Obama - the war president
Open Letter to President Obama from Michael Moore
Dear President Obama,
Do you really want to be the new "war president"? If you go to West Point tomorrow night (Tuesday, 8pm) and announce that you are increasing, rather than withdrawing, the troops in Afghanistan, you are the new war president. Pure and simple. And with that you will do the worst possible thing you could do -- destroy the hopes and dreams so many millions have placed in you. With just one speech tomorrow night you will turn a multitude of young people who were the backbone of your campaign into disillusioned cynics. You will teach them what they've always heard is true -- that all politicians are alike. I simply can't believe you're about to do what they say you are going to do. Please say it isn't so.
He's turning out to be just another lying liar. Obama is another cosmetic leader who has validated get out of jail free tickets of the war criminals before him.
So what's the excuse for Obama now?
There's still time. Maybe he'll surprise us all.
When we elected you we didn't expect miracles. We didn't even expect much change. But we expected some. We thought you would stop the madness. Stop the killing. Stop the insane idea that men with guns can reorganize a nation that doesn't even function as a nation and never, ever has.
Stop, stop, stop! For the sake of the lives of young Americans and Afghan civilians, stop. For the sake of your presidency, hope, and the future of our nation, stop. For God's sake, stop.
Tonight we still have hope.
Tomorrow, we shall see. The ball is in your court. You DON'T have to do this. You can be a profile in courage. You can be your mother's son.
We're counting on you.
Don't worry, all the troops will be home by 2013, or will they?
Barack Obama's war: the final push in Afghanistan• New troops to be in Afghanistan within six months
• US to begin pullout in summer 2011 and end in 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/dec/01/barack-obama-speech-afghanistan-war
2013 is good. That would make it twice as long as World War II (and three times as long as U.S. participation in that war).
The only difference is that this time, the U.S. will lose. Obama will go down in history. All the way down.
It appears Obama was misquoted. He wasn't offering "change and hope," but rather cheese and dope.
At least there is some opposition to the Nobel Peace Prize Winner's move to send more troops into battle.
Obama ally breaks with him on Afghanistan
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/12/01/afghanistan.liberals/index.html
President Barack Obama has ordered 30,000 more [live] U.S. troops to be deployed in Afghanistan — but he also pledged Tuesday to begin withdrawing [dead and wounded] American forces in about 18 months, beginning in July 2011.
CBC.ca [annotated by Unionist for truth and clarity]
And in a few days he will accept his Nobel Peace Prize - how poetic.
Haha - thanks for the laugh unionist. Laughter is the best medicine!
I have notice that Mr. Layton and the NDP have not commented on Mr. Obama's new Afghan campaign plan and 30,000 troop surge into Afghanistan.
Where is the outrage, the protests, and press statements on their websites?
Perhaps they don't want to risk losing all of their guest speakers scheduled to provide insight into Obama's winning strategy?
Obama Quietly Authorises Expansion of War in Pakistan:
http://indianexpress.com/news/obama-quietly-authorises-expansion-of-war-...
A Deadly Liar and Manipulator:
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/12/deadly-liar-and-manipulator...
I don't understand these posts. Does no one here believe that as it stands Afganistan is a serious threat to the world? Or do you all just think its an unwinable war? Or do you just oppose all war, even wars of self defense?
I don't understand these posts. Does no one here believe that as it stands Afganistan is a serious threat to the world? Or do you all just think its an unwinable war? Or do you just oppose all war, even wars of self defense?
Unfortunately, wars of self defence are sometimes necessary. Regardless of ideology, you have to admire the tenacity of people who stand up for themselves in confronting murderous criminals and daunting challenges, who do not bow in the face of extreme reckless violence against innocent people. Take for instance the brave people of Afghanistan, in their struggle against foreign corporate thugs and occupiers. We should wish those stalwart defenders well in their efforts to protect homes and families from the cowardly murderers that have set upon them.
Lov..k By world to you mean the countries of NATO. If NATO leaves now there would be a good chance that the next government would be friendlier to China than the West and all of a sudden the pipeline dreamed of is going in the wrong direction. That would be truly a serious threat to the world as we know it especially if the pipeline is carrying Iranian oil paid for in Euros. Ah the perils of being born in a part of the world all the empires want to control.
So what's the excuse for Obama now?
This would be one thing there doesn't have to be an excuse for. He campaigned on intensifying the war in Afghanistan.
Lov..k By world to you mean the countries of NATO. If NATO leaves now there would be a good chance that the next government would be friendlier to China than the West and all of a sudden the pipeline dreamed of is going in the wrong direction. That would be truly a serious threat to the world as we know it especially if the pipeline is carrying Iranian oil paid for in Euros. Ah the perils of being born in a part of the world all the empires want to control.
No doubt geopolitics is playing a big part in the decision to stay in Afghanistan. However, Islamists are determined to terrorize whenever they see it as beneficial to spreading their perverted brand of Islam, and this is not just happening in NATO countries. If NATO leaves Afghanistan now the people who take over won't be too friendly with any country, as no other country currently follows their specific doctrine. At the end of the day, maybe this war will have convinced countries (other than America who may never learn this lesson) not to harbour terrorists. Too bad this lesson has to be taught by the barrel of a gun. Maybe if we can get the Afghan literacy rate over its ~10% we can both be a little more civil with our fellow human beings. Maybe if us in the rich countries start effectively criticizing our governments we can stop engaging in our own transgressions too. Still, to me this is a war of self-defense.
Here's hoping you survive it.
Lov..k By world to you mean the countries of NATO. If NATO leaves now there would be a good chance that the next government would be friendlier to China than the West and all of a sudden the pipeline dreamed of is going in the wrong direction. That would be truly a serious threat to the world as we know it especially if the pipeline is carrying Iranian oil paid for in Euros. Ah the perils of being born in a part of the world all the empires want to control.
No doubt geopolitics is playing a big part in the decision to stay in Afghanistan. However, Islamists are determined to terrorize whenever they see it as beneficial to spreading their perverted brand of Islam, and this is not just happening in NATO countries. If NATO leaves Afghanistan now the people who take over won't be too friendly with any country, as no other country currently follows their specific doctrine. At the end of the day, maybe this war will have convinced countries (other than America who may never learn this lesson) not to harbour terrorists. Too bad this lesson has to be taught by the barrel of a gun. Maybe if we can get the Afghan literacy rate over its ~10% we can both be a little more civil with our fellow human beings. Maybe if us in the rich countries start effectively criticizing our governments we can stop engaging in our own transgressions too. Still, to me this is a war of self-defense.
So we are engaging in the mass murder of Afghanis because they're not friendly? is that really what you just said? If I'm your neighbour and you fail to bid me hello, you understand fully if I then enter your home and murder you and your entire family, right?
My God where are the rolly-eyes?
No, I did not get that they were not friendly, I got that he thinks they are preverted Islamists....and that NATO is teaching the world a lesson....
Opposing Obama's War: Let's Be Serious
http://mikeely.wordpress.com/2009/12/02/opposing-obamas-war-lets-get-ser...
"Our goals cannot be served by the cynical merging of exhausted groupings - who all justify themselves with the urgency of 'doing something'. The previous left has shown itself to be remarkably sterile - unable to engage the actual discussion of society, and largely unable to break with the system's own politics and policies.."
Worse than Bush:
http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/25283
Obama's Af-Pak is as Whacked as Bush's Iraq:
http://www.blackagendareport.com/?q=content/obamas-af-pak-whack-bushs-ir...
"President Obama has reached a watershed in his presidency: he has devolved to the intellectual level of George Bush, while retaining his world class powers of speech.."
A Death Warrant for the Future:
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1882-...
"The full force of Obama's imperial manipulations--like those of his predecessors--will fall like a ravaging fire on the innocent, the defenseless, the vulnerable and the oppressed in foreign lands...Let no one be in any doubt. What Barack Obama announced on Tuesday is yet another vast , painful, wrenching defeat for all humanity.."
A Postscript: Choices have consequences:
http://powerofnarrative.blogspot.com/2009/12/postscript-choices-have-con...
"If you voted for a war criminal, you voted for murder, torture and destruction. If you expected any other result, you're a fool. And that's the kindest description that can be offered.."
Savvy to A Fault: Coming to Terms with Imperial Power:
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1883-...
"Yet this long, grinding process of diminishment and degradation has been accompanied by a never ending expansion of the war machine into a dominant position over almost every aspect of American life..."
Does no one here believe that as it stands Afganistan is a serious threat to the world?
.....
At the end of the day, maybe this war will have convinced countries (other than America who may never learn this lesson) not to harbour terrorists. Too bad this lesson has to be taught by the barrel of a gun. Maybe if we can get the Afghan literacy rate over its ~10% we can both be a little more civil with our fellow human beings.
Hi lovewillitthink. Generally, on babble, rehashing sound bites and quotes from the Bush/Cheney campaign's playbook are discouraged here.
If you truly believe that Afghanistan is a threat to the world, perhaps this isn't the best discussion board to fit your knowledge range and ideology.
This is your first and last warning.
When Blood is Their Argument: An Empire on Fire
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1884-...
"the situation in Iraq is now being held up as a model, a goal for Barack Obama's massive expansion of the war and occupation in Afghanistan.."
Ramping Up Afghanistan War to Control Caspian Oil and Gas Transport Routes
http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_5354.shtml
"There are designs of this pipeline and if you look at the deployment of US forces in Afghanistan, as against other NATO country forces in Afghanistan, you'll see that undoubtedly the US forces are positioned to guard the pipeline route. It's what it's about. It's about money, it's about oil, it's not about democracy.."
Obama Expands War into Pakistan:
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/dec2009/pers-d09.shtml
"It is now clear that the actual policy Obama has decided to pursue is not only the maintenance of an indefinite military occupation of Afghanistan, but a vast expansion of the war in Pakistan.."
I don't understand these posts. Does no one here believe that as it stands Afganistan is a serious threat to the world?
While I find your opinion ridiculous at best, and potentially dangerous if taken too far, I nevertheless think it's better to convince you through rational discussion than through threats.
I'll take your question and turn it around on you. Do you seriously think if Canadian troops stopped waging war on Afghanistan that this country would become a threat to us? Would we risk invasion by Afghanis who would convert us to Islam and force our women-folk into burkas if we were to leave Afghanistan? Would we lose "our freedoms" (according to many, this is what we're fighting for) if we stopped killing Afghanis?
Which country doesn't follow Taliban doctrine? You should know, lovewillthink, that our largest trade partner, the USA, was the largest aid donor contributing to the Talibanization of Afghanistan and Pakistan in the 1980's and 90's. And they've been funding religious madrassas in Central Asia through recent times according to US whistleblower Sibel Edmonds.
And our masters in Warshington let on like it's an all or nothing war with their former proxies in Kabul from 1996 to 2001, the Taliban. But that's all for show. The US and its NATO allies and Saudis have been carrying on with backchannel negotiations avec le Taliban for some time. The Taliban are not incompatible with the vicious empire and its great game goals at all.
Obama plans to keep murdering Afghans for many years to come - decades, in fact:
Gates moved to assure the Afghan leader that the U.S. won't abandon it, despite its plans to begin withdrawing troops starting in two years.
"On a gradual, conditions-based premise, we will be reducing our forces after July 2011," Gates said, adding that the withdrawal will take years.
One would hope, for a change, to see Obama and Bush schackled together before a modern-day Nuremburg tribunal.
along with our own domestic demi devil collaborators as well. The citizen's arrest attempt upon George Bush by Mohawk activist Splitting the Sky, in Calgary, should be repeated at any and every opportunity against every local politician, public official, or military personnel connected or complicit in the prosecution of this filthy AfPak butchery. Harper, Mckay...who else?
Ooh Rah!
Will the Last 'Progressive for Obama' Please Turn Out the Lights?
http://www.blackagendareport.com
Obama is receiving the Nobel Peace Prize today.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8405033.stm
Obama's acceptance speech
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/12/10/obama-nobel-peace-text-transcri...
I don't understand these posts. Does no one here believe that as it stands Afganistan is a serious threat to the world? Or do you all just think its an unwinable war? Or do you just oppose all war, even wars of self defense?
Afghanistan is not a serious threat to the world.
Afghanistan is an unwinable war.
I agree with the U.N. - only a war of self defense (and Afghanistan is a war of aggression, not a war of self defense) is just.
One has the right to defend oneself (as the Afghans are doing).
No one has the right to attack another (as the U.S./NATO/ISAF - yes that means us, Canada) is doing. This would suggest that (all) wars are avoidable and that war is unjust/illegal.
Still, to me this is a war of self-defense.
The Nuremberg Principles, the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. disagree with you on that.
Obama is receiving the Nobel Peace Prize today.
In extolling the virtues of war while accepting what was supposed to be a prize for radical advocates of peace, President Obama had what could only be called one of the quintessential jerkass moments of American history, an embarrassing exhortation to the advocates of peace to accept violence as the one true way of solving the world's problems.
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/12/10/peace-doesnt-work-obama-informs-nobel...
"The Nobel Prize was, in its better days, always this: A medal for those who took the difficult path."
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,666419,00.html
From Obama's Nobel Speech (link):
War, in one form or another, appeared with the first man. At the dawn of history, its morality was not questioned; it was simply a fact, like drought or disease -- the manner in which tribes and then civilizations sought power and settled their differences.
And over time, as codes of law sought to control violence within groups, so did philosophers and clerics and statesmen seek to regulate the destructive power of war. The concept of a "just war" emerged, suggesting that war is justified only when certain conditions were met: if it is waged as a last resort or in self-defense; if the force used is proportional; and if, whenever possible, civilians are spared from violence.
*********
Of course, we know that for most of history, this concept of "just war" was rarely observed. The capacity of human beings to think up new ways to kill one another proved inexhaustible, as did our capacity to exempt from mercy those who look different or pray to a different God. Wars between armies gave way to wars between nations -- total wars in which the distinction between combatant and civilian became blurred. In the span of 30 years, such carnage would twice engulf this continent. And while it's hard to conceive of a cause more just than the defeat of the Third Reich and the Axis powers, World War II was a conflict in which the total number of civilians who died exceeded the number of soldiers who perished.
*********
In many ways, these efforts succeeded. Yes, terrible wars have been fought, and atrocities committed. But there has been no Third World War. The Cold War ended with jubilant crowds dismantling a wall. Commerce has stitched much of the world together. Billions have been lifted from poverty. The ideals of liberty and self-determination, equality and the rule of law have haltingly advanced. We are the heirs of the fortitude and foresight of generations past, and it is a legacy for which my own country is rightfully proud.
****************
I am deeply disappointed.
I thought we had decided on "change". Instead what we have is an articulate, English speaking version of Bush II. In some of our proudest moments we screamed "Bush lies, people die". Now, we have a "peace-lover" blowing the bugle for war. I can almost see the glorification of war on the level of people who called the allies, in WW II, the "democracies", and the enemies the "Japs".
This "President" is focusing on expending money on war. We should make love, not war. We should put the money we are wasting on war into fighting global warming. Indeed, I could reword the former chant to "civilians die, we all fry".
It is time to stop global warming, fully fund any U.N. program dedicated to progressive alternatives, and work alongside progressive forces such as Hugo Chavez, Kim Il Jong, and Seminoro Luminoso.
Progress and peace, not war. To quote John Lennon, "all we are saying, is give peace a chance".
Somebody open a window and get some fresh air in here, please.
Kim Il Jong is a progressive force?
The Drone Dilemma
One person standing in the way of expanded missile strikes: President Obama.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/226522
Mercenaries and Assassins: The Real Face of Obama's 'Good War'
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/dec2009/blac-d12.shtml
Obama and hawks ready to wage war on democracy in South America
Canada's R2P (Responsibilty to Project) so beloved of many on the left, Amnesty Int'l types, or Project Ploughshares
is what I think of when I read Obama's Nobel speech justifying 'humanitarian war'.(thanks Caissa for the URL) Its latest version, from McGill this year,
is W2I (Will to intervene) and its promoted by Ed Broadbent, Red Tory Hugh Segal, and Gen. Dallaire. Remember that
Ignatieff was on the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignity along with another Canadian humanrightsist I noticed the comments on cbc.ca, most very favourable to Obama
There are really very few genuine examples. VietNam's "invasion" of Kampuchea/Cambodia (which the imperial countries, including the US and Canada, vociferously denounced, of course!) comes to mind. Jean Bricmont wrote what I understand is a very good book called Humanitarian Imperialism.
Humanitarian Imperialism: Using Human Rights to Sell War
And you're quite right to point out that the entire bourgeois political spectrum - including social democrats - preach this monstrous doctrine.
According to the U.N. Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and the Nuremberg Principles, the only just war is a defensive war. A war of aggression is illegal. The Bush Doctrine of "Strike First" (pre-emptive war) against a country who you suspect may attempt to attack or invade you - is not a defensive war, and is illegal. Regime change (aggressive war), something most of those found guilty after World War II at Nuremberg were charged with, is illegal. You cannot wage war against and change a regime just because you don't like them or because you don't like what they do.
Militarizing human rights and waging an aggressive war in the name of human rights is illegal.
The harm caused by war outweighs the good that may be achieved by the possible, at best, securing of human rights.
In fact, war is the greatest of crimes because, in the memorable words of the Tribunal, it contains within itself all other crimes. But perhaps it is time to start thinking creatively and ADD a new more horrific crime against humanity to the list, as Bolivian President Morales has suggested.
I mean crimes against nature, against the Planet, that put the human species in peril.
The Saga of a Superpower's Million-Trillion Wars
http://pak.mediamonitors.net/content/view/full/69747
"With a census of slightly over 300 million in a world of almost seven billion people, the US accounts for over 40 percent of officially acknowledged spending with a population that is only four percent of the earth's. A 10-1 disparity.."
Peace prize winner vows "Accelerated Offensive" in Yemen.
Nuke 'em all, Barak!
People thought I was over the top when I kept saying last year that he should have picked Condi Rice as his running mate. I thought it was very clear that he wanted to become the emperor not dismantle the imperialist power structures. No American politician can get elected without being an overt imperialist (sorry I meant to say leader of the free world.)
An empire without a rule of law is what the US has become. No requirement to declare war and not even a requirement to deploy troops. Just send in the drones and if a few civilian women, children and non combatant men are once again murdered well that is a small price to pay for protecting the Homeland. How many innocents in Yemen will die and how many more "terrorists" will the murder of those innocents produce.
One Day We'll All Be Terrorists
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article24273.htm
"Our descent is the familiar tyranny of decaying empires. The tyranny we impose on others we finally impose on ourselves.."
Obama's Lies Over the Afghanistan War: Welcome to Orwell's World
http://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2010/01/afghanistan-w...
Funny how alot of the Taliban look like white people with beards and turbans... seriously look at pictures of them.
Gosh you're right. Maybe we shouldn't be killing them after all...
Afghans burn Obama in effigy over civilian deaths
Hundreds of university students blocked main roads in Jalalabad, capital of eastern Nangahar province, to protest the alleged deaths of 10 civilians, mostly school children, in a Western military operation on Saturday.
"The government must prevent such unilateral operations otherwise we will take guns instead of pens and fight against them (foreign forces)," students from the University of Nangahar's education faculty said in a statement.
Marching through the main street of Jalalabad, the students chanted "death to Obama" and "death to foreign forces", witnesses said.
The protesters torched a US flag and an effigy of US President Barack Obama in a public square in central Jalalabad, before dispersing.
"Our demonstration is against those foreigners who have come to our country," Safiullah Aminzai, a student organiser, told AFP.
"They have not brought democracy to Afghanistan but they are killing our religious scholars and children," he added.
Or maybe that's why we can't seem to beat these guys...
Gosh you're right. Maybe we shouldn't be killing them after all...
Or maybe that's why we can't seem to beat these guys...
Who is funding the Afghan Taliban? You don't want to know
US hawks know full well they are funding the Taliban. How else could they keep this phony war on terror going if the enemy is not supplied with weapons and ammo?
Interesting read Fidel...
Seems the Taliban are finical opportunists as well as religious nut cases.
Or maybe that's why we can't seem to beat these guys...
Who is funding the Afghan Taliban? You don't want to know
US hawks know full well they are funding the Taliban. How else could they keep this phony war on terror going if the enemy is not supplied with weapons and ammo?
Interesting read Fidel...
Seems the Taliban are finical opportunists as well as religious nut cases.
Since the insurgents are not being funded and armed by a major power, or so we are told, they have to get their money to buy arms and ammunition from somewhere.
From 1996 to 2001 the Taliban nearly eradicated opium in Afghanistan. Now Afghanistan supplies 93% of the world's opium. The Taliban and other mujihadeen also make money from the opium trade - as does the Pentagon.
Sorry, my bad. Error corrected.
Yes, it would seem the Taliban will allow drugs when it suits them. They claimed it was unIslamic when they were in power and band it. But now they have no issues with it now that they are not in power anymore. What dose that say about the Taliban?
Interesting read Fidel...
Seems the Taliban are finical opportunists as well as religious nut cases.
Or maybe that's why we can't seem to beat these guys...
Who is funding the Afghan Taliban? You don't want to know
US hawks know full well they are funding the Taliban. How else could they keep this phony war on terror going if the enemy is not supplied with weapons and ammo?
Bizarro, don't you think? Everything the US and its imperialist allies have claimed about why we are fighting this phony war has turned out to be patently false:
1. US claimed that they are there to round up Osama bin Laden and leaders of the Taliban harboring "Al Qeada" terrorists they claim are responsible for 9/11.
Reality: In nine years of phony war, none of OBL, mullah Omar, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar etc have been captured. Leaders of the USA's former proxy government in Kabul from 1996-2001, the Taliban, offered to give up OBL to the US provided proof of 9/11 guilt was produced. No proof was provided. And then after the bombing started, the Taliban offered to give up OBL to a third country and no proof of 9/11 guilt. The US shadow government was still uninterested in capturing the godfather of "Al CIA'da", Osama bin Laden. In fact, Pakistani president Zardari and his wife, Benazir Bhutto whom Pakistanis believe was murdered by Zardari himself, both said that OBL was murdered by militant factions in Pakistan. I think its possible they were afraid to name the Pakistani army intelligence agency, who are hand in glove with the US-CIA since the 1970's, as the culprits who ordered the hit on OBL.
2. NATO is there to liberate women. In fact, the Revolutionary Afghan Women's Association has described general conditions for Afghan women and their children that couldn't be much worse than they are today.
3. The US-led NATO cannot allow the Taliban or "Al-Qa'eda" to forcefully seize possession of Pakistan's nuclear weapons facilities. The truth is that the Pakistani army numbers more than half a million soldiers and has faced off against the Indian colossus in the late 1990's. The Pakistani Taliban number in the tens of thousands, and Pakistan's nuclear facilities are said to be so well guarded and security protocols needed to actually launch the missiles so secretive that the chances of it happening are miniiscule.
4. NATO officials have said that reasons for establishing military bases in Central Asia have to do with future geopolitical situation whereby the centres of world finance shift Eastward. China has advised Pakistan's leadership that they will not tolerate western military presence on their frontiers for very much longer. Pakistan is a complete mess since that country's elites began cooperating with western countries to fight their holy war against secular socialism in the region since the 1980's through today.
5. The US and NATO allies refuse to deal with "terrorists" and those who harbor terrorists. The truth is that the US CIA and British have been meeting with and talking with Taliban officials off and on different occasions but nothing is ever made public for the sake of transparency. For all Afghans know the two opposing principals in this war could be collaborating to extend the war in order to prevent an outbreak of democracy in Afghanistan, and so that the US Military has an excuse to occupy Afghanistan militarily for colder war reasons. And, in fact, the US has admitted to bribing Afghan and other warlords before. Through the 1980s and 90's, the US funded the most vicious warlords during Soviet occupation and for years after. Zbigniew Brzezinski and other US hawks from the 1970s are still embedded in US government after more than 30 years as if part of a permanent shadow government.
The Taliban government may have secretly emailed the U.S. an invitation to invade and overthrow them in October 2001...
... after seeing what a good job the U.S. did in toppling the towers...
... and the earth could be flat after all...
Anything is possible when you close your eyes and let your mind wander...
I could care less if the Taliban ran Afganistan or the tribal area of Pakistan. The only problem I have with them is when they allow other "Islamic" groups to come in to set up camps, bases and safe houses to then cause problems in other parts of the world. If they got rid of their international "Muslim friends" and stuck to just keeping their own area in the dark ages I'm sure they'd find the rest of the world will soon lose interest, pass them by and leave them alone.
The only time we should be seeing these guys is on the National Geographic channel not the world news.
I could care less if the Taliban ran Afganistan or the tribal area of Pakistan. The only problem I have with them is when they allow other "Islamic" groups to come in to set up camps, bases and safe houses to then cause problems in other parts of the world. If they got rid of their international "Muslim friends" and stuck to just keeping their own area in the dark ages I'm sure they'd find the rest of the world will soon lose interest, pass them by and leave them alone.
The only time we should be seeing these guys is on the National Geographic channel not the world news.
Actually, the Taliban and other Afghans are xenophobic. Afghans are often fearful and not very tolerant toward other Afghans who are of a different ethnic background and speak a different dialect/language: Pashtuns versus Tajiks versus Uzbeks versus Hazaras, etc.
Afghanistan has been occupied over the centuries by foreign invaders. Afghans have not "returned the favor" by attacking, invading and occupying other countries. The Taliban and Afghans refer to Al Qaeda as "those Arab fighters".
The reason why the Afghans in the area where Osama Bin Laden was allowed to stay may have been the result of his taking advantage of melmastia - hospitality, part of Pashtunwali - the way of the Pashtun, a set of unwritten social and moral codes conscientious Afghans try to live by.
Did Osama Bin Laden (assuming he was the mastermind) let the Taliban in on his 9/11 plans? I don't think so, because that's just the kind of guy he is.
In fact, the Pentagon, two U.S. State Departments and two administrations never said there was a direct connection between the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Immediately after 9/11, the CIA etc., used "Taliban" and "Al Qaeda" interchangeably, which caused a lot of (intentional) confusion. The Bush administration never held the Afghan Taliban government responsible for 9/11. The initial reason for the war was revenge for 9/11 and to get Osama Bin Laden. Punting the Taliban out of government (regime change) was another excuse tacked on later.
Here's a saying from Vietnam: "We are fighting the Viet Cong in Vietnam so that we won't have to fight them in the streets of Walla Walla, Washington." (pre-emptive aggressive war). Well, the U.S. was waging war in Vietnam for 30 years (from 1945). The war ended in 1975. Ever heard of any terrorist attack in the U.S.A. after 1975 that were either claimed by or attributed to the Viet Cong?
The Soviet Afghan War started in 1979. It ended in 1989. The U.S. Afghan War started in 2001 and continues. Since 1979, have you ever heard of a terrorist attack in Russia or the U.S.A. that was either claimed by or attributed to the Afghan Taliban?
The fact that some of the plotters and those who flew the planes in 9/11 were in Hamburg, Germany and Tampa FL, U.S.A. indicates that it is not necessary to have a country for a safe haven to plan terrorist attacks.
U.S. intelligence agencies are all agreed that there are less than 100 Al Qaeda commanders and fighters in Afghanistan. The narrative or myth from Washington officialdom after the Flight 235 attempted terrorist attack is that the current/near future Al Qaeda safe have is Yemen. Afghanistan is the current war. It will soon be passe. Yemen is the next war - coming to a theater near you.
Confusing the Taliban with Al Qaeda (if such a thing actually exists outside of Pentagon jargon) and claiming that they (the Taliban) were responsible for 9/11 and other(?) terrorist attacks betrays ignorance of the people we allowed circus master George W. Bush to blindly lead us into waging a war against.
Obama Has Announced the Partition of Pakistan:
http://rt.com/Politics/2009-12-30/obama-partition-pakistan-blackwater.ht...
The Taliban government may have secretly emailed the U.S. an invitation to invade and overthrow them in October 2001...
Who sends secret emails nowadays with US Telcos and govmint KGB'ing everyone and his dog? Get real! While OBL was declaring war on his former allies and fellow anticommunist jihadis, the US government, the Taliban were in Houston, Texas and staying at five star hotels and talking energy pipeline turkey with oil magnates. They prolly had a private direct line to Warshington and oil baron pals in America.
They offered to give up OBL, first on condition that crazy George cough up some proof of 9/11 guilt, then offered to give him over to a third country sans proof once the bombing started. But the supreme crazy one, Steve's future boss at the time, and his regime said to the Taliban: No deal!
And here I was under the impression it was the Taliban whose most pressing question asked of western journalists in the 1980's was, "Are the sun and the moon the same?" But I think even the Taliban know better than to think US hawks are honest businesmen who can be trusted.
By 2006, just 16% of Americans believed Crazy George II and his regime were telling the truth about 9/11
What really-really happened in four or five sentences:
Select groups within Crazy Georges I&II and Clinton's regime all knew about the CIA and US Military's deep state involvement with "Al CIA'da" since the anticommunist jihad of the 1970's and 80's. Al-Qa'eda - the database (Al Qa'eda does not exist)
See Republican Policy Committee dirt on Clinton administration manouevering to create a militant Islamic base in Bosnia and beyond. See Zbigniew Brzezinski(embedded in US gov. since the 1970's) and creating strategia della tensione across the Middle East and Central Asia.
Crazy George and Co., like the Clinton and Crazy George I, and Reaganauts before them, all knew that the shadow government covert black operations occur at arm's length from Congress and President. "Plausible deniability" places them at a safe distance from the murder and executive death squads, the torture etc. Bush and Co. were simply being the tweachewous twixtas that they are when they decided to finally break with Al CIA'duh as the CIA first claimed to have severed all covert ties by 1992. This time it was for real, but with one last black operation in the queue: 9/11, a day that would live in infamy for all time. US hawks let it happen on purpose. The bipartisan war parties pulled off a coup d'etat that would have made old Roman senators proud. They'd created an enemy to replace the evol Soviets and red menace of the good old days. Warfiteering was preserved by another phony external threat to America, and Zbigniew would become America's Mackinder at the grand chess board.
Afghans burn effigy of Yanqui President Barak Obama over many new civilian deaths.
USA! USA! How many kids did you kill today?!
Obama's first year, by Mark Fiore
[Animation]
Courage To End Total War
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/48926
"we have sadly become slaves, chained to wars, as we watch our very social fabric torn apart. But we remain silent, as we have been programmed to do. And still, in the midst of all that, we boast about our great freedoms here at home as we strip down to our underpants at the airline security check-in.."
Of the 44 Predator strikes carried out by the American drones in the tribal areas of Pakistan in 12 months of 2009, only five were able to hit their actual targets, killing five key Al Qaeda and Taliban leaders, but at the cost of around 700 innocent civilian lives.
Link
Obama's Royal Scam
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/02-6
US 'Global War Gladiator' Under Obama:
http://www.alternet.org/world/144910/us_is_increasing_its_hegemony_as_th...
"Strange, isn't it, that the debate about hundreds of billions of dollars in health-care costs in Congress can last almost a year, filled with turmoil and daily headlines, while a $636 Billion defense budget can pass in a few days, as it did in late December, essentially without discussions and with nary a headline in sight. And if you think that $636 billion is an honest figure, think again..."
Blowback on the Border: The Purpose of the Terror War
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1895-...
"Instead of shattering the CIA, or even curtailing it, the NYT story confirms, yet again, that Obama is accelerating the militarization of this agency and giving it broad new scope to deceive and murder...as Richard Holbrooke admitted the US is carrying out covert operations in "every country in the world." And all of this is accepted without debate, without demur, as a just and honorable state of affairs.."
Obama and Afghanistan: America's Drug Corrupted War
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16713
"As I have observed elsewhere about the US campaign against the FARC and cocaine in Colombia, the aim of all US anti-drug campaigns has never been the hopeless ideal of eradication. The aim of all such campaigns has been to alter market share: to target specific enemies and thus ensure that the drug traffic remains under control of those traffickers who are allies...How many [Canadians], Americans, Afghans and Pakistanis will have to die before we begin to end this drug corrupted, drug corrupting war?"
The Lie of Law: Courts Bow to State's Raw Power
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1896-...
"Think of that. Let it sink in.
"The President's war powers cannot be constrained by the international laws of war."
Whatever the Leader decides to do in the course of a war is thus rendered entirely 'legal'. He cannot be accused of international war crimes because such things do not apply to him...
And people willingly line up to be stripped naked by machines, while courts crawl on their bellies before the terrible majesty of unrestrained executive power."
The Lie of Law: Courts Bow to State's Raw Power
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1896-...
"Think of that. Let it sink in.
"The President's war powers cannot be constrained by the international laws of war."
Whatever the Leader decides to do in the course of a war is thus rendered entirely 'legal'. He cannot be accused of international war crimes because such things do not apply to him...
This is contrary to the U.S. Constitution. According to the Constitution, the U.S. government is subject to international laws, treaties, agreements etc., that it is a signatory to.
You may be right. However, the current and past US governments have made it perfectly clear that the International Criminal Court (a Court that the US was critical in creating in the first place) will not be allowed to prosecute any Americans. Period. How do they enforce this?
Through the barrel of a gun, that's how.
The U.S.A. being a member of the (Five) Permanent Members of the Security Council, the U.S. wrangles what it wants (or simply ignores) out of the U.N. as well.
The flip side of thumbing their nose at International Law, human rights, war crimes issues, torture, capital punishment of mentally challenged people, etc., etc., etc., is the extra-territorial application of US law in other countries. The whole US blockade of Cuba and the application of US law outside the US on this issue could easily fill a book. And their laws pollute our own country as well. Just look at what happned to the "prince of pot" and how he was treated by "Canada".
Appeals Court Extends President's Wartime Powers, Limits Guantanamo Prisoners' Rights
http://www.andyworthington.co.uk/2010/01/11/appeals-court-extends-presid...
"As the eighth anniversary of the opening of the 'War on Terror' prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the implications of a ruling last week at the Court of Appeals has added another layer of uncertainty to the prisoners' future,
in a week that was notorious for a barrage of lies and misinformation and a promise by President Obama that he was freezing the release of all Yemeni prisoners until futher notice.."
Obama wants record $708 billion for wars next year
Has Obama Given Tacit Approval to Israel's Next Gaza Massacre?
http://ow.ly/WdLh
"Israeli PM Netanyahu believes Obama has already provided this approval.
Netanyahu immediately ordered the Israeli army to 'standby'
Death draws near...."
Obama Spreading War Flames to Engulf the Middle East
http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/node/49309
"As President Obama steps up the war that is inflaming ever wider sections of the Middle East, USA continues its rapid slide toward Third World status. THe two developments are not unrelated.
Obama has been taken over by the military industrial hawks and natural security theorists who play wargames with other people's lives and money."
Obama has been taken over by the military industrial hawks and natural security theorists who play wargames with other people's lives and money."
That is wrong he was always their man he just had to get elected first.
Obama has been taken over by the military industrial hawks and natural security theorists who play wargames with other people's lives and money."
That is wrong he was always their man he just had to get elected first.
absolutely so
Obama's Expanding Covert Wars
http://www.thenation.com/blog/obamas-expanding-covert-wars
"We have a lot more access,' a military officer told the paper. 'They are talking publicly much less but they are acting more. They are willing to get aggressive much more quickly.."
The investigation comes after persistent complaints by a Norwegian peace researcher that the original purpose of the prize was to diminish the role of military power in international relations.
If the Stockholm County Administrative Board, which supervises foundations in Sweden's capital, finds that prize founder Alfred Nobel's will is not being honored, it has the authority to suspend award decisions going back three years — though that would be unlikely and unprecedented, said Mikael Wiman, a legal expert working for the county....
Fredrik Heffermehl, a prominent researcher and critic of the selection process, told The Associated Press on Wednesday that "Nobel called it a prize for the champions of peace."
"And it's indisputable that he had in mind the peace movement, i.e. the active development of international law and institutions, a new global order where nations safely can drop national armaments," he said....
"Do you see Obama as a promoter of abolishing the military as a tool of international affairs?" Heffermehl asked rhetorically.
Associated Press, Feb. 1
Obama terror drones: CIA tactics in Pakistan include targeting rescuers and funerals
Speaking publicly for the first time on the controversial CIA drone strikes, Obama claimed last week they are used strictly to target terrorists, rejecting what he called ‘this perception we’re just sending in a whole bunch of strikes willy-nilly’.
‘Drones have not caused a huge number of civilian casualties’, he told a questioner at an on-line forum. ‘This is a targeted, focused effort at people who are on a list of active terrorists trying to go in and harm Americans’.
But research by the Bureau has found that since Obama took office three years ago, between 282 and 535 civilians have been credibly reported as killed including more than 60 children. A three month investigation including eye witness reports has found evidence that at least 50 civilians were killed in follow-up strikes when they had gone to help victims. More than 20 civilians have also been attacked in deliberate strikes on funerals and mourners. The tactics have been condemned by leading legal experts.
Although the drone attacks were started under the Bush administration in 2004, they have been stepped up enormously under Obama.
When I said that we need a third party, a radical party, I was projecting toward the future. We cannot allow a Republican to take office. … Don’t we remember what it was like when Bush was president?
Yes, Angela, we remember that time well. How can we forget it since Bush, by all important standards, is still in the White House? Waging perpetual war, relentless surveillance of the citizenry, kissing the corporate ass, police brutality? … What’s changed? Except for the worse. Where’s our single-payer national health insurance? Nothing even close. Where’s our affordable university education? Still the most backward in the “developed” world. Where’s our legalized marijuana — I mean really legalized? If you think that’s changed, you must be stoned. Where’s our abortion on demand? What does your guy Barack think about that? Are the indispensable labor unions being rescued from oblivion? Ha! The ultra-important minimum wage? Inflation adjusted, equal to the mid-1950s.
Has the American threat to the environment and the world environmental movement ceased? Tell that to a dedicated activist-internationalist. Has the 50-year-old embargo against Cuba finally ended? It has not, and I can still not go there legally. The police-state War on Terror at home? Scarcely a month goes by without the FBI entrapping some young “terrorists”. Are more Banksters and Wall Street Society-Screwers (except for the harmless insider-traders) being imprisoned? Name one. The really tough regulations of the financial area so badly needed? Keep waiting. How about executives of the BP Oil Spill Company being arrested? Or war criminals, mass murderers, and torturers with names like … Oh, I don’t know, let’s see … maybe like Cheney or Bush or Rumsfeld or Wolfowitz or someone with a crazy name like Condoleezza? All walking completely free, all celebrated.
Strengthening US-Canada Security Interests in North America and Around the Globe - by Dana Gabriel
http://bravenewworld.in/strengthening-us-canada-security-interests-in-no...
"The Combined Defense Plan has been under discussion for several years and would further integrate cross-border military cooperation at a time when the Harper government is trying to reassure Washington it has a reliable partner in Canada when it comes to security..
Defense Minister Peter Mackay is quoted as saying:
'This agreement provides a framework for the combined defense of Canada and the US during peace, contingencies and war. The plan describes the authorities and means by which the two governments would approve homeland military operations in the event of a mutually agreed threat, and how our two militaries would collaborate and share information..."
Defense Minister Peter Mackay is quoted as saying:
'This agreement provides a framework for the combined defense of Canada and the US during peace, contingencies and war. The plan describes the authorities and means by which the two governments would approve homeland military operations in the event of a mutually agreed threat, and how our two militaries would collaborate and share information..."
And what does the opizishin have to say about this? Nothing. All they do is file access to information requests.
They never present the voters with an alternative view of relations with the United States. Nobody is prepared to step forward and say "we will tear up this agreement." Thus Harper's dystopia becomes the political default position for Canada.
ETA: Thomas Mulcair's foreign policy "backgrounder" doesn't even mention continental integration with the US military and security establishment. He says the Arctic is "our only border facing possible threats to our sovereignty."
a dystopia they look to lead one day...'learning from the best' - Brad Lavigne on Obama
Perhaps they're lying doggo..(doggos)?
Obama's Proliferating Wars: Empire on Full Throttle Offensive - by Glen Ford
http://blackagendareport.com/content/obama%E2%80%99s-proliferating-wars-...
"...President Obama is leading a general imperial offensive around the globe, and were it not for the Russian and Chinese vetoes at the UNSC, the US and its allies [Canada] would by now have declared the city of Homs or some other parts of Syria as areas to be 'protected' by US-led air forces.
History will record Obama as a 'man of war' - many wars."
Obama Strategy: Protect Global Supply Chain
http://www.military.com/news/article/obama-strategy-protect-global-suppl...
"President Barack Obama has adopted a new strategy declaring for the first time that the United States has a national security interest to protect the nation's economic goods against terrorists, criminals and natural disasters in all corners of the globe. The new US policy unveiled Wednesday by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano in Switzerland is called the 'National Strategy For Global Supply Chain Security,' according to a White House document provided to AP.
It says potential economic threats to goods dependent on supplies from beyond US borders are now a matter of national security and that the government must 'resolve threats early'. Obama in a preface to the new policy, which is effective immediately, said that 'the global supply chain system that supports this trade is essential to the United States' economy and security, and is a critical global asset."
National security is now understood to mean "protection of the property and profits of the bourgeoisie".
I think you anti-capitalists had better watch it with your rhetoric from here on in.
Obama, Democrats Hail Deal to Slash Unemployment Benefits - by Barry Grey
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2012/feb2012/unem-f16.shtml
"In the midst of the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression, with long term unemployment at record highs, the Obama administration has forged a bipartisan agreement with the Republicans that will sharply reduce the duration of jobless benefits. Presented by the Obama administration and the media as a boon to hard-pressed working Americans, the measure is in reality a cruel and punitive assault on the working class - in the first instance, those most severely impacted by nearly four years of mass unemployment.."
Barack Obama: The Greatest Gun Salesman in America
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/infographic-greatest-gun-salesman-america-...
"American firearm sales and concealed handgun permit applications are at all time high since the 2008 election of Barack Obama.."