% of the people own most of the wealth.
01:33 PM on 06/29/2010
If you really follow all the polit-speak, the strategy seems pretty simple: Open a bunch of McDonalds, Border's, Starbucks and Pizza Huts, employ a bunch of locals, and generally shower money on everybody else. Then they will follow our lead and adopt our way of life, which somehow seems to be the goal. Oh, and they should like that we invaded too.
photo
75thRanger
Though I Be The Lone Survivor
01:33 PM on 06/29/2010
Glad to hear that General Petraeus is changing the ROE.

"Sua Sponte"
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marcospinelli
an old liberal Democrat, a 'New Deal'-Democrat
01:30 PM on 06/29/2010
"The war in Iraq was very very clearly about oil, as was the war in Afghanistan. The oil pipeline that was planned (in Afghanistan), the best security for that was an occupation."

"If you map the proposed pipeline route across Afghanistan and you look at our bases? Matches perfectly. Our bases are there to solve a problem that the Taliban couldn't solve. Taliban couldn't provide security in that part of Afghanistan -- Well now that's where our bases are. So, does that have to do with Osama Bin Laden? It has nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden. It has everything to do with the longer plan, in this case a strategy which I wouldn't necessarily call neoconservative, however it fits perfectly in with the neoconservative ideology which says, 'If you have military force and you need something from a weaker country, then you need to deploy that force and take what you need because your country's needs are paramount'. It's the whole idea of unilateralism, of using force to achieve your aims."
-Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski, retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel whose assignments included a variety of roles for the National Security Agency and who spent her last 4 1/2 years working at the Pentagon with Donald Rumsfeld

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUxI3rSLDO8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SltOy_F6ZII
photo
75thRanger
Though I Be The Lone Survivor
01:33 PM on 06/29/2010
Get out your tinfoil hat!
02:14 PM on 06/29/2010
Put the hat on Lt. Col. Kwiatkowski then.......although I bet he outranks you, by a lot.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Marcospinelli
an old liberal Democrat, a 'New Deal'-Democrat
01:28 PM on 06/29/2010
GENERAL PETRAEUS: It is important that July 2011 be seen for what it is - The date when a process begins, based on conditions. Not the date when the US heads for the exits.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3TfSesefM0o

I thought the real story in Michael Hastings' Rolling Stone article was that American troops were being called upon to do a counter-intuitive task: Not respond to their training as killing machines, not react as soldiers in a war zone. They are being required to be restrain their training and instincts as warriors, and be instead a police officer-slash-community organizer. That's not what the US military is trained for.

When the story became about an insubordinate general, Hastings' more important message got lost. With McChrystal gone, the troops in Afghanistan are rejoicing and that can only be because they believe Petraeus will unleash them to do what they've been trained to be: Killing machines with little or no regard for civilians.

Every civilian killed means 10 recruits for Al Qaeda.

That means 'Long War', unending, because they know We the People have the power in a democracy to choose our leaders, choose the policies which are affecting their lives. They target us because it is us who is putting these corporate t00Is into power.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Chernynkaya
01:25 PM on 06/29/2010
I agree with Eugene Robinson about Petraeus---Petraeus didn't "win" in Iraq. What he managed to do was redeem the situation to the point where the United States could begin bringing home its combat troops. If the Obama administration's aims in Afghanistan are adjusted to reality, then Petraeus can succeed there, too. But this means that the general's assignment should be a narrow one: Lay the groundwork for a U.S. withdrawal to begin next summer, as Obama has pledged. And because people trust Petraeus, he can bring this off and save face.
photo
scorpioman
The Naked Truth
01:22 PM on 06/29/2010
"however, if the parameters of the "War" change over the next twelve months, then things will change"..........
photo
advocatusdiaboli
Social lib, Fiscal con, Life Member NRA, Veteran
01:18 PM on 06/29/2010
This just underscores why a forceful occupation is doomed to failure--d*mned if you do and d*mned if you don't. You either take horrendous losses by not engaging fully and you never achieve meaningful objectives or you so alienate the populace, that you are eventually forced to leave.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
rascalcat
Lover of liberal women and cheap wine.Or was it...
01:15 PM on 06/29/2010
This is why we have not won the hearts and minds of the country invaded since WW2. Using increased caution in the case of civilians, puts our troops in increased danger themselves. Remember, the enemy doesn't wear uniforms and women and children do participate. You can't really judge the soldiers if you haven't been in this situation. Yet another reason we should avoid these conflicts in the first place. Once Bush made the decision to pull back when we had Bin Laden cornered in Tora Bora, we should have come home.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
h23154
01:37 PM on 06/29/2010
Well said.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
stillbarbi
Keep Reading
02:20 PM on 06/29/2010
We should have never had Bush.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
realpolitic
Obama does care!
12:59 PM on 06/29/2010
Well, civilian deaths in Afghanistan look like they will be on the rise again. Those from a Predator drone are the most heinous.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:53 PM on 06/29/2010
How about July 2010?