BS: Afghanistan

Subject: BS: Afganistan
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 10:09 AM

Is there actually a purpose for NATO to remain in Afganistan? An exit has to occur someday. Is delaying the exit only delaying the clear results, that the current proped-up government will likely fall and the warlords will regain control, and the Taliban will reemerge in some form. Many of the societies (and democracy) gains, will likely be lost regardless (IMO).

Does remaining there serve a useful purpose, alot of cash and lives and civilian deaths. The longer NATO stays, the more likely they will do something to turn many against the west (frequent deaths of civilians). The targeted terrorist groups (the reson for going in) have found many other places to operate from. And, some suspect the only winners are the coffers of the Pakistanis (which may someday be used against the west).

Karzai angered by civilian deaths in NATO airstrike

Subject: RE: BS: Afganistan
From: Henry Krinkle
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 10:40 AM

We never belonged there in the first place. Bush was spoiling for a fight and no one, not even Hillary, told him no. And Prez al-Obama is happy to stay. Prolong it like Nixon did Vietnam. Get some votes by promising to end it.
(:-( ))=

Subject: RE: BS: Afganistan
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 10:55 AM

President Obama is trying to unwind it with the least amount of lasting damage possible.

Training up the local forces to protect themselves was never tried by the chicken hawks. The President owed it to the Afghanis and to our armed forces and to our allies who had sacrificed so much to try to give it one sincere effort. Next year that will be done and American fighting in that civil war will be over.

Subject: RE: BS: Afganistan
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 12:04 PM

Afghanistan: Nato air strike 'kills eight women in Laghman'

Making this inevitable - Afghanistan conflict: Rise of 'green on blue' deaths"

Subject: RE: BS: Afganistan
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 12:51 PM

I seem to recall Karzai, Afganistan's elected leader, has asked NATO for a quicker withdrawl on quite a few occasions. If NaTO's presence is not wanted by the person who it benefits the most, then how can one say we owe to the Afghanis to stay. Who are these Afganis who are standing up and asking NATO to stay? Is oil another reason to continue be there?

On another note, What ever happened to the California-based UNOCAL Corporationplan to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan? (earlier proposed by Standard Oil-Russian oil interests, to secure an alternate, short, safe oil pipeline route from Russia through neighboring Afghanistan). (Wasn't Karzai a top adviser to UNOCAL during the negotiations with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan?).

Subject: RE: BS: Afganistan
From: gnu
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 12:55 PM

Ten years couldn't get a pipeline for the Russians.

Subject: RE: BS: Afganistan
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 01:07 PM

If you don't like what Karsai has said, wait a few days. I've seen him support the US presence in interviews in English. He was Bush's pick, foisted on the Afghanis. I don't know if there is anything we can do about him now. But as a former pipeline company employee, who is to most eyes, quite corrupt, he is not ideal.

Subject: RE: BS: Afganistan
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 01:23 PM

I suspect Karsai's short term priority is to stay alive today, and his longer term priority is to stay alive for a longer term.

To keep some type of support locally, he would be hardpressed not to publically ask NATO to leave (he knows they wont) when they do something stupid (disrespect the dead, bomb citizens) and ask them to stay, to keep him and ghis goverment alive.

On the longer term, since USA and NATO (sometimes they seem the same) are scheduled to leave, I suspect his main thoughts are on survival post NATO-USA. All in all, IMO, his future prospects are poor -unless his former western friends give him safe haven somewghere, as a reward.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 01:49 PM

I imagine Karzai will leave the country at about the same time as the foreign forces.

(And could someone correct the spelling of the thread heading?)

Subject: RE: BS: Afganistan
From: Ed T
Date: 16 Sep 12 - 01:53 PM

Where does oil/gas figure into the continued Afganistani presence?


Operation Enduring Failure


Islam, poppies and pipelines


Taliban- pipeline security



Obama's Caspian strategy

Subject: RE: BS: Afganistan
From: Greg F.
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 01:57 PM

British had the good sense to get the hell out of afghanistan in the 1880's.

The U.S. never learns from history.......

Subject: RE: BS: Afganistan
From: Dave Hanson
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 02:39 PM

British soldiers are STILL getting killed in Afghanistan, a lot of them by the scum we are training up to run their own shithole of a country.

Two brave Yorkshire soldiers killed by someone they were trying to help.

Dave

Subject: RE: BS: Afganistan
From: GUEST,Tony
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 03:40 PM

Two brave Yorkshire soldiers sent needlessly into the line of fire by a government they honored and trusted.

A pipeline from the Caspian Sea to China would have to go through either Afghanistan or Russian-allied Uzbekistan. A pipeline from the Caspian Sea to Pakistan would have to go through either Afghanistan or Iran. How much is that piece of real estate worth? In dollars or in soldiers.

Subject: RE: BS: Afganistan
From: Charmion
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 05:09 PM

Think of a number and double it ...

The NATO operation in Afghanistan was well down the road to self-perpetuation when the magic pull-out date of 31December 2014 was announced, and I believe that was the only reason the Canadian government was talked into re-upping last year and joining the training advisory mission based in Kabul. For all hs faults, Mr Harper is not famous for reinforcing failure.

Mind you, if the rate of "green on blue" attacks increases, look for the Canadian contingent in the NATO Training Mission-Afghanistan to be on sprinters' blocks in March 2014, with the Mission Closure Unit yanking their phones out and cutting the lights at the earliest possible moment.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 05:14 PM

The magic pull-out date WAS October, 2003. I expect someone got fucked?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Tony
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 06:33 PM

No, they really were hoping to pull out by then. And by a lot of other deadlines named since then. They keep thinking that any day now they're going to buy Uzbekistan and invade Iran.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Charmion
Date: 17 Sep 12 - 09:40 PM

Hey, gnu-zer:

That would be us, and every other taxpayer funding this self-licking icecream cone that NATO calls a counter-insurgency mission, or a capability-building mission, or whatever it takes to keep the sustainment gravy train running.

Oh, yeah -- and the poor bloody Afghans. They're definitely getting it in the left ear, without even the traditional preliminary kiss.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 04:55 PM

It never made sense, for the British, the Russians, or the Americans and company.

The people who will be running the country in five years time are the people fighting against the outsiders. That's how it always works out with colonial wars.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 05:10 PM

I know most of you will be pissed at this but I just HAVE TO say it AGAIN. We are battle training troops and field testing weapons. That is EXACTLY what a "capability-building mission" is meant to do. Kinda sucks that innocent people die but I guess that is the price we pay* for our freedom.... ????

* Not my choice.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Tony
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 05:33 PM

Well, that's a relief. I thought it was done out of greed; but if they're just killing people for practice that's different.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 05:54 PM

Kinda sucks that innocent people die but I guess that is the price we pay* for our freedom.... ????

What has killing and being killed in Afganistan got to do with protecting "our freedom"? Freedom to kill and to die?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 06:15 PM

Now yer catchin on! Fuck! I have been posting this shit for years and this is the FIRST time I get a response???... TWO responses!

Welcome to reality.

Lock and load!

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 08:57 PM

Have not read this yet. But, Jesse Ventura made reference to it on Pierce Morgan last night. Good title.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 08:58 PM

Guess I should link it:)

War is a racket

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Tony
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 11:31 PM

No one does anything for a single reason. Part of the reason for going to war is always to get practice, as gnu said, and to use up old equipment and buy new and make money off that, and get promotions and medals, and so on. But when we talk about the reasons for a particular war, we assume all that and we just talk about why they chose this particular country to run their racket in this time.

That may involve multiple reasons also. The invasion of Iran won't be done solely to punish them for setting up a non-dollar oil bourse and trying to undermine the world financial system. There's also the fact that Iran has massive oil and gas reserves, and it occupies the south shore of the Caspian Sea with its massive reserves and so it would be convenient as a pipeline route to the ocean and to Pakistan. And they're conspicuously non-aligned, so it's a great opportunity to expand US power in general and to show other nations what happens if you don't submit to US hegemony. And of course we have to stop them from enriching uranium for the medical research reactor we gave them during the Shah's regime with the understanding that they would be eternally grateful and submissive and would always buy the uranium from us. And maybe the racket isn't paying off as well as they'd hoped in Afghanistan so they want to try Iran instead.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 18 Sep 12 - 11:46 PM

Yep. Those are all plausible imperial reasons, Tony. One thing for damn sure, it has nothing to do with protecting anyone's "freedom", least of all ours.

America has been trying to get revenge on Iran ever since the Iran Hostage Crisis in Jimmy Carter's term of office. That's another reason for waging war on them, along with those you cited above.

Americans (most of them) have long forgotten the CIA-orchestrated coup that destroyed Iran's democratic government in the 1950s and replaced it with the Shah. Iranians have not forgotten. They'll fight like hell if invaded, and it'll be a far worse mess than Afghanistan and Iraq.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Sawzaw
Date: 19 Sep 12 - 11:31 PM

"This is not a war of choice," Barack Obama told the Veterans of Foreign Wars on Aug. 17. "This is a war of necessity. Those who attacked America on 9/11 are plotting to do so again. If left unchecked, the Taliban insurgency will mean an even larger safe haven from which al Qaeda would plot to kill more Americans. So this is not only a war worth fighting. This is fundamental to the defense of our people."

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 07:15 AM

Some amazingly ignorant statements made so far:

1: The purpose NATO fulfills in Afghanistan is to provide command & control for the UN mandated ISAF contingents operating in the country in support of UNAMA.

2: The mission statement for ISAF from day one (December 5th 2001) was as follows:

ANNEX I (To the Bonn Agreement)

INTERNATIONAL SECURITY FORCE


1. The participants in the UN Talks on Afghanistan recognize that the responsibility for providing security and law and order throughout the country resides with the Afghans themselves. To this end, they pledge their commitment to do all within their means and influence to ensure such security, including for all United Nations and other personnel of international governmental and non-governmental organizations deployed in Afghanistan.

2. With this objective in mind, the participants request the assistance of the international community in helping the new Afghan authorities in the establishment and training of new Afghan security and armed forces.

3. Conscious that some time may be required for the new Afghan security and armed forces to be fully constituted and functioning, the participants in the UN Talks on Afghanistan request the United Nations Security Council to consider authorizing the early deployment to Afghanistan of a United Nations mandated force. This force will assist in the maintenance of security for Kabul and its surrounding areas. Such a force could, as appropriate, be progressively expanded to other urban centres and other areas.

4. The participants in the UN Talks on Afghanistan pledge to withdraw all military units from Kabul and other urban centers or other areas in which the UN mandated force is deployed. It would also be desirable if such a force were to assist in the rehabilitation of Afghanistan's infrastructure.

For ISAF that devolved into two clear tasks:

TASK 1 - Provision of Provincial Reconstruction Teams throughout Afghanistan to assist in the reconstruction of the country. Such reconstruction work to be funded by internation aid and handed over to Afghan contractors and civil authorities and administrators.

This task is well under way and more and more reconstruction projects are now not only being carried out by Afghan civilians but are also being funded by them.

TASK 2 - Assist in creating, training, equipping and mentoring "national" security forces capable of enforcing the rule of law and order throughout the country and capable of defending the recognised borders of the country from external attack and infiltration by terrorist groups.

This task is approximately 85 to 90% completed.

Since the intervention of the International Community in Afghanistan the average yearly death toll amongst Afghan civilians suffering violent and unexpected death due to civil unrest has dropped from 108,696 (Between April 1978 and October 2001) to 2,133 (October 2001 to present). US-OEF/ISAF/ANSF are the first armed forces to operate within the borders of Afghanistan since April 1978 whose main duty and charge has been the protection of the general population. 80% of all civilians suffering unexpected violent deaths inside Afghanistan today are killed by the Taliban and their allies.

In the period 2006 (when ISAF took over) to 2011 the average population of Afghanistan was around 30 million people of whom, on average ~581,900 die each year from all causes. The yearly average number of deaths caused by the Taliban insurrection (and remember it was the Taliban from across the border in Pakistan who declared war on the reconstruction effort in 2006) is 2,133 - or just over one-third of one percent of the average total death toll from all causes (hardly a picture of a land ablaze from end to end)

UNOCAL went out of business years ago.

President Hamid Karzai never worked for any Oil Company (Only one French Newspaper "Le Figaro" ever suggested that he did - the paper offered no evidence to support this claim and has never since repeated it.)

TAPI - the Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India Pipeline Project is a dead duck. Politicians in all three countries the pipeline passes through chatter about it, but it is going nowhere, it has largely been by-passed by Turkemistan's gas deals with the Chinese and Iranians and by Pakistan agreeing to purchase gas from Iran. China has signed an agreement to develop oil fields in Afghanistan. None of the above is of any financial benefit to the US at all - so much for the much toted, and oft quoted, "oil motive".

As for "Karzai being Bush's pick foisted on the Afghans" even the most cursory examination of the records shows that that is simply untrue - First mentioned in the Bonn Agreement 5th December 2001 the meetings that led to that agreement were held between Afghan leaders and a representative of the United Nations - that man has just taken over from Kofi Annan in Syria, his name is Lakhdar Brahimi (Hardly an American puppet). Hamid Karzai was proposed in Bonn subject to acceptance by a Loya Jirga of all Afghan tribal leaders to be held in Kabul by June 2002 - The USA were not represented in that Loya Jirga and Hamd Karzai was accepted as head of the Afghan Interim Administration. Subsequently he stood for election on two occasions, he has already stated that in accordance with Afghanistan's Constitution he cannot stand for re-election (Two terms is the maximum) His second term ends in the summer before the ISAF hand over to ANSF in December 2014.

A great deal has been said about US and NATO leaving. This has been due to gross misreporting by "western" MSM of what has actually been said. What happens in December 2014 is that frontline responsibility for providing security throughout Afghanistan devolves to the ANSF (They already ARE responsible for about 75% of the population and 50% of the country). Once this milestone has been reached ISAF troops will withdraw from combat operations, support and training missions however will continue.

British General Sir David Richards predicted in 2006 or 2007 that in his opinion ISAF would be military engaged in Afghanistan for a period of between 5 and 10 years - ISAF took over from US-OEF throughout Afghanistan in 2006 (makes Richard's target end dates somewhere between 2011 & 2016). He predicted that ISAF would continue to mentor and train the ANSF for a period of between 10 and 15 years to get them to a stage where they could train their own troops, NCO's, Specialists and Officers themselves (makes his target end dates between 2016 and 2021) by which time ALL ISAF troops would leave Afghanistan (The US have signed agreements with the Afghan Government involving 20,000 troops covering until 2024). He predicted that the International Community would be involved in the development of Afghanistan in terms of trade and aid for a minimum of 30 years (makes his target end date 2036). So far it looks as though General Sir David Richards pedictions have proved pretty much on the money.

Why on earth would anyone have to, or want to "invade" Iran?? Totally ludicrous.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Tony
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 09:17 AM

Teribus, thank you for that extremely long post, but it failed to address many of the reasons for invading Iran that were suggested in previous posts. Perhaps you could comment on those. And perhaps in fewer words, either out of consideration for others or in hope that they'll actually read it.

The oil motive theory isn't based on knowing the current progress of contracts under present geopolitical reality. It's based on the fact that wars always happen to occur where there's oil or an oil route.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 09:45 AM

1: "Part of the reason for going to war is always to get practice"

Now that is just utter bullshit - no-one HAS EVER gone to war to get practice.

2: I cannot imagine how this fact has escaped your attention but - we are NOT AT WAR in, or with Afghanistan

3: As far as I can make out you are the only person wittering on about the USA invading Iran - That will not happen.

Besides:

a) Iran cannot set up a non-dollar borse

b) Iran cannot undermine the world financial system

c) Iran does have massive oil & gas reserves but no refining capacity

d) Iran does occupy the southern end of the Caspian Sea, but as long as the regime governed by the "12 Old Gits" remains in place it is the least likely place anyone would think of for exporting either oil or gas from the Caspian Sea, besides there are already a number of perfectly good export pipelines running west from the Caspian.

e) Could you explain to me why the USA would invade a country just so it could export oil or gas to Pakistan? The Iranians and Pakistanis have already agreed to do just that and the pipeline is mostly built.

f) Iran non-aligned?? Are you joking?? Russia, China, Syria, North Korea.

No invasion of Iran is necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 10:20 AM

> It's based on the fact that wars always happen to occur where there's oil or an oil route.

OK, "always" is for effect. But how about some factual examples, specifically those where the same oil wasn't already available for purchase and was afterwards criminally exploited (rather than paid for at market prices) by the neo-colonialist victors?

> US-OEF/ISAF/ANSF are the first armed forces to operate within the borders of Afghanistan since April 1978 whose main duty and charge has been the protection of the general population. 80% of all civilians suffering unexpected violent deaths inside Afghanistan today are killed by the Taliban and their allies.

This to me is the most significant thing. It gives the lie to the facile claim that the U.S. attacked the Taliban for sinister reasons unrelated to Al Qaeda. Those supposed reasons are glibly summarized as "oil" and "imperialism." But those aren't reasons; they're slogans.

If the West leaves now, the Taliban - by mainstream Muslim standards, a monstrous throwback to the seventh century - will take over the country once more.

For much of its history, Afghanistan was notable for its moderate interpretations of Islam. The destruction of the Taliban (a recent movement) would be the best thing that could happen to the entire region. A premature Western departure would leave the Taliban to reimpose its own radical brand of sharia on the entire country, and it would be free to slaughter anyone believed to have cooperated with the infidels. What's more, a Taliban victory would encourage fundamentalist revolution in Pakistan, something which would be far more dangerous to the world than the American presence in Afghanistan.

The Western effort could fail. But that's another discussion.

Check out "Taliban," by Ahmed Rashid (Yale Uinversity Press, 2000). It was published before 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Tony
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 12:58 PM

Lighter: yes, I agree. My understanding is that Afghanistan was progressive until the US started fomenting fundamentalism as part of an effort to unseat the Soviet-friendly government. And that led to the government asking for Soviet military assistance against the insurgency, which was represented as an invasion so that it could serve as an excuse for more US and Saudi meddling, leading eventually to the takeover by the Taliban. Now what was your point about that?

Teribus: the support you provided for your opinions ("just utter bullshit" "are you joking?" "that will not happen" "cannot imagine how this fact has escaped your attention") is difficult to present a rational argument against. Perhaps I should just say you're wrong and so's you're mother.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 01:01 PM

Yes, a "progressive" communist dictatorship, wasn't it?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Tony
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 02:53 PM

Jack, I don't know whether they had universal health care, but there were certainly some socialist aspects to the pre-1980 Afghan regime. I'm sure Joe McCarthy would have preferred your "communist dictatorship" over my "Soviet-friendly" to describe a government not run by the same collective that controls our lives. But the relevant question is whether the Afghan people would have preferred the present situation, and the history since 1980, to the regime that was in place before Zbigniew Brzezinski stepped in. And I wasn't using "progressive" to mean that they had freedom, in the Bain Capital sense, but rather to refer to Lighter's "moderate interpretations of Islam."

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 03:14 PM

"Now that is just utter bullshit - no-one HAS EVER gone to war to get practice."

Are you shittin me? The Brits have been at it for over 900 years. That's why they are the best at war. Practice makes perfect.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 08:35 PM

Were the best, Gnu. Them days are gone forever.

The war in Afghanistan cannot be won. It should never have been entered.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 08:56 PM

"Were the best, Gnu. Them days are gone forever."

Read a newspaper and some history. If you don't think the Brits are the ones in charge of the charge in Africa and Asia right now (and have been for hundreds of years) yer just not reading enough.

The Yanks you may proffer? They get their marching orders directly from 10 Downing. The Brit corporations in mining, agriculture, and manufacturing own the USA and tell their soldiers when and who to shoot. It's all money and the Brits got the bucks... and the balls.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 20 Sep 12 - 09:46 PM

Tony, I can only recommend again that you read Rashid's book. And other sources.

The U.S. did not "foment fundamentalism" in the 1970s or at any other time. (I wonder how they'd go about doing it in the first place: send in wahabist imams trained by the CIA?) Though the U.S. armed the anti-Soviet "mujahadin" of the 1980s, the extraordinarily radical Taliban emerged only in the mid '90s, years after the Soviets left.

And except in the pages of Pravda, the murderous Afghan revolutionary government of Hafizullah Amin certainly did not "request" Soviet troops: as soon as the Russians arrived, they executed Amin and as many of his party as they could find. Why? Because Amin, though a Communist, appeared to be moving toward alignment with China and was killing so many of his opponents that the Russians feared a full-scale Islamic revolt on their borders.

Within 24 hours the Soviets announced the "liberation" of Afghanistan and installed a dependable puppet regime. The UN General Assembly(hardly an arm of American policy) officially and overwhelmingly condemned the Soviet actions.

The ten-year Soviet war killed roughly 1.5 million Afghans, mostly civilians. In a slightly longer period, the current war seems to have killed about 15,000.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Charmion
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 07:09 AM

Gnu, much as I respect your knowledge and opinions, I believe you've got this one wrong. What you're seeing as British business is actually international corporate business with global reach that happens to be headquartered in London because the City is still one of the world's largest financial services hubs. Britain still has a comparatively laissez-faire regulatory system, a legacy of those dear, dead days of Whig economic ideas and the heyday of the British Empire, so that's one of the places Big Money likes to settle.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Tony
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 09:55 AM

Lighter, the USSR had selfish motives also, but the US was arming the Mujahideen at least six months before the Soviets went in. And shipping in schoolbooks that taught Wahhabism and jihad. Religious fundamentalism was seen as the best way to turn the masses against socialism, just like in Texas, and the Talibs grew up on those books. After winning their proxy war against the Soviets, the US declined to rebuild from the devastation, leaving a vacuum for the Taliban to step into. That's been interpreted as a mistake, a penny-wise but pound-foolish decision, as though the pocket change it would have cost was too great a financial burden for the US. Most US imperial actions are interpreted at the time as mistakes, as though the federal government were run by the Keystone Cops, and yet US power has steadily increased through two centuries of such blunders. But in fact the Taliban would have looked like a good idea in formerly progressive and socialist Afghanistan, based on the standard imperial tactic of divide and conquer. And their views were in close alignment with those of the US puppets who control Saudi Arabia.

Charmion, the same could be said of tax-averse US. It's another good place for multinationals to root and rut. But then most nations would be glad to play host. The US and UK are preferred for their ability to impose corporate will on the reticent. The squaddies are more willing to lay down their lives if they think it somehow benefits their own country.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Donuel
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 12:30 PM

Weapon contractors require more than official test demonstrations and war excercises for their wares. Their orders balloon only after their weapons go hot in an actual "theatre" of war.

Only then do weapon contractors get massive orders.

It is a chicken egg relationship so you could say it is true and not true that certain wars, police actions, operations and surgical strikes have an element of practice to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 01:24 PM

> After winning their proxy war against the Soviets, the US declined to rebuild from the devastation, leaving a vacuum for the Taliban to step into.

That's true, but where's the evidence that the Taliban's appearance, several years after the Soviets left, was a crafty US design rather than the result of local conditions?

The rebuilding of Afghanistan would have cost far more than "pocket change." But that's beside the point. No U.S. Congress would have voted that funding, because the public had no interest in Afghanistan. Few Congressmen would wish to be known as spenders of "taxpayer cash" (as it is now often called) for a "Marshall Plan" for a distant third-world country, particularly since the U.S. was not directly involved.

What's more, your entire argument seems inconsistent. If America wanted oil (or anything else) out of Afghanistan, why not grab it as soon as the Russians left? Did Washington miss out on that obvious opportunity, only to be so fiendishly clever, years later, as to create the Taliban, engineer its takeover (more years later), and get it to harbor Al Qaeda to provide just the excuse for a NATO invasion? And having that kind of godlike genius, would America then spend more than a decade there accomplishing nothing of an obvious imperialist/colonialist nature?

I don't buy it.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 01:40 PM

Total value of a company is not related to influence. The largest are conglomerates, thus subject to impact on each segment. Which stock market they are allied with depends on several factors, including whether they get favorable treatment or not.
Who holds the stock is an important factor; e. g. BP is roughly 50% UK held, 50% US held.

BHP-Billiton (BR) is the largest mining conglomerate, but it's diversified. largest income from oil-gas; many companies are larger in this field, thus have as large or greater impact in that field.
BHP leads in coal, and has much iron interest; quite large there.

Vale, a U.S mining comglomerate, is almost as large.
Rio Tinto (BR) is also a giant
Shenhua (China), no. 4, is very influencial in the market, because of its control of rare earths.
(Canada has two companies in the top ten, UK has 4, the U.S 3, China 1, India one).
-------------------------

Corporations with largest market value:
Apple
ExxonMobil-2
Petrochina
Microsoft
IBM
Industrial Bank of China
Royal Dutch Shell-1
China Mobile
China NP-5
Sinopec-6
General Electric
Chevron-8
Petrobras
Walmart-3
BHp Billeton
China Construction Bank
HSBC
BP-4
Conoco-Phillips -9
Toyota -10(nunbers are for total revenues)

A fairly diversified list.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: pdq
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 01:41 PM

" What you're seeing as British business is actually international corporate business with global reach that happens to be headquartered in London because the City is still one of the world's largest financial services hubs." ~ Charmion

Quite right.

Paris in France and Amstredam in Netherlands are the same way.

By "corporate interests" one really means private interprise, crime organizations (such as drug and arms cartels), and foreign governments also.

Does anyone realize that the majority of people in Amsterdam were born in another country?

None of these once-great cities reflects the culture and values of the native folks and working people who built the cities.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 01:42 PM

Thanks, Charmion. I certainly respect your opinions and appreciate your comments, especially when I am in error. Fact is, I often have no actual support for my hypotheses but rely on gut instinct and make inferences based on limited knowledge. Devil's advocate is incorrect but I think somewhat applicable.

Although, I must say I still believe the Brit military "establishment" rules the waves and the knaves. On this, I have more than gut instinct but such is not for public forum. And, certainly in my statement that the "war" is about battle training troops and field testing weapons... which has been supported by Donuel additionally. Thanks, Donuel for making your "weapons point".

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 01:45 PM

The above post is a digression aimed at GNU.

Afghanistan is a lost cause, since neither the EU nor the U.S. will stay long enough to insure the culture changes that will unify the conservstives with those that favor Western ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 03:34 PM

Thanks, Q. All the more credence to my arguement that Harper is talkin out his ass. Unfortunate for those killed and maimed but "it's the price of freedom".

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Tony
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 03:42 PM

Lighter, I meant "pocket change" in relation to the US federal budget. A tiny fraction of a percent. The voters have no idea even where major chunks of it go.

For the rest, you argued against silly things that I didn't say. I said there was good reason for the US government to think that Afghanistan would fall under their influence if they helped push the Soviets out, and that promoting Muslim fundamentalism would help that along by purging the old socialist ideas. That all happened to a great extent, especially the latter part. I didn't say the obvious, which is that it didn't work out exactly as they had hoped, and so they had to take a more direct approach. And now there's some question as to whether that's working out as well as intended.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 04:04 PM

> Unfortunate for those killed and maimed but "it's the price of freedom".

In reality, it's the price of possible progress for Afghanistan and possibly averting a far more dangerous regional situation for everyone.

Nobody said that formulating an international policy is simple, easy, foolproof, fair, or cost-free.

Nobody would be getting killed in Afghanistan today if the Taliban would renounce violence and join a relatively sane ruling coalition.

But it won't happen. A few bandits and drug smugglers might be persuaded, but the rest of the Taliban follow religious principles that forbid compromise with anybody, including fellow Muslims.

Should the West leave the place to its brutal fate? Or do what it can to keep disaster at bay for as many people for as long as possible?

Your call.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 04:45 PM

I'm gonna rephrase that for you, Lighter.

Nobody would be getting killed in Afghanistan today if two great nations...Russia and the USA....would have long ago renounced violence and stopped playing imperial games on other people's land.

But it won't happen. A few oligarchs, ambitious politicians, and corporate CEOs follow business and political principles that forbid compromise with anybody, and that involve taking over various Muslim lands for the purposes of extending empire and gaining control of strategic resources such as oil and natural gas.

Should the West continue subjecting Afghanistan and Iraq and Palestine and parts of Pakistan and various other places in that region to a brutal fate? Or should the West mind its own business, stop fighting wars on other people's land, stop sending a steady flow of arms and foreign fighters into Syria to cause regime change there, and pay reparations to the many people whom its wars of choice have devastated in the past couple of decades?

The Western leaders who attacked Afghanistan and Iraq since 2001 should be arrested and put on trial as war criminals. That would include Tony Blair, George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and numerous others. More recently, it would also include Barack Obama for numerous illegal acts of war he has authorized in regards to drone attacks and other covert operations all across the region. The biggest of those covert operations is the one presently underway in Syria...through Muslim proxies...many of whom are jihadists, religious fanatics of the most extreme type. The USA apparently doesn't care who it uses to destroy Assad, as long as they can bring down another uncooperative secular regime, the same as they brought down Gadhafi's secular regime in Lybia. Gadhafi's only real crime, in USA-corporate terms, was that he wasn't 100% subservient to American corporate and imperial objectives. The same goes for Assad.

None of it was about anyone's freedom. And it never is. It's about empire. And who are the real opponents in the great game of empire? Not the Muslims. Russia and China. The Muslims are just the unfortunate people who happen to be in the crosshairs of the imperial guns...and sitting on all that oil.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 05:01 PM

... and opium.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 05:51 PM

> Nobody said that formulating an international policy is simple, easy, foolproof, fair, or cost-free.

I might have added, "or ever gives optimal results."

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Tony
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 06:09 PM

Right, opium. That's been glossed over. But I remember that before the US invaded Afghanistan the Taliban had cut opium production down to near zero. And then a year after the invasion there was a record crop.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 21 Sep 12 - 06:19 PM

As for all the oil? Q can probably tell us but seems to me they produce zero oil (hashish and opium not included) and exploration was just beginning to be explored.

Forgive my ignorance but wasn't it all about opium and a pipeline route lately? And battle training toops and field testing weapons, of course, under the guise of fighting terrorism and the Taliban, of course.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 10:07 AM

Why 2001 Little Hawk?? In 1993 Al-Qaeda carried out an attack against the WTC that didn't quite come off, they then attacked US personnel in the Khobar Towers in 1996, US Embassy in Nairobi in 1998, US Embassy in Dar-es-Salaam in 1998 and the USS Cole in 2000. The President of the United States during this period was Bill Clinton - He didn't go to Congress - He didn't go to the UN - He just started throwing Cruise Missiles about (Damn near starting a nuclear war between Pakistan and India in the process in 1998 - only very quick talking averted it) Would he be up there on trial with the rest of them??

The Taliban in their own totally inept, incompetent and corrupt way "ruled" parts of Afghanistan between 1994 until they were driven out and back home to Pakistan in 2001. The ONLY year they ever made any move against the growing of opium poppies in Afghanistan was in 2000, the reasons for doing this were as follows:

- To qualify for UN aid programmes
- To maintain market price for stocks of raw opium and manufactured heroin already held
- To reduce and damage the economic and financial base of their opponents.'

In the Taliban's eyes there is nothing wrong with growing opium poppy, there is nothing wrong with producing raw opium, there is nothing wrong with making and selling the heroin that comes from it. This after all is how they currently fund their insurrection. What they see as being wrong is for "good Muslims" to use the stuff.

The Khalq faction of the Communist PDPA took over in Afghanistan in April 1978, in their first six months they had murdered over 38,000 Afghan civilians including ~12,000 members of the Parchami Faction of their own party. Their appeals for Soviet assistance began almost immediately on them taking over, the Soviets were in Afghanistan in Brigade strength long before the US got interested and well over six months before the Soviets sent in their 40th Army in December 1979. Between the Afghan Communist PDPA and the Soviet 40th Army between 1978 and 1989 they managed to reduce the total population of the country by one-third. They destroyed the agricultural base of the country causing widespread malnutrition and disease, they had reduced the two largest cities in Afghanistan to ruins and reduced their populations by 90%, the 15 million landmines indiscriminately sown throughout the countryside to "deny it" to the "enemy" ofcourse made things very easy for those driven from the cities to seek shelter in the countryside.

You will hear very little complaint from the people of Iraq who for the previous 24 years had seen their wealth dissappear with Saddam Hussein's grandiose schemes while they themselves were being murdered at an average yearly rate of around 102,000. Still no signs of Iraq breaking up or descending into civil war as many on this forum predicted - and no "Arab Spring" for Iraq as there has been in Syria - wonder why? Maybe because everything that the people of Tunisia, Egypt, Libya and Syria protested about and demonstrated for was "given" to the people of Iraq in 2003.

You will hear very little complaint from the people of Afghanistan they had been slaughtered at a yearly average rate of almost 109,000 over the period from April 1978 to October 2001 - even with the ongoing insurrection that average yearly death toll has been reduced by 97%. Massive investment - investment NOT aid - is flowing into the country. Massive progress has been made to improve the lives of Afghanistan's population.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 10:33 AM

From a 2003 interview-how much of it transpired?

Russian war analyist-2003

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Greg F.
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 10:35 AM

Blah, Blah, blahblahblah, Blah!

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 10:37 AM

Afghan War: "Payback Time"

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 10:48 AM

Drift (as opposed to - bla, bla, blah:)-

Cash-strapped Iceland to host "private army" – and Russian jets:



Drift-but, an odd story?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 10:53 AM

Very informative, Teribus, as always.

The challenges remain: what to do next, how to persuade the public to support it, how long to do it, with what likelihood of success and what penalties for failure. Because of the all-volunteer military, public pressure in the U.S. to withdraw completely is muted and neither presidential candidate supports withdrawal now. That is despite Obama's well publicized lowering of troop levels, which may be premature.

Unpredictable developments elsewhere will (not *might*) affect any policy.

Of course, those who see the Afghan war as a simple, sinister plot of the U.S. government and its Allies will insist on immediate withdrawal because whatever would happen next would be so much "better" for the region (and for the rest of us) than "imperial" Western "interference."

Not likely, IMO.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Tony
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 11:36 AM

Teribus, I welcome and applaud your new more controlled style of posting. Still a bit long, but readable, and with no personal insults.

No one would question the harm done by the USSR in Afghanistan. But it takes two to decimate a country. The mujahideen insurrection would have been easily suppressed without US support, avoiding the extreme destruction you detailed and the subsequent Taliban takeover.

You're entitled to your opinion that the US government backed a rebellion halfway around the world for humanitarian reasons, i.e. because they thought a destroyed country would be better than a country living under communism. I continue to think that the US government doesn't care what system rules another nation, as long as they play ball with the Free World corporate team. The Taliban tried to do that with the Unocal pipeline negotiations, and their system was acceptable as long as they did, as are the theocratic monarchies in several Muslim nations and the communist regime in China.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 03:05 PM

"Why 2001 Little Hawk??" Why indeed, Teribus? ;-)

Well, I decided to take it back only that far for simplicity's sake, but I could have taken it all the way back to just after WWII when the USA and the UK decided to knock off the democratically elected government of Iran and replace it with an absolute monarchy ruled by the Shah. This effectively ended Iranian independence in any real sense.

Or I could have taken it back to the overthrow of Salvador Allende's democratically elected government in Chile and its replacement by a military dictatorship under Pinochet...after which a long series of other coups were engineered in Latin America for the benefit of USA business interests.

Both those takeovers in Iran and Chile were engineered with the help of the CIA.

Yes, Al Qaeda (or someone) definitely tried numerous attacks on the USA prior to 911, but they had very definite historical reasons for doing so. They didn't do it because they hate our freedoms, our democratic institutions or any other pretext like that...they did it because our governments have been attacking and dominating their societies ever since the end of WWII.

They did it because the USA and UK have been interfering in their lands ever since the end of WWII, propping up various dictatorial regimes (those which were compliant with USA and UK interests), supporting Israel almost no matter what Israel did, plotting the overthrow of Middle Eastern and Latin American governments who did not kowtow to American/UK business interests, etc.

It's a very old story. People who resist the neocolonialism practiced by the USA and the UK are now called "terrorists" in our media. I'm sure that the Russians call the people who resist their neocolonial efforts "terrorists" too. Well, everyone thinks the other guy is a terrorist, it seems. It's like calling someone a "nigger", kind of. Or an "anti-semite". It condemns in a single word...but it does not look beyond the word to the motivations and reasons and rationale of the people involved.

It is not surprising that some angry individuals in Muslim nations have responded with violence to the massively orchestrated instutionalized violence that has descended on them from the UK and America through the apparatus of war and business and high finance.

Anyone else would respond the same way, given the same situation.

But...I'm not at all sure that Al Qaeda was the principle actor in the various World Trade Center attacks. You have to look at who stood to gain something they wanted from those attacks. Those who wanted carte blanche to fight some wars in the Middle East gained what they wanted. Or...those who wanted to provoke the USA into a series of wars in the Middle East got what they wanted.

And that might have been Al Qaeda. Possibly. Or it might have been some highly placed people in the USA and the UK. Or it might have been Israel. Or it might have been a combination of the above 3.

Whoever it was, the vast majority of victims from the fallout of that plan have amongst Muslim populations. That's not surprising. We, the western powers and Israel, are the people who really have the WMDs, after all...and in my opinion, we (our military and politicians and big business people) are the primary terrorists.

The fact that we run up against periodic acts of resistance from the impoverished people our policies oppress is as natural and predictable as that a dog will sometimes attempt to bite you when you beat it with a baseball bat. And occasionally the dog will draw blood. Our reaction to that seems to be to yell, "Mad dog!" and shoot it with a shotgun, but the dog is not mad...it's simply defending itself.

If there is an Al Qaeda, it was American and UK policies that gave it a reason to exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: pdq
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 03:15 PM

Birdfeathers.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Tony
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 03:31 PM

quote: the USA and UK have been interfering in their lands ever since the end of WWII

Since 1908 when oil was discovered in Iran, followed shortly by the German attempt to construct a railroad from Berlin to Baghdad, and then, purely by coincidence I'm sure, World War I against Germany and its ally the Ottoman Empire (which controlled the mideast oil fields in 1914).

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Tony
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 03:34 PM

quote: You will hear very little complaint from the people of Iraq
So Cheney was right after all? They should have asked him to speak at the Republican convention, to gloat about his prediction that we will be greeted as liberators.

quote: You will hear very little complaint from the people of Afghanistan
Well, there may be some complaint implied in the fact that at least 25 percent of the Afghan army are Taliban infiltrators. The 25 percent is the official US estimate. Former ambassador Crocker says it's much higher.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 22 Sep 12 - 05:26 PM

The Austrians didn't invade Serbia and the Germans didn't make war on Belgium, Luxemburg, France, and Serbia's ally Russia, expecting to strike oil.

And it was the oil-rich Turks who started up the war in their own part of the world several months later by bombarding the Russian port of Sebastopol. Nobody had attacked them.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 03:39 AM

"Yes, Al Qaeda (or someone) definitely tried numerous attacks on the USA prior to 911, but they had very definite historical reasons for doing so."

Most certainly Al-Qaeda Little Hawk - they admitted responsibility for the attacks mentioned. And yes according to Osama bin Laden they did have very definite historical reasons for attacking the USA - but considering that the first Al-Qaeda attack on the USA was in 1993 maybe "historical" is the wrong word to use. Osama bin Laden's main grievance held against the USA? The fact that when threatened by Saddam Hussein in 1990 the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia turned to the International Community fordefence rather than accept Osama bin Laden's offer of using his "Mujahideen". Osama bin Laden was a rich little Saudi - and rich little Saudi's have never given a damn about Palestine, or anyone else - mind you it does come in handy as an excuse and it "plays well" in the "muslim world". Osama bin Laden's view of the world "as it should be", i.e. the establishment of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate under Sharia law through Jihad, is what drove him and his organisation - nothing else.

Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi succeeded to the throne of Persia in 1941, which means that your contention that he was placed there by the CIA and MI6 in 1953 complete and utter rubbish. It is not odd at all that you concentrate on US involvement in the downfall of Mosaddegh, whilst completely ommitting any mention of the Soviet backed Iranian Tudeh Party. If memory serves me correctly the Shah introduced a series of economic, social and political reforms with the stated intention of transforming Iran into a global power and modernizing the nation by nationalizing industries and granting women suffrage. Since the fall of the Shah Iran has gone backwards on all fronts. Again if memory serves me correctly Iran still maintained its parliamentary rule after 1953.

"I'm not at all sure that Al Qaeda was the principle actor in the various World Trade Center attacks"

That is rather an odd position to take seeing as KSM admitted it. That admission being backed up by supporting evidence and intelligence gathered from and by others.

"the vast majority of victims from the fallout of that plan have [been? fallen?] amongst Muslim populations. That's not surprising."

Not surprising at all - but you completely fail to mention that the the bulk of muslim deaths have been caused by Muslims killing Muslims - they tend to be very good at doing that and historically they always have been.

"If there is an Al Qaeda, it was American and UK policies that gave it a reason to exist."

Ehmmm No - try the Soviets, their invasion of Afghanistan, the Balkans, the breakup of Yugoslavia and Chechnya.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 03:48 AM

"Well, there may be some complaint implied in the fact that at least 25 percent of the Afghan army are Taliban infiltrators. The 25 percent is the official US estimate."

Oh dear, just because something is an estimate does not make it fact. But let's take a look at this "fact" of yours or rather of the US (Who in the US by the way?).

Current ISAF troop levels in Afghanistan at the moment are ~101,000.

Current strength of the ANSF is ~350,000.

So if your "fact" is indeed a "fact" then Taliban infiltrators account for ~87,500 men.

So what on earth are they waiting for? Each man could rise up tomorrow and kill one "foreign infidel invader" a piece, the really quick could kill two or three and it would be "game over".

One thing goes against this "fact" of yours - the ANSF are predominantly Uzbek, Tajik and Hazarra - very few are Pashtuns.

Your "fact" or more accurately this "estimate" is a complete and utter crock.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Tony
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 08:12 AM

quote: The Austrians didn't invade Serbia and the Germans didn't make war on Belgium, Luxemburg, France, and Serbia's ally Russia, expecting to strike oil.
Lighter, are you arguing against a ridiculous statement you think someone made, or just showing off your knowledge of history?

Teribus, you're getting foul-mouthed again, and not making any clear point. You also haven't yet said anything to support your claim that the Afghan people are happy about what US intervention has done to their country in the last 30 years. I did give one indication to the contrary, and in fact did say Who in the US estimated Taliban infiltration at much higher than 25 percent, an estimate that you chose to ignore in your quote and the accompanying math. Perhaps you could re-read my short post more carefully, or find someone in a calmer frame of mind to read it for you.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 11:15 AM

Little to support the 25% or more statement. Who made the statement? Referring document?

Lighter's statement about the compossition of the Afghan force seems to be correct, but it also illustrates a problem in both Iraq and Afghanistan. If the Pashtun in Afghanistan are nor integrated into the forces and the government there will be no peace. In the days of the shahs, the Pashtun south was left pretty much to itself. It looks like cooperation among the contenders is but a dream.

In Iraq, the Shia are in and the Sunni out, reversing the Sunni dominance under Saddam. The Kurds i the north want no part of either. The bombings will continue, with cooperation only a dream.

We are witnessing an attempt to kick out the ruling minority in Syria, but there will never be full integration, whatever happens.

Yes, Muslims are killing Muslims, but the contending Muslim factions are as far apart as the Catholics and Protestants of many years ago- it was some 200 years or so before they could live together.

It was the Allies after WW1 who divided up the Ottoman Empire, which had been moderately successful in keeping peace. Loss of Ottoman control also guaranteed continuing upheavel in the Balkans, where many of the populace had adopted the Muslim faith.
Territorial divisions were made in the Middle East to push Western dominance and "split the spoils" that threw unlikes together and guaranteed strife, especially as weapons became cheaper and more available.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: pdq
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 11:33 AM

"Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi succeeded to the throne of Persia in 1941..."

Not only that, the Pahlavi Monarchy was established in 1925 with Shah I. The man we knew as The Shah of Iran was actually Shah II. The monarchy that the Pahlavis replaced had deteroriated to the point that a 12 year old disturbed creep was made king.

The people of Iran loved The Shah, and his wife is still the most beloved figure in Iran to this day.

The Shah wanted to let the people have more power so he set up a parliament that served at his pleasure. They decided to elect a president when they did not have any power to do so. Various extreme Muslim groups, organized crime as well as a large of group of Soviet-backed Reds joined the new president to threaten The Shah.

He fled until army factions, supported by the USA and, yes, the CIA, helped The Shah get back to his position safely. The Shah was a real reformer and led an honest secular government. Muslims extremests, crime cartels and Communists hated the Shah and alwasys posed a threat to the Pahlavi manarchy. It fell in 1979, thank to a push from Jimmy Carter's ineptitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 12:02 PM

The Shah tried to force a "White revolution", with the aid of the Secret police, the SAVAK. Islamic leaders, especially Ruhollah Khomeini, gathered resistance and the government collapsed in 1979.

He was a reformer, not loved but hated by large factions. Another want-to-be dictator.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: pdq
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 01:16 PM

Reforms initiated by the shah of Iran in 1963

Iran's ruler, Mohammad Reza Shah Pahlavi (r. 1941 - 1979), in January 1963 launched a series of reform policies that he called the White Revolution. The domestic aim was to undermine the political appeal of an influential but diffuse opposition movement by appropriating programs such as land tenure reform that it long had advocated. There also was an international objective: to win favor with Iran's principal foreign ally, the United States, which then was a major source of economic and military assistance. During the administration of John F. Kennedy (1961 - 1963), U.S. policy supported economic and social reforms in countries such as Iran as a means of undercutting the appeal of antiregime movements that were perceived as being allied with the Soviet Union. Thus the major element of the shah's White Revolution was a land reform program (actually begun a year earlier) that eventually would redistribute about one-half of private agricultural land to peasants holding traditional sharecropping rights (approximately one-half of all village families).

Five other programs also comprised the White Revolution at its outset. These included the nationalization of forests; sales of shares in (some) government-owned industries; plans for workers to share in profits of large factories; voting rights for women; and the formation within the army of a literacy corps of draftees assigned to villages as teachers. Later, the literacy corps model was extended to a health corps (for draftees who had college-level training in medicine) and a development corps (for college graduate draftees). By the mid-1970s the White Revolution comprised a total of eighteen programs.

The results of the White Revolution were mixed. On the positive side, about half a million peasants obtained adequate land under the land reform program to engage in profitable farming, primary schools were established in several hundred villages that previously had none, and small towns and rural areas benefited from various government development initiatives. On the negative side, perhaps the most serious deficiency of the White Revolution was the raising of popular expectations that remained unfulfilled. With respect to land reform, for example, one-half of all rural families received no land at all; among those obtaining land, about 73 percent got less than six hectares, an amount sufficient only for subsistence farming. The net result was the creation of widespread disillusionment in villages. This pattern - some benefits accruing to a minority but overall disappointment for the majority - characterized many of the White Revolution programs by the early 1970s. At the same time, a class devoted to the White Revolution became part of the required curriculum in Iran's high schools. Criticism of the White Revolution - or any other policy of the shah - came to be regarded as a punishable political offense. As expressing praise for the White Revolution came to be associated with professing loyalty to the shah's regime, and, conversely, criticizing it came to be associated with opposition, any objective assessment of its actual achievements and failings in the years leading up to the 1979 Iranian Revolution became virtually impossible.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 01:59 PM

What reference are you quoting?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 08:23 PM

NOW we are getting somewhere with this discussion! Excellent posts!

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 09:09 PM

This brief history gives another perspective (Interesting, though I cant vouch for the author, or the accuracy):
A Brief History of 20th-Century Iran

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 09:16 PM

With the conflicting colononial interests over the past hundreds of years or so in Iran, is it odd that they distrust those from the outside?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 09:35 PM

> is it odd that they distrust those from the outside?

After thirty-plus years, "distrust" is one thing. Repeatedly threatening to wipe out another nation (with no conceivable designs on Iranian territory), while evidently working on a nuclear bomb to do it with, is quite another.

And the UN Security Council has decided seven times that that's what Iran seems to be doing, in violation of its signed and ratified commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: pdq
Date: 23 Sep 12 - 09:48 PM

Thanks, Mr. Ed. Your article is reasonably neutral. Here is the core part about 1953:

"In 1949, Mohammad Mossadeq formed the National Front Party, with the aim of upholding the 1906 Constitution. One of the main goals of the National Front was to nationalize Iran's oil industry; the British continued to control most of Iran's oil revenue through the Anglo-Persian Oil Company. In 1951, the Shah appointed Mossadeq as prime minister. Mossadeq followed through on his plans to nationalize the oil industry, and the National Iranian Oil Company was formed. For many Iranians, Mossadeq became a nationalist leader. To some Western leaders with economic interests in the Middle East, his actions set an unwelcome precedent. In 1952 Mossadeq was named Time magazine's Man of the Year. In 1953 the British MI-6 and the CIA undertook Operation Ajax, which toppled Mossadeq from power. To many Iranians, Mossadeq became a symbol of yet another moment in history when foreign intervention played a pivotal role in thwarting a democratic movement in Iran. Meanwhile, as Iran emerged from the political unrest of the 1950s, its economy was in tatters."

At least this version correctly shows The Shah appointing Dr. Mossadeq. He was originally voted Prime Minister by the parliament, but was dismissed by The Shah when he nationalized British oil interests and caused the country's economic collapse.

The Shah was forced to re-appoint him due to Communist-backed riots as well as nationalist fervor. Note who has the power: the monarch, not the appointed Prime Minister. Note also, Mossadeq was voted into the parliament by the people in one district, but never faced an election as Prime Minister except that of his buddies in a stacked parliament, not a general election.

Dr. Mossadeq was a medical doctor and a likeable chap, but he was hopelessas as a leader. Several factions wanted him as Prime Minister becauase they saw ham as maleable. His replacement, General Zahedi, was very loyal to the Pahlavi family, having served in military campaigns with Shah I, father of the better known Shah.

Sadly, about 90% of the sites on the www present a version of the 1953 insurrection and call it a coup against Mossadeq. The account comes from a pathelogical liar name John Perkins, but as absurd as it is factually, the Perkins rubbish serves the political purposes of a great many people.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 01:40 AM

No Guest Tony you stated the 25% figure as an "official" US estimate (Note estimate not actual) for Taliban infiltration but provided no reference as to which US Government Department issued that estimate - you quoted an ex-US Ambassador as saying that he thought that it was higher.

The other false assumption that you and many others make is that every so-called "Green on Blue" incident is "politically" motivated, thet every incident involves a "Taliban sleeper" - They don't

Outrage at US "killing squads", at US Marines urinating on corpses, at acts of desecration involving the Koran, offensive cartoons and films could all provoke acts by individuals that have nothing whatsoever to do with the Taliban. Another explanation in some cases amounts to personal animosity, stress and somebody just snapping.

Your 25% figure is a crock, were it true then ISAF could not operate, they have operated extremely effectively in Afghanistan for the last six years (since they assumed responsibility from the US-OEF forces)

"For the British, one of the main aims of Operation Qalb is to reinforce security around Gereshk, the busy town that accounts for more than half of the people in Nahr-e Saraj. Having driven the insurgents out of Gereshk, street by street, building by building, this is one of the military's showpiece legacies.

The bazaar here used to look like a bomb had hit it, or several probably. Now that it is vibrant and comparatively calm, business has begun to take root. In the last two years, 500 shops have been built in the town, and all have been bought.

Talking to Afghans who live there, it is obvious they are grateful for being in the security bubble. They also admit feeling apprehensive about what will happen when Isaf leaves.

Bahlool Khan, who has just been re-elected as chair of the Gereshk local council, said: "In the past there was a lot of fighting. There was a lot of bloodshed and people were killing each other. There was no education, no health. People were hiding behind walls. Nobody trusts the insurgents. People have not forgotten." - Guardian - 20th September, 2012

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 07:29 AM

As to the distrust and nukes - if what you see as an enemy of yours has superiour military power (and most likely likely nukes,) and you see them as a threat is it completely illogical that you would seek the same?

While Iran certainly is no friend of Israel, and likewise Israel is not a friend of Iran (over the Palistian issue) there are reasonable doubts as to the translation of what was said about Iran"threatening to wipe out Israel". There is no doubt that some have promoted the interpretation that was mentioned below.


My understanding is that the UN nuclear watchdog has never actualy said that Iran violated the treaty?


The treaty says that "countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament; countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them; and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy."

Some reports that I have read indicate that the USA is slated to upgrading their nukes (likely followed by China and Russia). Would this not be a violation of the treaty?

And, let's not forget majors who have not ratified and have obtained nukes (Pakistan and India) outside the treaty, (who are friends of the West) who also pose a threat to world peace.

Another good question is do some of the countries who have signed the treaty (for example Turkey) hold weapons owned by other states? If so, would that not be a violation? Is Turkey is a nuclear power?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 07:37 AM

Don't get me wrong, I do not see any one nation as the "bad guy" in this area of the world. I am just trying to "see through the massive "bs" from all sides (and there is alot in this area of the world) to get a more realistic picture of what is actually happening.
Sometimes, looking at what has happened in the past (at least, what has been unearthed) can give a lens, though cloudy, as to what is most likely to be happening now.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Stringsinger
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 03:45 PM

Is there really a reason for NATO to exist at all?

Afghanistan is a stranger to democratic values. It's tribalism and compartmentalized societies make it unworkable to influence culturally or politically but one thing for sure, they ridded themselves of the Russians and they will do the
same for Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 24 Sep 12 - 04:50 PM

NATO's original role was to "deter Soviet expansion, stop nationalist militarism in Europe, and encourage European political integration".

The role now seems quite broadened and flexible to cover a variety of threats to its members interests.

NATO

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 01:21 AM

So Ed T the reason that the NATO alliance was formed originally must be cast in stone and the raison d'être can never be altered to reflect current times and changing threats? What a "special" world you must live in.

Israel not a friend of Iran?? Were it not for Israel and the USA Iran would have lost the 1980 Iran/Iraq War. A fact conveniently forgotten by most. As to what has been said or not said regarding "wiping Israel from the map", the only perception of what has been said that matters is the Israeli one - they after all are the ones specifically mentioned, so if the leadership od Iran is speaking figuratively then it is encumbent upon that leadership to convince Israel and the rest of the world that it does not intend to actually wipe Israel off the map - so far they have made no move in that direction at all and their state sponsorship of both Hamas and Hezbollah and their willingness to flood South Lebanon with thousands of medium range tactical rockets in defiance of UN Resolutions realistically can do nothing whatsoever do dispel Israeli misgivings about the situation.

I think that the IAEA has stated that Iran is not abiding by the terms and conditions of the Treaty - the main charge being that Iran has consistently acted in such a manner that IAEA inspectors cannot do their job (North Korea played the same game while it was a signatory of the nuclear NPT)

"The treaty says that "countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament; countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them; and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy."

Some reports that I have read indicate that the USA is slated to upgrading their nukes (likely followed by China and Russia). Would this not be a violation of the treaty?"

Here we have your compartmentalisation effect again - all of the about are connected - the major nuclear powers have in fact reduced their stockpile of nuclear weapons by over 65% - Upgrading something does not automatically mean any increase in numbers, size, or capability.

"let's not forget majors who have not ratified and have obtained nukes (Pakistan and India) outside the treaty, (who are friends of the West) who also pose a threat to world peace."

Ah so whilst Pakistan was regarded as a pariah state by the US and India was closely tied to the USSR, i.e. in the time both those counries acquired their nuclear weapons - they were not a threat to world peace?? How come? And what was that you said at the beginning? - Oh yes:

"if what you see as an enemy of yours has superiour military power (and most likely likely nukes,) and you see them as a threat is it completely illogical that you would seek the same?"

So while nations with a recent history of hostile intent are acquiring nuclear weapons you wish everybody else to get rid of them?? Are you totally barking mad?

Stringsinger: "one thing for sure, they rid themselves of the Russians and they will do the same for Americans."

Well not until 2024 at least according to recently signed bilateral agreements between Afghanistan and the USA - and US businesses get the contracts to re-equip the ANSF.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 08:05 AM

""So Ed T the reason that the NATO alliance was formed originally must be cast in stone and the raison d'être can never be altered to reflect current times and changing threats?""

I never said that, or made that reach, Broda' - you did. A bit defensive today are we?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 09:21 AM

On CNN last night, Ahmadinejad backed off slightly from his threat to "wipe Israel off the map" (which, BTW, he didn't deny saying):

http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/24/world/meast/iran-ahmadinejad-interview/index.html

Now what he's saying is that only the Israeli occupations and other alleged Israeli practices should be "wiped out." He went further to suggest that Israeli recognition of a Palestinian state would solve the problem.

Just words. The nuclear program forges ahead. However, the words suggest a more conciliatory attitude and might herald a shift in Iranian policy. Or maybe not. The point is they're something new, whatever they might finally mean.

It's worth remembering too that Ahmadinejad is not the ultimate arbiter of Iranian policy. That would be the Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, who more than once has described Israel in Hitleresque terms as a "cancer" and a "tumor that must be excised." He seems not to have suggested explicitly that Iran should do the excising.

No combatant would have much to gain from an Iranian-Israeli war. Air strikes would set back the nuclear program, but they wouldn't end it, and the Iranians might well retaliate with an all-out terror campaign against both Israel and the U.S. Which would likely result in more military action against Iran to no long-range constructive purpose.

The only wild card that could lead to an Israeli attack is the combination of Iranian rhetoric, Iran's enthusiastic sponsorship of anti-Israeli terrorism, and its blockage of the UN nuclear inspectors (like Saddam Hussein in one of the stupidest mistakes of the century).

Actions will speak louder than words.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 10:21 AM

Most of the analysis I have read indicates that Ahmadinejad did not make the "much quoted, wipe Israel off of the map" statement. That a mistranslation occured - and that he was quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini, "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time".

While that may seem like a similar statement, a closer look at his speech and other statements indicates it may not necessarily be so. Other elements of his speech leads many to believe that Ahmadinejad seemed to be refering to other rewgeme changes (Soviet Union) and was calling for "some type of regime change", with greater democratic involvement of Palistinians, "in Palistine", not military action. You be the judge?


Regardless, I agree that supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, has most of the power in Iran and later said "We have no problem with the world. We are not a threat whatsoever to the world, and the world knows it. We will never start a war. We have no intention of going to war with any state." Odd that this statement does not get equal treatment in the media? Could the same media forces be in play to spread mis-information to the willing (for one reason or another), that was seen before and during the Kuwait mission?

I link a site below. Maybe it is propaganda, maybe it is not. But, it seems reasonable not to take everything at face value, as we are faced with alot of propaganda from all sides, to promote various causes. In weighing out who to believe and in what ballance, I sometimes ask, who has been best at spreading propoganda in the past?

Fabricated?

On another front-angle, I havent read much of it yet, but there is a lot of information on this site that relates to the 1953 Iranian Coup and possible impacts to today.

Info related to Mossadedh

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 11:14 AM

Israeli Minister Agrees Ahmadinejad Never Said Israel 'Must Be Wiped Off the Map'



NY Times

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 11:30 AM

> Odd that this statement does not get equal treatment in the media?

Not that odd, because of its inconsistency with more frequent, more bellicose statements against Israel, combined with the nuclear program and disregard of the UN. Which would it be more prudent to believe?

Talk in international relations is cheap.

There is no reason other than fear for its own existence for Israel to attack Iran, which is many times its size. Iran can protect itself and the entire region by cooperating with the UN, laying off the hostile rhetoric, and ending the enrichment of uranium beyond internationally recognized peaceful requirements. The cost to Iran? Virtually nothing.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 12:07 PM

""Not that odd, because of its inconsistency with more frequent, more bellicose statements against Israel, combined with the nuclear program and disregard of the UN. Which would it be more prudent to believe?""

So, if their other statements are all that bad, (and I am not sayingthet they are are are not) why would the mainstream media (normally concerned with accuracy) need to fabricate and retain something that is untrue and clearly inflames the situation, as it is repeated by many folks to justify the Israel (and US) case against Iran. Why not use these "actual" quotes, rather than the fabricated ones? Because they are not bad enough?

""Talk in international relations is cheap"".
Yes, I suspect so on all sides.

""There is no reason other than fear for its own existence for Israel to attack Iran, which is many times its size.""

True, but Israel has powerful friends and Nukes to boot. And, it has attacked others before, for similar reasons. Additionally, Iran (from the history of intervention) has good reasons of its own to feel isolated, and fear these "Israel relationships" and feel a need to defend itself. When folks feel threatened, with their backs against the wall (as both nations do) they take whatever action they feel necessary to protect themselves. I suspect with Iran the attitude may be "if our ememies have nukes, we also need them to protect ourselves and restore our place in the world-like with India, and Pakistan" (But, we really don't know that they are producing them, for as you state, they are often inconsistant).

As to the distrust of the UN, were there not cases in the past where UN inspectors were proven to also be spying for other nations-just wondering.

""Iran can protect itself and the entire region by cooperating with the UN, laying off the hostile rhetoric, and ending the enrichment of uranium beyond internationally recognized peaceful requirements. The cost to Iran? Virtually nothing.""

Being closer to the action, Iran seems to disagrees with your assessment. Personaly<,I am not privy to internal information, so my assessment would not be useful to any of the parties directly involved.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: pdq
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 12:29 PM

Mr. Ed sez: "...why would the mainstream media (normally concerned with accuracy)..."

What planet does this guy live on?

Every word from the "mainstream media" is carefully crafted to promote their political agenda.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 02:32 PM

Thanks, Ed T, for bringing up the actual statements by Ahmadinejad and the Ayatollah.
Iran should have the same rights to nuclear technology as Pakistan, India, and-   Israel.

Israel continues to demand control of the Middle East.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 03:12 PM

""Every word from the "mainstream media" is carefully crafted to promote their political agenda."'

Glad you picked up on that one, pdq, I was hopeful that someone would:) Of course many in the mainstream media are biased, and easily led. Or at least their bosses or "organ" owners are.

And, a related question, who (from what political agenda and nations) controls much of the mainstream media?

OK, a puzzling question:

Why would people on this site, who are likely at a minimum, of moderate awareness and should know the difference (a simple GOOGLE can assist), promote such "fabricated bunk" - fed to them by the biased mainstream media to promote a cause? What purpose does it serve for the "garden variety" folk music lover?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Lighter
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 05:18 PM

> Israel continues to demand control of the Middle East.

If so, isn't she doing a damned poor job of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Sep 12 - 05:43 PM

My statement says 'continues to demand', not that it is doing it.
An increase from its current bullying to attempted control would bring even more strife and death.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 01:22 AM

"Israel continues to demand control of the Middle East."

Any substantive evidence of Israel EVER doing that??

The only thing I know that Israel has both demanded and defended since it was recognised as an independent sovereign state in 1948 is it's right for it's State and it's people to exist in peace.

It does not matter a jot what whichever Iranian leader said, if that statement was misinterpreted it is encumbent upon the leadership of Iran to clarify what it both said and meant - Iran having made a statement must address Israeli fears and concerns - To date it by word and by deed has done neither.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 02:01 AM

Any substantive evidence of Israel EVER doing that?

The Interview with the Israeli minister that Ed linked to. Bibi the baby demanding a "red line" for Iran from the US. Israel controlling the borders of Gaza and the West Bank. One could list these things all day.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 08:38 AM

What Iran keeps asking why the international community (the UN and the west) not concerned about the Israeli nukes, and send in inspecters to look at their nuclear program? Why is it one sided?
Is this not a good question? If not, why not?

That question has never been addressed. Few doubt that Israel has access to nukes (directly or through others). If you believe the cold war reasoning, two sides having nukes ensures that they will not be used - because it would be the end of both if either uses them.

Iran also says that it is illogical to believe Iran would ever use a nuke, as they would be hit with 5,000 weapoons if they ever used one. I suspect they do not hjave a death wish, so does this not make sense? If not, tell me why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 08:49 AM

Iran certainly has a right to a nuclear energy and medical isotope production.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Sep 12 - 12:58 PM

What is left of what is proposed as Palestine is no longer viable; essentially cut in half and Israeli settlements expanding every day.

Israel will only stop its expansion and bullying if faced with a strong deterrent; Iran could perform this function.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 02:40 AM

"What Iran keeps asking why the international community (the UN and the west) not concerned about the Israeli nukes, and send in inspecters to look at their nuclear program? Why is it one sided?
Is this not a good question? If not, why not?"

Iran is a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty - Israel is not.

Iran got "its foot on the nuclear ladder" through the auspices of the UN "Atoms for Peace" programme which forbids use of the assistance and technology provided to gain or develop nuclear weapons.

Israel's nuclear programme, which considering its lack of natural resources, particularly fossil fuels is totally rational, is about one year younger than that of the UK. Israel's nuclear programme pre-dates the UN Nuclear NPT by about 13 years.

So not one-sided at all, the circumstances are completely different.

Most advocating the necessity of Iran to acquire nuclear weapons (You all now have retreated from supporting the rather ludicrous Iranian contention that they do not have a weapons programme) and indeed the desirability of them having nuclear weapons forget one thing - the Iranian nuclear weapons programme was supposed to be secret - the Libyan nuclear weapons programme was secret - the Syrian nuclear weapons programme was secret

Post nuclear NPT there is only one reason that you build a secret nuclear weaon - you intend to use it. Those weapons were not meant to be delivered conventionally (aircraft, rocket or missile) they were meant to be delivered component by component and assembled at their target. If anyone dismisses that possibility then take a look at the time line and events:

- 2002 US defence and intelligence agencies define greatest threat as an anonymous, asymmetric terrorist attack involving nuclear, chemical or biological weapons backed by a "rogue state". A list of candidates for the role of "rogue state" is drawn up both Iraq, Iran, Libya, Syria and North Korea appear as potential candidates.

- 2003 Action is taken to remove Iraq from that list, a dissident group in Iran reveals the existence of Iran's "secret" uranium enrichment facilities, the US National Intelligence Evaluation is of the opinion that Iran has suspended its nuclear weapons programme.

- 2003 the illegal nuclear weapons proliferation network of Pakistani Dr A.Q.Khan is uncovered, along with Libyan and Syrian secret nuclear weapons programmes.

- From 2003 Iran puts massive energy into missile development as now having been caught out instead of them having an offensive weapon it now must be reconfigured so that it can now serve as a deterrent. The Iranians can now hit anywhere in Europe and can send ballistic missiles into Russia, a fact that was not lost on either French President Jacques Chirac (who reconfigured the missile payloads on French Submarines) or on Russian President Vladimir Putin.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 02:49 AM

"What is left of what is proposed as Palestine is no longer viable; essentially cut in half and Israeli settlements expanding every day."

Great pity that the Arabs of Palestine did not accept the 1947 UN Plan isn't it? There would have been no loss of life, none of the Arab Israeli wars, and guess what Q? Palestine and Israel would have both been cut in half and both over the years both would have expanded.

But having been betrayed and played as "political pawns" by their so-called leaders, friends and allies, the Arabs of Palestine have thrown away opportunity after opportunity time after time since 1947.

If you chose war and violence (which the Arabs of Palestine most certainly did in 1948) then at least have the guts and the integrity to accept the consequences of your decisions and actions. If you do believe that any Palestinian State is now no longer viable does that mean the efforts and motives of those claiming to strive for it are somewhat suspect and that any agreement made is only a stop-gap, a breathing space, before the next war? That after all is what the Arab side has always proclaimed.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 07:00 AM

""Iran is a signatory of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty - Israel is not...""

Yes, signed by a USA-backed regime (I did not say puppet), which was overthrown and many of the former policies rejected. The fact that Israel did not sign the treaty does not limit their weapons impact in the region and lesson the resons for the International community to be concerned and investigate - if one side in a dispute has surperiour military power then it is likely the other will want them.

Israel's nuclear programme, which considering its lack of natural resources, particularly fossil fuels is totally rational, is about one year younger than that of the UK. Israel's nuclear programme pre-dates the UN Nuclear NPT by about 13 years....
""

Seems like you talked yourself around a circle on this one, (foccused on Israel's nuclear power, much like Iran does) and provided no reason why Israel needs Nuclear weapons (or that the possession of was not the factor that created the current situation) - There is little doubt Israel has a nuclear weapon, and as you state ""there is only one reason that you build a secret nuclear weaon - you intend to use it.""

Because of poor government and industry management, santions, exports and declining oil production (and increasing domestic power demand, partly fueled by energy subsidies), Iran is also facing domestic energy issues. My understanding is that they are refinery poor and actually import refined product.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 07:26 AM

Of 123 poll votes on this site, 50 felt that of all nine countries with nuclear bombs, Israel is the most likely to use them. USA comes in second.   Pakistan comes in third. Foof for thought.

Most likely to use "the bomb"

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 12:07 PM

WOW to be taken as absolute Gospel - DEMOCRATICUnderground.com - F**kin' Hell who wud of thunk it.

But instead of polls let us look at fact, borne out by track record.

If Israel had nuclear weaposn and had an inkling to use them they would have done so in 1967 - THEY DIDN'T

If Israel had nuclear weaposn and had an inkling to use them they would have done so in 1973 - THEY DIDN'T

OK then Ed T tell under what circumstance Israel would be so ready to use its nuclear weapons. For that matter show me any substantive proof that they even have them.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 12:19 PM

Teribus,

Why would they use nukes in a wars that they won without them?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 12:51 PM

Hey Jack don't know if you were around in June 1967 but no-one in the run up to that one gave the Israelis a cat in hell's chance of survival. In 1973 the israeli's were caught completely off guard and for the first 48 hours things looked decidedly shakey for them.

Fact remains that when under tremendous pressure and very real threats they did not resort or threaten the use of nuclear weapons they may or may not have had. If you believe otherwise then please offer substanive evidence to prove it.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: pdq
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 01:32 PM

People who cannot get their way by using facts will often resort to polls and/or predictions.

Both polls and predictions are usually junk.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 01:47 PM

""Both polls and predictions are usually junk.""

As are many opinions, buased or not:)

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 01:52 PM

""Fact remains that when under tremendous pressure and very real threats they did not resort or threaten the use of nuclear weapons they may or may not have had. If you believe otherwise then please offer substanive evidence to prove it""

Where is the credible and verifiable proof that anyone in this dispute used "the threat of nuclear weapons"? If you have it, put it forward - and I did say credible and verifiable and not the fabricated stuff.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Greg F.
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 02:30 PM

Proof? Teribus? Surely you jest.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 03:13 PM

A review of this shows Iran is no military match for Israel alone or with the support of others. So, where is the threat?

Even if they had a nuclear weapon (which they don't), surely using one would result in, as Ahmadinejad recently said, hundreds of Nuclear weapons used against Iran in retaliation (inside military sources have reporter Israel has quite a few of it's own, and the with the support of others the use of more).


Iran's options to an Israeli attack

Israel attack capability


""Doesn't Israel have a nuclear bomb?

Israel, is not a party to the NPT (Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty), so is not obliged to report to it. Neither are India or Pakistan, both of which have developed nuclear weapons. North Korea has left the treaty and has announced that it has acquired a nuclear weapons capacity.

On 18 September 2009, the IAEA (International Atomic Energy Agency) called on Israel to join the NPT and open its nuclear facilities to inspection. The resolution said that the IAEA "expresses concern about the Israeli nuclear capabilities, and calls upon Israel to accede to the NPT and place all its nuclear facilities under comprehensive IAEA safeguards... "

Israel refuses to join the NPT or allow inspections. It is reckoned to have up to 400 warheads but refuses to confirm or deny this.""

Source

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 03:45 PM

Here are clips of ahmadinejad on Cnn- Piers Morgan.

He is in his last term and seems to be having issues with the supreme religious leader at hime (who seems to hold the real power).

Not quite sure of what to make of it. Has he been demonized, has he been mis-understood, is he playing a strategy game or both sides, has he "come around", or is he just being a polition? Beats me. History will tell. Regardless, his shelf life seems to be nearer to it's end.


Clips of ahmadinejad on Piers Morgan

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 27 Sep 12 - 03:57 PM

Am I being asked to prove that Israel did not use Nuclear weapons in wars which they won because the news reports that Teribus say at the time that they might have been losing?

Also who has said the Israel even had nukes in 1967 and 1973? They could have stockpile them in the 39 years since then.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: GUEST,Teribus
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 01:30 AM

The timing for when Israel may or may not have built its own nuclear weapon comes from their big bust up with France in the 1960's. Most likely period would have been between 1963 and 1966.

With regard to Iran's nuclear weapons programme, because their secret uranium enrichment facilities were uncovered, they have had to, rather embarrassingly, rejig their entire set up. My contention has always been that the secret nuclear weapons programmes of Iran, Libya and Syria were geared to produce small "tactical" nuclear weapons and that these weapons were to be smuggled into either Israel, the West Bank or Gaza and detonated. The greatest damage would be done if they targeted Tel Aviv and Haifa, however "politically" they could inflict a great deal of damage on Israel were they to detonate their weapons in the West Bank or Gaza. The Palestinians?? No Arab State has ever given a flying f**k about the Arabs of Palestine, so why should Persian Iran?? The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not end the "lives" of those cities, the tactical nukes smuggled in and used against Israel would "wipe Israel from the map" and "eradicate the stain from Muslim lands" leaving those lands free to be reclaimed.

"Where is the credible and verifiable proof that anyone in this dispute used "the threat of nuclear weapons"? "

I am not the one introducing "poll" results to support the contention that Israel would be first most likely to use nuclear weapons am I? In actual fact on the 11th March 1965 they gave the US a solemn promise that - "The Government of Israel has reaffirmed that Israel will not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the Arab-Israel area." (Source - "Office of the Historian - Historical Documents - Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XVIII, Arab-Israeli Dispute, 1964–67 - Document 185". History.state.gov.)

"Iran is no military match for Israel alone or with the support of others. So, where is the threat?"

The threat to Israel emanating from Iran?? Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in South Lebanon ans Syria.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 07:11 AM

Get real terribus, you can do better than that!

The challenge to you was to provide proof of your alegartions that one of the parties in the discussion (either Israel or Iran) threatened to use a nuclear bomb (BTW, I dont see anyone that believes Iran now has one to use) - not opinions in a thin internet poll. You are talking around in circles.


""The threat to Israel emanating from Iran?? Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in South Lebanon ans Syria.""

So, that is why Israel needs the nukes they have - to bomb Gaza, South Lebanan and Syria - (it was you who said ""there is only one reason that you build a secret nuclear weapon - you intend to use it."" I expect if used in this manner, Israel could feel some "nuke blowback" from using one of their 40 or so so close to home?

?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 07:22 AM

You are right.
They could not use them unless they were facing extinction anyway.
The Samson option.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Stringsinger
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 11:25 AM

Israel is heavily armed, not in dispute, and the willingness of Netanyahu to pre-emptive
invasion of Iran is well documented. This is madness and the possibility of Israel
causing another world war.

In the meantime, apartheid exists in Israel's oppression of the Palestinians, voiced by
commentators such as Desmond Tutu, Alice Walker and others.

Afghanistan has minerals and exportable energy resources and this is why the US is invading.
The proof of this is that the US policy in Iraq was about claiming oil.

Instead of military actions, the US would win "hearts and minds" by building hospitals and schools instead of military contractors.

Israel and the US share a hegemonic view of the Mid-East that is a built-in failed policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 28 Sep 12 - 03:45 PM

"Instead of military actions, the US would win "hearts and minds" by building hospitals and schools instead of military contractors."

It is being done as I post. By my government and others while they don't have the money to do it here at home.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 01:46 AM

apartheid exists in Israel's oppression of the Palestinians

I dispute that.
Of all the countries with Palestian communities, none have a better existance than those in Israel.
Oppressed people leave countries.
No Palestinians choose to live in an Arab regime.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 02:14 AM

Independent 2009
a second Palestinian "Nakba", or catastrophe – this one at hands of the Arab governments. "Marginalised, deprived of basic political and economic rights, trapped in the camps, bereft of realistic prospects, heavily armed and standing atop multiple fault lines," a report by the International Crisis Group (ICG) in Lebanon recently observed, "the refugee population constitutes a time bomb."

The fact that the divided Palestinian political leadership is silent about the mistreatment of the refugees by Arab states does not make such behaviour any less reprehensible – or less dangerous. Some 250,000 Palestinians were chased out of Kuwait and other Gulf States to punish the Palestinian political leadership for supporting Saddam Hussein. Tens of thousands of Palestinian residents of Iraq were similarly dispossessed after the second Gulf war.

In 2001, Palestinians in Lebanon were stripped of the right to own property, or to pass on the property that they already owned to their children – and banned from working as doctors, lawyers, pharmacists or in 20 other professions. Even the Palestinian refugee community in Jordan, historically the most welcoming Arab state, has reason to feel insecure in the face of official threats to revoke their citizenship. The systematic refusal of Arab governments to grant basic human rights to Palestinians who are born and die in their countries – combined with periodic mass expulsions of entire Palestinian communities – recalls the treatment of Jews in medieval Europe

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 07:08 AM

""Oppressed people leave countries"".


I am not sure if this statement is broadly true, if so intended?
One noted contrary example to this would be the North American Aboriginal peoples?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 07:35 AM

When considering the history of the Palestinians it is also interesting to consider the plight of the Kurdish people:


Wiki:
Kurds


Kurds in Syria
Kurds in syria

Brief history of Kurdistan

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 07:45 AM

The North American aboriginal peoples did not have a choice of countries they could get to before lunch.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Stringsinger
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 10:46 AM

Palestinians are second class citizens in Israel and are not even recognized. Instead they are referred to as "Arabs". I dispute that they are happy in that status there.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 11:07 AM

They are not citizens at all in Arab countries.
For all that you say, they have a better existence inside Israel than their brethren in surrounding states.
Small cheer for Israel?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 11:37 AM

""The North American aboriginal peoples did not have a choice of countries they could get to before lunch.""

Ummmm???

There were options (in historic phases) for Aboriginal peoples to move throughout North America, to go to areas with less opression. Those in Canada and the USA had (and now have freedom) to move from one country to the other - if they feel opressed in their home area. Yet, most tended to "stay put" - regardless of the greater or lesser opression, as it changed historically.

Also, most blacks in the USA tended to also stay past slavery, even though there were some options open.

I feel that your general statement is too broad and there are far too many confounding factors to offer much for reflection - at least beyond the local point you raised it to reinforce. It is just more complex than that. For this reason, I hold in "suspect" most general statements of a similar nature put out to make a specific point.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: bobad
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 11:43 AM

"Palestinians are second class citizens in Israel and are not even recognized. Instead they are referred to as "Arabs"."

From Wikipedia:

How to refer to the Arab citizenry of Israel is a highly politicized issue and there are a number of self-identification labels used by members of this community.[11][12] Generally speaking, supporters of Israel tend to use Israeli Arab or Arab Israeli to refer to this population, while critics of Israel (or supporters of Palestinians) tend to use Palestinian or Palestinian Arab without referencing Israel.[13] According to the New York Times, most prefer now to identify themselves as Palestinian citizens of Israel rather than as Israeli Arabs.[14] The New York Times uses both 'Palestinian Israelis'[15] and 'Israeli Arabs' to refer to the same population.

Common practice in contemporary academic literature is to identify this community as Palestinian as it is how the majority self-identify (See Self-Identification below for more).[16] Terms preferred by most Arab citizens to identify themselves include Palestinians, Palestinians in Israel, Israeli Palestinians, the Palestinians of 1948, Palestinian Arabs, Palestinian Arab citizens of Israel or Palestinian citizens of Israel.[5][11][12][17][18][19] There are, however, individuals from among the Arab citizenry who reject the term Palestinian altogether.[11] A minority of Israel's Arab citizens include "Israeli" in some way in their self-identifying label; the majority identify as Palestinian by nationality and Israeli by citizenship.[6][12]

The Israeli establishment prefers Israeli Arabs or Arabs in Israel, and also uses the terms the minorities, the Arab sector, Arabs of Israel and Arab citizens of Israel.[5][17][20][18][21] These labels have been criticized for denying this population a political or national identification, obscuring their Palestinian identity and connection to Palestine.[20][18][21] The term Israeli Arabs in particular is viewed as a construct of the Israeli authorities.[20][18][21][22] It is nonetheless used by a significant minority of the Arab population, "reflecting its dominance in Israeli social discourse."[12]

Other terms used to refer to this population include Palestinian Arabs in Israel, Israeli Palestinian Arabs, and the Arabs inside the Green Line (or the Arabs within Arabic: عرب الداخل‎).[5][17][20] The latter appellation, among others listed above, are not applied to the East Jerusalem Arab population or the Druze in the Golan Heights, as these territories were occupied by Israel in 1967. As the Israel Central Bureau of Statistics defines the area covered in its statistics survey as including East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, the number of Arabs in Israel is calculated as just over 20% of the Israeli population (2010).[1]

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: bobad
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 11:53 AM

"I dispute that they are happy in that status there."

From Wikipedia:

"In a 2006 patriotism survey, 56% of Israeli Arabs were not proud of their citizenship and 73% were not ready to fight to defend the state, but 77% said that Israel was better than most other countries and 53% were proud of the country's welfare system. Eighty-two percent said they would rather be a citizen of Israel than of any other country in the world"

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 01:21 PM

Digression, like mold on old bread, has taken over. How many mudcat threads on the Israeli-Palestinian problem?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: bobad
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 01:44 PM

Don't you know that the Jews are the cause of all the problems in the Middle East and if they can only be made to disappear the place would be a paradise.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 01:56 PM

Q... agreed.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 02:26 PM

OK gnu and Q, why not contribute something on the topic to bring the drift back, as most threads drift?
Complaints alone is a fruitless path:)

Here is a start, from me:
How could it be different?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 02:35 PM

Where the Soviets, USA and Nato may have failed to "reign Afghanistan in to the sphere" could China succeed through Pakistans influence?

Pakistan-China

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 02:38 PM

I do not see a partition in the future of Afganistan, do you?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 02:44 PM

""Despite trading barbs on the campaign trail, President Obama and his challenger Mitt Romney don't differ that much on U.S. strategy in Afghanistan.""




Obama-Romney on Afghanistan

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 29 Sep 12 - 02:48 PM

Well, Ed T, I am not as well read on the subject as you are and I don't think there is anything wrong with appreciating a centralized discussion and NOT appreciating such thread drift when there are lots of other threads in which to discuss other topics which have been done to death.

Sounds like you are about as cranky as I am at this moment... but that is thread drift. My apologies. >;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 07:48 AM

I get where you are coming from gnu. And, I agree that many (even most) threads drift, some for the good, some for the bad. What is worse, the death of a thread or a drift that keeps it alive and interesting for the few participating, nomatter that what has been said, may have been said by others before? It may be interesting to those folks, and they may have not felt comfortable entering into earlier discussions, for one reason or another.

My point is "if you dont like it, bring it back, don't just complain about what others are doing and saying. And, if you don't care for like the topic or drift - just pass it by, and move on to what interests you.

In this case, some folks seem to suggest it be brought back to the orgginal intent. But, where are they to participate in it now? Was the actual intent to kill-silence the drift discussion that was happening between other folks? If so, that was odd? It makes me wonder, is some topic drift better (less anoying to know it is happening) than other thread drift?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 08:10 AM

A few months ago I saw a parent of a solder who did not make it back alive from Afganistan. The parent, in his sorrow, was concerned that if NATO left Afghanistan, and it goes back to the way it was his son would have died for nothing. I sympathise with that parent, (additionaly so, as my son is in the military and my dad was a war vetran).

But, I am also concerned for the lives of other military folks who could be put in harms way for what seems to be little gain.

I learned as a youngster to carefully choose your battles, to know when the odds are against you- and when it is wise to "back off, evaluate, and consider another course". As the old gambling line goes "Don't throw good money after bad" (not refering to the brave fallen solders, of course).

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Stringsinger
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 10:34 AM

Bringing the thread back to reality, the Afghan people are being oppressed by US military
analogous to the Palestinians by Israelis. The "check points" are obvious.

Wikipedia is not necessarily reliable about the facts in the Palestine/Israel case.
The stats they present should be viewed with skepticism.

The fact remains that Israel is not the best country in the world for Palestinians who reside there. There was similar propaganda offered in the Southern US that claimed that black people were happy there, also in South Africa with the same B.S.

The only solution that makes sense to ensure peace in the region is for Israel and Palestine to be one state with equal representation for both parties, perhaps on a socialist model.

Attending both Afghanistan and Israel/Palestine, propagandistic information clouds the picture of what's going on in either place.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: bobad
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 11:20 AM

"Wikipedia is not necessarily reliable about the facts in the Palestine/Israel case."

The facts are not Wikipedia's. If you bother to look you will see that the statistics are referenced to the survey from which they sre derived. But that doesn't support your bias, does it?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: pdq
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 01:56 PM

"...perhaps on a socialist model."

That is some people's solution for everything.

Russia and China have given up the failures of the past and are heading toward prosperity.

Most Socialists can't even explain whether their beloved sysyem is economic, social or political.

Marxist economics? He was a philosopher and didn't know squat about economics which is why all Marxist countries can't even feed their people, much less thrive economically.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 07:22 PM

""The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.""
John Maynard Keynes

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 07:31 PM

Possibly off the mark, as I believe Karl Marx was an economist, as well as a political scientist.

Adam Smith, considered the founder of modern economics
was actually a philosopher.

I welcome you to correct me if I am wrong:

Source

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: gnu
Date: 30 Sep 12 - 09:05 PM

Oh, well, now you guys are just too smart for a backwoods Kent County good ol boy.

We shoot straight and we can shoot them there Eh-rabs from further away than anybody else and ya can U Tube that shit.... but we still don't really know why. Just dumb country folk earnin a paycheque on accounta the grocery bill went up about 350% in the past few years.

We good ol boys ain't so good at figures but ya gotta figure somethin ain't right.

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 07:30 AM

"It does not matter a jot what whichever Iranian leader said"

I submit it indeed does matter.

"if that statement was misinterpreted it is encumbent upon the leadership of Iran to clarify what it both said and meant""

Do you know that this was not done, but not as widely reported. How so?

What could be the purpose of some leaders and media repeating "a know falsehood" of this significance for years(Nations involved have translators and do use them on significant matters, like this , and continuing to do so when there is ample evidence (for example, an elementary Google search, and msome media reports) that it was a significant falsehood?

Could the purpose be to contribute to "constructive dipolomatic dialogue", leading to a resolution of some, or all of the issues? Just wondering?

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 01 Oct 12 - 07:49 AM

Interesting stuff to figure out which type of deception one is facing:)

Truth and lies


Gnu, are you are trying to deceive, that you are just a "simple, good 'ol country boy"? The Shadow Knows:)

BYW, Kent County, NB is not that remote. I have been there many times and have found it to be kinda a "garden variety" Maritime area, not much different from amny other east coast areas. I have seen remote areas, with "good ol' boys, and this rated low on my "ol' boy" scale. Never saw any folks playing banjos sittin' outside on car seats,no moonshine stills or "revenuers chasing them - but I did see a fella decked out in hunting gear and wearing ski-doo boots (odd, as it was a hot day in July). The only difference I noted was the pretty girls in the Bouctouche area. ))))

Subject: RE: BS: Afghanistan
From: Ed T
Date: 21 Oct 12 - 11:03 AM

"We have been obsessed with quantity over quality," said a Special Forces major who worked alongside Afghan soldiers for a year. "You can only build so many troops to a certain standard. At some point — and we're long past that — you get to diminishing returns."




US military's rapid expansion in Afghanistan called into question