|
12 Nov 09 - 11:35 PM (#2765214) Subject: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Little Hawk Here's a very interesting article by Eric Margolis, who writes for the Toronto Sun: TWO PUPPETS ARE NOT BETTER THAN ONE Here's one quite notable passage from the article: "Ironically, the US is now closely allied with the Afghan Communists and fighting its former Pashtun allies from the 1980's anti-Soviet struggle. Most North Americans have no idea they are now backing Afghan Communists and the men who control most of Afghanistan's booming drug trade." And another: "Washington's last effort to shore up Karzai's regime and give it some legitimacy was the national election in August. The UN, which has increasingly become an arm of US foreign policy, was brought in to make the vote kosher. No political parties were allowed to run. Only individuals supporting the Western occupation of Afghanistan were allowed on the ballot. The vote was conducted under the guns of a foreign occupation army – a clear violation of international law. The US funded the Election Commission and guarded polling places from a discreet distance. The US media simply ignored this fact and trumpeted the government's party line on the elections." |
|
13 Nov 09 - 12:25 AM (#2765221) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Neil D Maybe that is why President Obama has just informed his war council that he's not happy with ANY of the options they've been throwing around for the last several months. He may end up sending more troops, possibly even a number in the ballpark of what his generals are asking for, but not without a much more coherent endgame with a clear exit strategy. American's do not have the stomach for a 10 year commitment of troops and treasure with no assured success in sight, but that won't keep a large number of them from buying into right-wing criticism if he decides to "cut and run". The U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry, himself a recent combat general has just cabled President Obama to strongly oppose sending any more troops. Unfortunately it may be deemed necessary to maintain some presence in the region until we are confident that there is a stable and secure government, not in Afghanistan but across the border in Pakistan, the country with all the nukes. All in all a particularly sticky situation, one more example of having to step very carefully through the minefields haphazardly scattered by the previous administration, where the slightest misstep could be disastrous. The economy is another. |
|
13 Nov 09 - 06:36 AM (#2765330) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Dead Horse snip "The vote was conducted under the guns of a foreign occupation army – a clear violation of international law." Wasnt that also the case with West Germany and Japan after WW2? |
|
13 Nov 09 - 01:53 PM (#2765439) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Little Hawk Yes, I would think it was. Conquering nations tend to turn a blind eye to their own violations of international law when they themselves are in charge of the situation. In other words, they care a lot more about pragmatism (and their own direct interests) than they do about international law....and if there is no one present with the military power to make them do otherwise, then nothing is done about it. They all ignore international law when it gets in the way of something they feel they must do. This has been true of Germany, Russia, Japan, the USA, Israel, the UK, Iraq, China, hell....really almost anyone you can care to name. |
|
14 Nov 09 - 12:18 AM (#2765736) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Little Hawk Some further interesting stuff by the same columnist: "Truth is war's first casualty. The Afghan War's biggest untruth is, `we've got to fight terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them at home.' Politicians and generals keep using this canard to justify a war they can't otherwise explain or justify. Many North Americans still buy this lie because they believe the 9/11 attacks came directly from the Afghanistan-based al-Qaida and Taliban movements. Not true. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Germany and Spain, and conducted mainly by US-based Saudis to punish America for supporting Israel's repression of the Palestinians. Taliban, a militant religious, anti-Communist movement of Pashtun tribesmen, was totally surprised by 9/11. Osama bin Laden, on whom 9/11 is blamed, was in Afghanistan as a guest because he was a national hero for fighting the Soviets in the 1980's and was aiding Taliban's struggle against the Afghan Communist-dominated Northern Alliance afterwards. Taliban received US aid until May, 2001. The CIA was planning to use Osama bin Laden's al-Qaida to stir up Muslim Uighurs against Chinese rule, and to employ Taliban against Russia's Central Asian allies. Most of the so-called `terrorist training camps' in Afghanistan were being run by Pakistani intelligence to prepare mujahidin fighters for combat in Indian-held Kashmir. " The full article is here: Afghanistan - a war of lies |
|
14 Nov 09 - 02:59 AM (#2765756) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Peter T. Hard to believe this comes from the Toronto Sun, the thinking man's toilet paper. yours, Peter T. |
|
14 Nov 09 - 11:14 AM (#2765943) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Stringsinger The war is not in Afghanistan but here in the US between Generals McChrystal, Boykin and official top brass in the military who want to "Christianize" the world by defeating Islam and those who see the current Afghan military policy as stupid. It's the Crusades all over again. Obama hasn't come to terms with this yet and hence a confused mission. Actually, the mission has been lost for some time. ObL just took his place in front of the parade after 911. It's doubtful that he really had much to do with that in spite of his proclamations. Why are we still in Iraq? (Still sending the Iraqis bibles). |
|
14 Nov 09 - 01:59 PM (#2766031) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Little Hawk Yeah, Peter! I couldn't agree more about the dreadful Toronto Sun. ;-) Eric Margolis is an exception, though. He's the one and only columnist at the Sun who writes anything worth reading. He's utterly unlike the rest of their staff in his views. I don't know how the hell that happened, but it's certainly an interesting phenomenon. |
|
14 Nov 09 - 03:36 PM (#2766089) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: robomatic Little Hawk you are displaying your characteristic confusion of opinion pieces with reportorial work. I recall a tape that was turned up in late 2001 where Osama Bin Laden was verified to take full credit for Al Qaeda's brilliant attack on the World Trade Center. He even went into his construction experience to express his satisfaction with actually bringing the towers down. As an opinion peace, I think your reference is quite genuine. And of course, OBL is a Saudi. I personally met a Saudi-American a couple years back who expressed his opinion that the world of Islam was blessed with many new converts since the successful WTC operation. And yes, he blamed Israel as the motivator. But Israel was not the motivation for the Mumbai attack of a year ago. The terrorists made a point of attacking a Jewish center there, however. I think there is some truth in the opinion piece's breakdown of tribal affiliations and motivations. But it is part of an overall picture wherein the Islamic world has to come to terms with modernity, their own version of the Thirty Years' War AND teh coming of the Enlightenment. I think there have been more Sunnis killing Shiites and reverse than all the terrorist attacks on Europeans and Indians combined. Israelis have the sad task of maintaining their identity in the midst of this carnage. They lose much less from over-reaction than from under-reaction. They feel with some justification that they are going to get blamed either way. |
|
15 Nov 09 - 12:58 PM (#2766482) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Stringsinger Robo, most reportorial work done today are opinion pieces. Objective journalism is rare. ObL takes credit but there's no real reason to support that he masterminded 911, tapes aside. Israel has abused their identity by their over-reaction. They are being blamed by the world community. Both sides of the mid-east issue are culpable. Yes, religious fanaticism is at the root of the problem. The Afghan war will turn out to be a canard as was Vietnam. There is no way that Afghans can be changed to accept US policies, religion or assimilation. McChrystal and Boykin are in dreamland. Al Quaeda is more active in Pakistan than in Afghanistan. There is no plausible reason for the US to be there. |
|
15 Nov 09 - 01:15 PM (#2766491) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Little Hawk Yes, it's an opinion piece, robomatic. I find it quite convincing, though, as opinions go. I think it's quite possible that what we hear about Osama Bin Laden in our media is very largely disinformation...particularly when it comes from Osama Bin Laden (or is purported to have come from him). I don't trust what Bin Laden says. I don't trust what the media say about him either. We live in a giant propaganda factory that is run by powerful interests by way of the mass media. They all have their particular axes to grind, and they are all happy to fabricate information, spread disinformation, and muddy the waters so as to get their own way in things. I have about as much trust in the mass media nowadays as I would if I was living in the society that George Orwell depicted in 1984. We're very close to what he depicted at this point. The media are not being used to inform the public, they're being used to shape and mould public perceptions, to scare people so that the public will go along with the next step in the plan, whatever the plan may be. And the plan is usually to fight a war somewhere. Or it's to sell drugs, antibiotics, innoculations, etc. Or it's to bail out banks and health insurance companies. Whatever. At any rate, it's not a plan that benefits the general public, that's for sure. Al Qaeda is a bit player, a player that should always have been fought strictly through international police work, not with the armed forces. There is no justification for a military occupation of either Afghanistan or Iraq and there never was one. Neither one of them was ever a threat to the security of the USA. That's my opinion. It's also Eric Margolis's opinion, and I think he presents his case very effectively. |
|
15 Nov 09 - 01:46 PM (#2766518) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Little Hawk Here's a further article by Eric Margolis, concerning the destabilization of Pakistan by the Afghan War: FLAMES FROM AFGHANISTAN IGNITE PAKISTAN October 19, 2009 The eight-year war in Afghanistan has now set Pakistan on fire. What began in 2001 as a supposedly limited American anti-terrorist operation in Afghanistan has now become a spreading regional conflict. Pakistan's army just launched a major ground and air offensive against rebellious Pashtun tribes in wild South Waziristan which Islamabad claims is the epicenter of the growing insurgency against the US-backed government of Asif Ali Zardari. It's likely the rebellious Pashtun tribesmen will simply fade into the mountains, leaving the army stuck garrisoning major towns and trying to protect roads. A similar uprising in Kashmir has tied down 500,000 Indian soldiers and paramilitary police. Washington, by contrast, is delighted. It has long been a key US goal to press Pakistan's tough army into fighting both Pashtun rebels in Pakistan, and the Pashtun Taliban in Afghanistan. Pakistan has long hesitated doing so, loathe to wage war on its own tribal people. The US is paying most of the bills for the Waziristan offensive. Washington has been urging Pakistan's governments to attack South Waziristan, not the least because these formerly autonomous tribal badlands are believed to be sheltering al-Qaida leaders Osama bin Laden and Dr. Ayman al-Zawahiri. Bombings and shootings have been rocking Pakistan, a complex, unstable nation of 167 million, including a recent brazen attack on army HQ in Rawalpindi and a massive bombing of Peshawar's exotic Khyber Bazaar. Meanwhile, the feeble, deeply unpopular US-installed government in Islamabad faces an increasingly rancorous confrontation with the military and angry opposition groups who accuse it of betraying Pakistan's national interests. Like the proverbial bull in the china shop, the Obama administration and US Congress chose this explosive time to try to impose yet another layer of American control over Pakistan. This heavy-handed action comes at a time when Nobel peace prize winner Barack Obama considers sending thousands more US troops to Afghanistan. Tragically, US policy in the Muslim world continues to be too often driven by arrogance, ignorance, and special interest groups. The current Kerry-Lugar-Berman bill, advanced with President Barack Obama's blessing, is ham-handed dollar diplomacy at its worst. Pakistan, bankrupted by corruption, feudal landlords, and the previous Musharraf military regime, is being offered US $7.5 billion over five years – but with outrageous strings attached. Washington denies any strings are involved. But few in South Asia believe the cash-strapped US is handing over $7.5 billion for the sake of altruism. The US wants to build a mammoth new embassy for 1,000 personnel in Islamabad, the second largest after its Baghdad fortress-embassy. New personnel are needed, claims Washington, to monitor the $7.5 billion in aid. So US mercenaries (aka `contractors') are being brought in to protect US interests and personnel. New US bases may also be in the cards. Most of this new aid will go right into the pockets of the pro-western ruling establishment, about 1% of the population. Washington is also reportedly demanding some form of indirect veto power over promotions in Pakistan's armed forces and intelligence agency, ISI. This crude attempt to exert more US influence over Pakistan's 617,000-man military has enraged the armed forces and set off alarm bells. It's all part of Washington's `Afpak' strategy to clamp tighter control over restive Pakistan and make use of its armed forces and spies in Afghanistan. Seizing control of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, the key to its national defense against a much more powerful India, is the other key US objective. Many Pakistanis believe the US is bent on tearing apart Pakistan in order to seize its nuclear arsenal. Ninety percent of Pakistanis oppose the US-led war in Afghanistan, and see Taliban and its allies as national resistance to western occupation. But, at the same time, many non-Pashtun Pakistanis strongly oppose the tribal rebellion in Northwest Frontier Province and want the army to crack down on the wildmen of the Northwest Frontier. Interestingly, the British Raj had similar problems with these warlike tribesmen a century ago. In an alarming development, violent attacks on Pakistan's government are coming not only from once autonomous Pashtun tribes (wrongly called `Taliban') in Northwest Frontier Province, but, increasingly, in the biggest province, Punjab. Recently, the intemperate US Ambassador in Islamabad, in a fit of imperial hubris, actually called for air attacks on Pashtun leaders in Quetta, capital of Pakistan's restive Baluchistan province. Washington does not even bother to ask the impotent Islamabad government's permission to launch air attacks inside Pakistan. Pakistan's government is only informed after the attacks, which often cause heavy civilian casualties. Along comes the Kerry-Lugar-Berman Big Bribe as most irate Pakistanis accuse President Asif Ali Zardari's government of being American hirelings. Zardari, widower of Benazir Bhutto, has been dogged for decades by charges of egregious corruption. His senior aides in Pakistan and Washington are also being denounced as foreign stooges by what's left of Pakistan's media not yet under government control. We heard similar accusations against the US-backed governments of Iran and Egypt. Washington seems unaware of the fury its heavy-handed, counter-productive policies have whipped up in Pakistan. Like the Bush administration in Iraq, the Obama administration keeps listening to Washington-based neoconservatives, military hawks, and `experts' who tell it just what it wants to hear, not the hard facts. As a result, Pakistan's military, the nation's premier institution, is being pushed to the point of revolt. Against the backdrop of bombings and shootings come rumors the heads of Pakistan's armed forces and intelligence may be replaced by the Zardari government. My Pakistani military and intelligence sources report growing unrest in the middle ranks against the pro-US leadership. Pakistanis are calling for the removal of the Zardari regime's strongman, Interior Minister Rehman Malik, a former policeman. He was even refused entry into military HQ in Rawalpindi last week. There are rising calls for the head of Pakistan's ambassador in Washington, my old friend Hussain Haqqani, who is accused of being too close to the Americans. One suspects the adroit Haqqani might become Washington's preferred Pakistani leader if Asif Zardari's government crumbles or is ousted. The possibility of a military coup against the discredited Zardari regime grows. But Pakistan is dependent on US money, and deeply fears India. Can its generals afford to break with patron Washington? Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2009 |
|
15 Nov 09 - 02:21 PM (#2766546) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: ard mhacha Great stuff from Margolis, thank you once again Little Hawk, the hornets nest tipped over by the US is now stinging their ass, and Britains butt is feeling the pain also. What a bloody awful mess and it wont get any better. |
|
21 Nov 09 - 09:53 PM (#2770872) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Little Hawk Here's yet another article by Eric Margolis, back in Sept/09. THE GHOSTS OF VIETNAM HAUNT WASHINGTON NEW YORK September 22, 2009 As this column predicted a month ago, Afghanistan's much ballyhooed recent election staged by its foreign occupiers turned out to be a fraud wrapped up in a farce. The election was as phony and meaningless as US run elections in Vietnam in the 1970's. Meanwhile, the American general running the Afghan War, Stanley McChrystal, just shockingly warned that the US risks being beaten by lightly-armed Taliban tribesmen in spite of his 107,000 western soldiers, B1 heavy bombers, F-15's, F-16's, F-18's, Apache and AC-130 gunships, heavy artillery, tanks, radars, killer drones, cluster bombs, white phosphorus, rockets, and space surveillance. McChrystal's news is a bombshell. Washington has spent some $250 billion in Afghanistan since 2001. Each time the US sent more troops and bombed more villages, Afghan resistance sharply intensified and Taliban expanded its control, today over 55% of the country. Now, US commanders are begging for at least 40,000 more US troops - after President Obama just tripled the number of American soldiers there. Shades of Vietnam-style `mission creep.' America's NATO allies have seen the writing on the wall in Kabul and are trying to disengage their troop contingents without infuriating Washington. The Director of US National Intelligence just revealed for the first time that Washington's 16 intelligence agencies spent an astounding US $75 billion last year on intelligence, employing 200,000 people in intelligence work. The highest previous estimate was $30 billion. The truth has shocked many Americans. In spite of this mammoth expenditure and army of agents, embarrassingly, the US still can't find Osama bin Laden or Mullah Omar after hunting them for eight years and offering rewards of up to $50 million. Washington now fears Taliban will launch a Vietnam-style Tet surprise offensive against major Afghan cities. Last week, in a wildly overdue observation, Pentagon chief Adm. Mike Mullen told Congress, "we must rapidly build the Afghan Army and police." Did it really take the Pentagon eight years to come up with this basic idea? The US record in foreign army-building is not encouraging. Remember "Vietnamization?" That was the Pentagon's effort to build a South Vietnamese Army that could stand on its own, without US air cover, supplies, and `advisors.' In early 1975, it collapsed and ran. Now we hear in Washington calls for `Afghanization.' Any student of Imperialism 101 knows that after invading a resource-rich or strategic nation you immediately put a local stooge in power, use disaffected minorities to run the government(divide and conquer), and build a native mercenary army. Such troops, commanded by white officers, were called "sepoys" in the British Indian Army and "askaris" in British East Africa. America's attempts to build an Afghan sepoy army of 250,000 have failed miserably. The 80,000 men raised to date are 95% illiterate and only on the job for money to feed their families. They have no loyalty to the corrupt Western-installed government in Kabul. CIA's 74,000 "contractors" (read mercenaries) in Afghanistan are more reliable. The Afghan police are little better than uniformed bandits. But the biggest problem in Afghanistan, as always, is tribalism. Many of the US-raised Afghan army troops are minority Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazara who used to collaborate with the Soviets. They are scorned by the majority Pashtun tribes as enemies and traitors. These US-paid troops also know they will face death when the US and its western allies eventually quit Afghanistan. The Soviets had a much better understanding of Afghanistan than the American military, which one senior British general recently called, `culturally ignorant.' Moscow built an Afghan government army of around 240,000 men. Many were loyal Communists. They sometimes fought well, as I experienced in combat against them near Jalalabad. But, in the end, they smelled defeat and crumbled. The Soviet-backed strongman, Najibullah, was castrated and slowly hanged from a crane. The current Afghan Army and police, like the post-Saddam Iraqi Army, is led by white officers – in this case, Americans designated "trainers" or "advisors." Its ranks are heavily infiltrated by Taliban supporters, as was the case during the Soviet occupation. Every new American search and destroy mission in Afghanistan is telegraphed well in advance to Taliban and its nationalist allies. Afghanistan keeps giving me déjà vu back to the old British Indian Raj, and flashbacks to those wonderful epic films of the Raj, "Drums," "Lives of a Bengal Lancer," and "Kim." The British imperialists did it much, much better, and with a lot more style. In the end, Britain's imperial army in Afghanistan was whipped and fled for its life. Every British schoolchild knows Lady Butler memorable and terrifying painting of the lone British survivor escaping from Afghanistan: `The Retreat from Kabul.' 30 copyright Eric S. Margolis 2009 |
|
22 Nov 09 - 01:49 PM (#2771227) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Stringsinger Afghanistan and Iraq are invasions that have been out-sourced by mercenary private contractors which are more prevalent than actual US military personnel. Bush re-branded the "wars" as Naomi Klein has so ably demonstrated. Obama has to pick up the pieces. He is questioning the US role there but is receiving opposition from the idiocrats in congress, private sector, media and elsewhere. In the meantime, McChrystal and Petraeus are getting too much air time. Theirs is the road to disaster. (Think Vietnam). |
|
22 Nov 09 - 02:03 PM (#2771240) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Little Hawk Ah, yes, but remember....there are people in this world who make a great deal of money from long and drawn-out wars....and people whose professions depend upon those wars. What would they do if all the wars were to end? How would they be able to maintain their accustomed level of comfort? If one "enemy" ends, another must soon be found so that these people do not become unemployed and destitute. Be reasonable! They have to live too, you know...and payments on 300-room mansions and Maseratis can run high. |
|
22 Nov 09 - 03:01 PM (#2771270) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: akenaton There is a distinct air of cynicism coming into this thread. Little Hawk?....shurely not!!....:0) |
|
22 Nov 09 - 04:48 PM (#2771334) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Little Hawk Far be it from me to impugn the morality and selflessness of billionaire international financiers. ;-) |
|
23 Nov 09 - 12:18 PM (#2771864) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Teribus "But the biggest problem in Afghanistan, as always, is tribalism. Many of the US-raised Afghan army troops are minority Tajiks, Uzbeks, and Hazara who used to collaborate with the Soviets. They are scorned by the majority Pashtun tribes as enemies and traitors. These US-paid troops also know they will face death when the US and its western allies eventually quit Afghanistan." - Margolis What Margolis doesn't go on to say is that those minority groups together form the majority of the population of Afghanistan (some 58%) whereas the Pashtun tribes only form a minority 42% of the population. Another interesting omission by Mr.Margolis is that the most successful Mujahideen fighters were Tajiks; Uzbeks and Hazara, the misrepresentation he tries to get away with were that all Tajiks; Uzbeks and Hazara were collaborators they were not. He also makes the mistake of presenting the Pashtuns as a block, they are not the two main tribes the Durrani and the Ghalzai have been fighting each other for centuries. "The current Afghan Army and police, like the post-Saddam Iraqi Army, is led by white officers – in this case, Americans designated "trainers" or "advisors." Its ranks are heavily infiltrated by Taliban supporters, as was the case during the Soviet occupation. Every new American search and destroy mission in Afghanistan is telegraphed well in advance to Taliban and its nationalist allies." – Margolis Factually incorrect and the: "It's ranks are heavily infiltrated by Taliban supporters, as was the case during the Soviet occupation." Is laughable, the Taliban did not come into existence until five years after the Soviets left Afghanistan. ANA units operate under Afghan Officers, the ANA currently has a strength of 94,000 men and the intention is to increase this to 134,000. The ANA take part in 90% of all ISAF Operations within the country and take the lead role in 62% of those operations. The main US effort in Afghanistan is under the banner of a thing called US-Operation Enduring Freedom-Afghanistan their operations two weeks ago couldn't have run as Mr Margolis stated over 96 Taleban killed in two incidents. Who by the bye are the "nationalist allies" of the Taleban?? Loved this bit: "Afghanistan keeps giving me déjà vu back to the old British Indian Raj, and flashbacks to those wonderful epic films of the Raj, "Drums," "Lives of a Bengal Lancer," and "Kim." The British imperialists did it much, much better, and with a lot more style. In the end, Britain's imperial army in Afghanistan was whipped and fled for its life. Every British schoolchild knows Lady Butler memorable and terrifying painting of the lone British survivor escaping from Afghanistan: `The Retreat from Kabul.'" Unfortunately for Mr. Margolis and all those British Schoolchildren Lady Butler's painting was only that – a painting. So Britain's Imperial Army in Afghanistan was whipped and fled for it's life did it?? How come then that all British Strategic aims with regard to Afghanistan were 100% successful during the period 1839 to 1919. Oh, of course Mr.Margolis does not go into the Second and Third Afghan Wars. |
|
23 Nov 09 - 12:23 PM (#2771870) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Little Hawk I thought you'd love it. ;-) You and Eric Margolis should become fulltime correspondents. Perhaps he could even get you a job similar to his own, writing for a major newspaper, and your opinions could become known to millions rather than to just a few old folkies on this forum. |
|
23 Nov 09 - 02:24 PM (#2771978) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Little Hawk Here's another article by Margolis that you'll enjoy... THOSE TRICKY IRANIANS ARE NOW THREATENING TO COOPERATE NEW YORK October 05, 2009 The confusion over Iran's nuclear program mounts as accusations and denials intensify. In an effort to browbeat Iran into nuclear submission, the US, Britain and France staged a bravura performance of political theatre last week by claiming to have just `discovered' a secret Iran uranium enrichment plant near Qum. On cue, a carefully orchestrated media blitz trumpeted warnings of the alleged Iranian nuclear threat and `long-ranged missiles.' In reality, the Qum plant was detected by US spy satellites over two years ago, and was known to the intelligence community. Iran claimed the plant will not begin enriching uranium for peaceful power for another 540 days. UN nuclear rules, to which Iran adheres, calls for 180 days notice. But Iran cast suspicion on itself by hastily alerting the UN's nuclear agency, IAEA, right after the `revelation' of the Qum plant and inviting inspection. Iran may not have been actually guilty of anything, but it looked guilty – in western eyes. Iran can hardly be eager to reveal the locations of its nuclear sites or military secrets given the steady stream of threats by Israel to attack Iran's nuclear plants and the beating of war drums in the United States. Iran also recalls Iraq, where half the UN `nuclear inspectors' were actually spies for CIA or Israel's Mossad. This may explain some of Iran's secretive behavior. The US, Britain, France and Israel have been even less forthcoming about their nuclear secrets. Israel and India reject all outside requests for information. Iran's test of some useless short ranged missiles, and an inaccurate 2,000-km medium ranged Shahab-3, provoked more hysteria. In a choice example of media scaremongering, one leading North American newspaper printed a picture of a 1960's vintage SAM-2 antiaircraft missile being launched, with a caption warning of the `grave threat' Iran posed to `international peace and security.' Welcome to Iraq déjà vu, and another manufactured crisis. US intelligence and UN inspectors say Iran has no nuclear weapons and certainly no nuclear warheads and is only enriching uranium to 5%. Nuclear weapons require 95%. Iran's nuclear facilities are under constant UN inspection and US surveillance. The US, its allies, and Israel insist Iran is secretly developing nuclear warheads. They demand Tehran prove a negative: that is has no nuclear weapons. Iraq was also put to the same impossible test, then attacked when it naturally could not comply. Now, the US government is again leaking claims that Iran is working on a nuclear warhead for its Shahah-3 medium-ranged missile. Iran says the data supposedly backing up this claim is a fake concocted by Israel's Mossad. Forged data was also used to accuse Iraq. Israel is deeply alarmed by Iran's challenge to its Mideast nuclear monopoly. Chances of an Israeli attack on Iran are growing weekly, though the US is still restraining Israel. The contrived uproar about the Qum plant was a ploy to intensify pressure on Iran to cease nuclear enrichment – though it has every right to do so under international agreements. The problem is that Iran has many good reasons for developing nuclear weapons for self-defense even though Tehran insists it is not. More pressure was applied at last week's meeting near Geneva between the Western powers and Iran. The Iranians then fooled everyone by actually agreeing to ship a good part of their enriched uranium to Russia for safekeeping, thus taking the wind out of the sails of the war party in Washington, London and Paris – at least for a while. You could almost hear the outraged neocons in Washington yelling, `hey you sneaky Iranians, fight fair!' Why does Ahmadinejad antagonize the West and act belligerent when he should be taking a very low profile? Why would Iran face devastating Israeli or US attack to keep enriching uranium when it can import such fuel from Russia? Civilian nuclear power has become the keystone of Iranian national pride. As noted in my new book, `American Raj,' Iran's leadership insists the West has denied the Muslim world modern technology and tries to keep it backwards and subservient. Tehran believes it can withstand all western sanctions. In my view, Iran appears to be very slowly developing a `breakout' capability to produce a small number of nuclear weapons on short notice - for defensive purposes. Iraq's invasion of Iran cost Iran one million casualties. Iran demands the same right of nuclear self defense enjoyed by neighbors Israel, India and Pakistan. But Iran's multi-level leadership is also split over the question of whether or not to actually build nuclear weapons. Iran is just as fearful of an Israeli nuclear attack as Israel is of an Iranian nuclear attack. For the record, President Ahmadinejad did not call for Israel to be `wiped off the face of the map,' but quoted an old Imam Khomeini speech calling for Zionism to be wiped away and replaced by a state for Jews, Muslims and Christians. What Iran really wants is an end to 30-years of US efforts to overthrow its Islamic regime. The US is still waging economic warfare against Iran and trying to overthrow the Tehran government. Like North Korea, Iran wants explicit guarantees from Washington that this siege warfare will stop and relations with the US will be normalized. As Flynt and Hillary Leverett conclude in their excellent, must-read 29 September NY Times article about Iran's nuclear program, détente with Iran will be bitterly opposed by `those who attach value to failed policies that have damaged America's interests in the Middle East…' Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2009 |
|
23 Nov 09 - 06:05 PM (#2772138) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Teribus "THOSE TRICKY IRANIANS ARE NOW THREATENING TO COOPERATE NEW YORK October 05, 2009" - Note the date. "In reality, the Qum plant was detected by US spy satellites over two years ago, and was known to the intelligence community." That would put it at 2007 eh?? Work being undertaken at Qum was detected and reported in 2002. "Iran is just as fearful of an Israeli nuclear attack as Israel is of an Iranian nuclear attack." - Utter rubbish, even when threatened with five armies camped on its borders and totally outnumbered in manpower, tanks, guns and aircraft the Israelis still relied on conventional arms to save themselves from destruction, by this time the Israel nuclear programme had been fully functional for eight years and the Nuclear NPT was still six years away. Besides the real importance of the sites at Natanz and at Qum was that they had to remain "secret" - Natanz given away in 2002 by Iranian dissidents, Qum by who knows? Now that they have been exposed they pose no threat the Iranian Revolutionary Guards had to run parallel nuclear programmes, one open and apparently fully transparent and the second totally secret, for their scheme to have worked. Iran now has to explain to an international community that is becoming increasingly sceptical about Iranian intentions with every revelation, just exactly what they are playing at. The Islamic regime in Iran will be brought down by Iranians without the need for outside intervention by anybody, all Ahmadinejad and the 12 Old Gits bought themselves at the last election was a little time, nothing more. |
|
23 Nov 09 - 08:00 PM (#2772208) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Donuel I am armed with a history of Afghanistan and an expose by Charlie Wilson and top CIA officials regarding the war today that costs $100 Million Dollars a day, everyday for the last 2,246 days and was about to post a long treatise on the subject... When an over whelming urge to be utterly succinct came over me as though the Wizard of Obvious had whispered it in my ear. This is what the Wizard said; Unless we are paid mercenaries we must get out of another country's civil war. ESPECIALLY WHEN THEIR PEOPLE ARE NOT WILLING TO FIGHT IN THEIR OWN CIVIL WAR TO BEGIN WITH ! |
|
23 Nov 09 - 10:43 PM (#2772283) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Donuel If Afghanistan were an orphaned child needing adoption it would deserve parents that really care and love the child. The US is not the ideal adoptive parents. We, as a people, are frankly ambivilent towards Afghanistan which is the most disadvantaged and disfunctional Muslim territory in the world. Afghanistan may or may not destabilize Pakistaan whether we occupy it or not. I would safely say that our occupation fuels more hatred than our absence. The powers that be, those who make big money on Afghanistan's #1 crop of opium for heroin, like whatever gets them their product. What tribal war lords and goverment there is in the territory* rely on the cash crop going to Turkey and Russia to be refined and sold. If they get sore enough at the Taliban for stealing their market you can be assured they will do something about it. (* Afghanistan is not even a nation in the traditional sense) I want not one more drop of American blood to sink into Afghanistan sand to preserve any drug corrupt status quo or heroin rivalries of the rich. When it comes to nation building, look around, we need to start nation building at home. IF you really want to adopt, at least find a country, that you can love and loves us in return. Frankly I think we should adopt America for a change. For 100 $million dollars a day, the money just might do some good here at home with the most important bonus of all, stopping the death, dismemberment and brain damage of our young dedicated troops for all the wrong reasons. Thats the way I see it. Are you with me or against me? |
|
24 Nov 09 - 01:38 AM (#2772328) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Teribus It is a pity Donuel that the Wizard of the Obvious hadn't whispered the obvious in yout ear Donuel that if the US had not turned its back on Afghanistan after the departure of the Soviets then the place would not have disintegrated as it did. What you did was turn your back, exactly as you did with the Shia in Iraq after Desert Storm, the only thing that saved the Kurds in the North after Desert Storm was the fact that they bordered a NATO Country and it was British Royal Marines Commandos that entered Iraq to form a buffer that prevented Saddam Hussein from slaughtering them. Now I see with your last post that you want to repeat the same mistakes that you made in 1989. Not unnaturally I come down on the side that would be against you. The international presence in Afghanistan is there at the invitation of the Government such as it is and at the request of the United Nations. That presence is there to improve the lot of the people of Afghanistan after thirty years of conflict. |
|
24 Nov 09 - 04:28 AM (#2772391) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: akenaton Come on Teribus.....admit you were wrong. I've come to see a lot of sense in some of the principles you and others on the right hold......but we've all got to be honest. |
|
24 Nov 09 - 12:45 PM (#2772715) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Little Hawk Here's another fine article from Eric Margolis. It's from back in January this year. Interesting to look at what Obama has and has not done since then in the light of this article: ENDING BUSH'S BIG LIE ABOUT `TERRORISM' LONDON January 26, 2009 Two cheers to President Barack Obama for ordering the closure of the US prison at Guantanamo, Cuba. But why is it to be done over a year? Justice delayed is justice denied. Obama also ordered CIA's network of secret, or `black,' prisons closed – we hope for good - and the use of torture to cease, ending one of the worst stains on America's honor as well as a grave violation of international and US law. Guantanamo is a double embarrassment. The US conquered Cuba in the 1898 Spanish American War. Washington then installed a US citizen as puppet president who granted Washington base rights to Guantanamo in perpetuity. Guantanamo was then considered a useful coaling station for US warships. The US imposed a similar one-sided treaty on its new protectorate, Panama, which it carved out of Colombia. A century later, the US made similar base deals with occupied Afghanistan, and perhaps with Iraq. Obama should shut the unneeded US base at Guantanamo, which has become a white elephant, and return the enclave to Cuba. This would be an excellent start to restoring US-Cuban relations. President Obama's next step in returning America to its senses: ending use of the propaganda terms, `terrorism,' and `war on terror.' Britain's youthful foreign secretary, David Miliband, is one of its most interesting and brainy politicians. He could very well replace Gordon Brown as prime minister if Britain's rapidly worsening financial crisis goes critical. Rebuking the Bush administration, the outspoken Miliband urged Washington to cease using `war on terror,' which he calls `misleading and mistaken.' This term implies a unified, international enemy, when there is none in reality. It encourages war psychosis, fear, and employing the military to deal with problems the West `could not kill its way out of,' writes Miliband. But promoting the canard of `terrorism' was the central ideology and raison d'etre of the Bush administration, a ship of fools steered by crypto-fascist neoconservatives and Christian evangelical fundamentalists. It failed at everything except one thing: propaganda. Thanks to White House domination of US media, brilliant news manipulation, propaganda worthy of Dr. Goebbels, and a public largely ignorant of world affairs, the White House fib factory marketed fear of `terrorism' to win votes and justify colonial adventures abroad. As author Kevin Phillips points out, some of Bush's strongest supporters were `security moms' in the Midwest and South. These homemakers were terrified into believing Osama bin Laden and his turbaned devils were coming to their hometowns to attack their little Johnnys. `Security moms' provided key support for Republicans in key battleground states. Proclaiming `war on terrorism' – a logical and grammatical nonsense – boosted the Pentagon's budget by 50%, unleashed armies of mercenaries run by big Republican donors, facilitated Dick Cheney's crusade to grab the world's oil, and justified invading Iraq and Afghanistan. Americans who opposed Bush's phony global conflict were branded traitors, appeasers, and anti-American. All who dared oppose America or its allies were `terrorists.' The term `terrorism' is designed not only to arouse potent emotions of fear and loathing, but to dehumanize one's foes and deny them any legitimate motivations. Israel successfully deployed this effective propaganda weapon against the Palestinians, who all too often eagerly cooperated by staging murderous attacks on civilians. The `terrorism' theme was then wholly adopted by the Bush administration. `Terrorists' are sub-humans. Terrorists are a disease. One can never negotiate with them. Only eradicate them. Even their children are legitimate targets. The laws of humanity and war do not apply to `terrorists.' Slapping this label on all who oppose the US and its allies proved highly effective psy-war propaganda, but it totally distorted reality. I always avoided using `terrorism,' which became the most cherished word in the Bush administration's version of George Orwell's totalitarian `Doublespeak.' The proper term we should use is `anti-western groups' or `antigovernment forces,' not `terrorists. The US, which burned alive 100,000 Japanese civilians in one night during the fire bomb raids against Tokyo on 9 March, 1945, killed two million Vietnamese civilians, and is responsible for 500,000 to one million Iraqi civilian deaths, is in no position to brand others `terrorists.' After invading Afghanistan, the Soviets used to brand the Afghan mujahidin resisting them, `Islamic terrorists.' The US hailed them as `freedom fighters.' Ironically, the US and its Afghan Communist allies now Taliban-led forces fighting western occupation, `Islamic terrorists.' Iraqis and Afghans who oppose US and/or NATO occupation should properly be called `the resistance,' not `insurgents' or `terrorists.' The US invaded both nations and overthrew their recognized governments. One might as well have called the French resistance in World War II, `insurgents.' I hope President Obama will heed Miliband's good advice and end Bush/Cheney's Orwellian lies. Americans need the truth about their foreign wars. They need to know that al-Qaida was never more than a handful of anti-western extremists. It has yet to be proved that bin Laden was the author of 9/11. That these attacks on the US were likely a one-off event. That crimes like Guantanamo, torture, kidnappings and stomping small countries create more enemies of the West than Osama bin Laden ever dreamed of. copyright Eric S. Margolis 2009 |
|
24 Nov 09 - 12:50 PM (#2772729) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Donuel Fine, go fight a civil war 12,000 miles away in another Asian land war. Please do it without me or my money. |
|
24 Nov 09 - 12:58 PM (#2772736) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Lizzie Cornish 1 All day long on Radio Devon the news has been about a young Cornish soldier brought home to rest...and his service has been in Truro Cathedral today.. His mother begged people to back the troops and to not let her son have died in vain. But it's been troubling me all day long, because I don't understand WHY her son died. I don't understand why we're out there. All wars feel wrong, even if the reason for them starting is right, but this one feels far more wrong than so many others..and it breaks my heart to see all these young men and women coming home in coffins. My young lad will be 16 next June and he said just the other day how terrible it is to see so many young people dying. In our local fish and chip shop they collect for the troops, send out boxes of goodies for them....but I just wish they'd bring them home... Send the bloody politicians who feel it's so 'right' out there instead! My heart goes out to every single wife, mother and family, whose lives have been broken apart because of this terrible atrocity. |
|
24 Nov 09 - 01:18 PM (#2772759) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Little Hawk I'm sure there were many German and Japanese mothers in 1944 begging people to back the war and not let their sons have died in vain too. It's a very common form of patriotic thinking that is utterly devoid of logic, but heavy on emotion. Boys die in vain all the time in wars. They do it for reasons that seem to make sense at the time. This causes some bereaved parents to back the war more strongly than before. It causes others (the wiser ones) to come to the conclusion that their sons did indeed die in vain, and that they will not make the mistake of continuing to support foreign wars that are not in the interest of them or their children. Who you really need to send to the front line in wars is not just the politicians who sent the boys there....but the bankers, businessmen, and financiers who set up and orchestrated the whole thing in the first place and gave the politicians their marching orders. Then it would end right quick. It is those who stand to profit from a war who determine where and when that war shall occur...and how long it will last. |
|
24 Nov 09 - 01:33 PM (#2772776) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: ard mhacha Lizzie, I hope your son never goes to Afghanistan and please do mention all of those countless thousands of Iraqis and Afghans who have been slaughtered in their own land by foreign troops. We never seem to hear about these poor unfortunates,the USA and Britain have left behind death and destruction and Bush and Blair the two chief protagonists have departed the scene. Bush being brain dead will sleep soundly, but surely smarmy Tony has pangs of guilt. |
|
24 Nov 09 - 04:22 PM (#2772897) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: akenaton Well said my friend, but I doubt if Blair has many sleepless nights...after all he was only doing his best .....and Gods will according to St Tony. String the bastard up! |
|
24 Nov 09 - 04:57 PM (#2772923) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Lizzie Cornish 1 "Lizzie, I hope your son never goes to Afghanistan and please do mention all of those countless thousands of Iraqis and Afghans who have been slaughtered in their own land by foreign troops." Yes, ard.....all mothers weep the same tears. |
|
25 Nov 09 - 02:55 PM (#2773613) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Stringsinger Blackwater is surreptitiously in Pakistan. Obama has promoted McChrystal. He is now following the Pentagon. He will escalate by 30,000 more troops. He will announce this at his State of the Union speech. Vietnam was the undoing of Lyndon Johnson and the Great Society. I predict Afghanistan will be the undoing of Obama. He won't survive this debacle. |
|
25 Nov 09 - 03:44 PM (#2773650) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Little Hawk I suspect you are right about that, Stringsinger. However, he's only following orders. He will presently be tossed on the political rubbish heap by those who really give the orders and some other visible "face" will be trotted out as the new president to keep the American public distracted by the old "personality in the White House" game (which is the main purpose that most of our politicians serve when they assume office). They are the puppets in the puppet theatre, but you don't see the men holding the strings. Voting does not in any way touch the men holding the strings, in my opinion. This is easily accomplished by those men exercising control of all the major political parties (and their leaders) through financial means (and if that fails, through considerably more drastic remedies, like career destruction by some well-arranged scandal...or by assassination). |
|
25 Nov 09 - 04:01 PM (#2773661) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: akenaton Wonder where Alice, Amos, and all the other Obamites went? |
|
27 Nov 09 - 02:08 AM (#2774685) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Little Hawk Another article: THE POT CALLS THE KETTLE BLACK Paris November 23, 2009 Not so long ago, Hamid Karzai, the US-installed president of Afghanistan, used to be hailed by Washington and the US media as a noble democrat and statesman. But as things in Afghanistan went from bad to worse, and Taliban gained strength and popularity, Washington directed its ire at Karzai, who had almost no power of his own and was forced to rely on the US, the Tajik-Uzbek-Communist Northern Alliance, and assorted drug-dealing warlords. After some of Karzai's henchmen become over-zealous in rigging Afghanistan's last already rigged election, Washington exploded in anger and frustration, blaming its wayward puppet for the growing mess in the Hindu Kush. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was sent to Kabul last week like an angry super-nanny to give Hamid Karzai a sound spanking for being such a corrupt bad boy. Just as Karzai's second inauguration ceremony was getting under way, Mrs. Clinton commanded Karzai reduce rampant corruption in Afghanistan so Washington could justify sending more troops. Karzai had recently suffered similar public humiliation from visiting US Senator, John Kerry. Mrs. Clinton, we recall, was the former first lady of Arkansas, a state whose high ethics and good governance stands as a model of probity to third world miscreants. Perhaps she brought election monitors from Chicago, where the dead regularly rise to vote for the Democratic Party machine. From Ohio, where funny voting machines allegedly helped George Bush win re-election, or from those bastions of Athenian democracy, New Jersey and Florida. They have so much to teach wayward Afghans about clean politics. Like nearly all third world nations, Afghanistan is corrupt. But compared to his western critics and accusers, poor Hamid Karzai is a mere beggar in the Kabul bazaar. For example, take Britain's indignant prime minister, Gordon Brown, who imperiously commanded Karzai to root out corruption. PM Brown knows about corruption. It was Imperial Britain, after all, that gave rise to the delightful African term for bribery, `the white man's handshake.' Three years ago, Exchequer Chancellor Brown and boss Tony Blair quashed Britain's biggest ever criminal investigation by its Serious Fraud Office into accusation the British arms firm EADS paid over 2 billion pound sterling of secret contract kickbacks to high Saudi officials, one of whom was a close associate of the Bush family. The European Union even rebuked Britain for its `tolerance of corruption.' France's president, Nicholas Sarkozy, also blasted Karzai over corruption. Sarko's rebuke came right after a major judicial investigation of three thieving but useful African dictators who had stashed away billions of swag in France was quashed – at Sarkozy's orders, claimed the opposition. One of the parties, Teodorin Obiang, son of the dictator of oil-rich Equatorial Guinea, recently spent $35 million on a Malibu, California mansion and $33 million on a private jet. Another, Gabon's late Omar Bongo, is said to be France's single largest property owner. Wags in Paris call the chic Avenue Victor Hugo, the `Avenue Bongo.' Next, Transparency International, a respected NGO monitoring state corruption, published its annual honesty survey. It was an eye-opener. New Zealand was named the world's least corrupt nation. Canada was eighth most honest, and least corrupt nation in the Western Hemisphere. Hats off to Canada. Embarrassingly, the United States ranked a miserable 19th. The report noted, `the US Congress is most affected by corruption.' Mark Twains described Congress as, `America's native criminal class.' Western Europe and Japan were way ahead of the US. America's ally Israel ranked a sorry 32nd. Other US Mideast allies had awful scores, but the Gulf emirates Qatar and the UAE, came in way ahead of the rest of the Mideast in honesty– including Israel. An important Los Angeles Times investigation reports hundreds of millions of dollars, a full third of CIA's foreign budget, has been going in payoffs to Pakistan's intelligence service, ISI. American `black' programs deliver more tens of millions to Pakistan's ruling People's Party and leader, Asif Zardari, known to all Pakistanis as `Mr. 10%,' and other senior Pakistani politicians, generals, and media figures. Critics are now calling Pakistan, `Rent-a-Stan.' Zardari, the widower of Benazir Bhutto, has been dogged for decades by serious corruption charges. He denies them and claims they are all politically motivated. Benazir Bhutto told me her husband was the victim of political persecution. Adding to the pressure on Zardari, his own legal officials released a shocking list of 8,000 politicians and officials, many from his own People's Party, who had benefited from an amnesty for past corruption and other serious crimes. Included on the list were Zardari and his strongman, Interior Minister Rehman Malik. The amnesty was engineered by the US and former dictator Pervez Musharraf in an effort to fashion joint rule between Benazir Bhutto and the then discredited Musharraf. Most of the pardoned criminals hailed from Sindh Province, the home of Zardari's People's Party. The US has given Pakistan more than $15 billion over the past eight years to support the Afghan War, not counting huge bounties for capturing or killing suspected enemies, and `black' payments. In Iraq, some estimates say $10 billion delivered to that nation's US-installed regime are missing. American `contractors' and large corporations in Iraq are accused of gargantuan fraud. Pallets of US $100 dollar bills vanished into thin air. And on it goes. Ironically, across the Muslim world, the same western powers scourging Karzai are seen as major sources of corruption, keeping repressive regimes in power by buying dictators, generals, and politicians. Many Afghans support Taliban because it is seen as an enemy of corruption and an enforcer of justice, however harsh. In Palestine and Lebanon, Hamas and Hezbullah enjoy wide popularity and respect for the very same reason. The Transparency report finds, to no surprise, that places like Somalia, Afghanistan and Nigeria are the world's most corrupt nations. But it must be remembered that citizens of these benighted nations pay no income taxes. So each government official levies his own little personal taxes. What we call corruption is inevitable and normal. President Karzai will of course establish an anti-corruption commission. Some big turbans will be prosecuted to please Washington. But this charade will fool no one but US voters. Most Afghans see Karzai as a US puppet. But maybe the exasperated puppet will turn on his string-pullers, open real peace talks with Taliban, and demand the USA and its allies pull their occupation army out of Afghanistan. That, of course, could very well be a life-ending gamble for Karzai. Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2009 |
|
27 Nov 09 - 05:32 PM (#2775146) Subject: RE: BS: Some interesting stuff on Afghan war... From: Teribus "please do mention all of those countless thousands of Iraqis and Afghans who have been slaughtered in their own land by foreign troops." In the case of Afghanistan since 2006 when responsibility for providing security for UNAMA throughout much of the country was transferred to NATO-ISAF troops countless thousands has equalled 6,584. Most of whom were not "slaughtered in their own land by foreign troops" but were killed by the Taleban, who when they attempted to govern the country killed Afghans in the hundreds of thousands. In the case of Iraq most were killed not by MNF troops or actions, most died at the hands and actions of foreign jihadists, Ba'athist insurgents, sectarian militias and criminal gangs. If the funeral that Lizzie Cornish referred to is the one I think it is then the soldier in question was Staff-Sargeant Olaf "Oz" Schmid who died while defusing an IED (the 65th that he had dealt with during his tour). My son served with him during my son's first tour in Afghanistan and said that he was an amazingly inspiring bloke, he will be sadly missed by his wife Christina and his young step-son. Hate to point out the obvious but Staff-Sargeant Schmid died attempting to save lifes, he did not die taking lives. |