Comments on: The Mourning After

By: Mizgin

Mizgin — Tue, 08 Dec 2009 02:08:15 +0000

The speech was really pretty disgusting.

I’m already sick of this guy’s voice.

By: SanderO

SanderO — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 21:59:30 +0000

Very good article. America and her elected leaders never question the insertion of US military into a region where they in actual fact have no interests.

We’ve often heard about our vital or strategic interests and often little explanation about what this actually is.

In the case of the ME this is simply related to the energy reserves in the region and in the case of Afghanistan a means to get the stuff to deep water ports from the north. But having a larger military footprint in the region is also the excuse to monitor “enforce” that shipping and project power and control. The USA seems to have a special ally in the region – Israel which complicates matters.

There is no threat the continental United States from any nation in the world and the huge military she has is completely unnecessary, but it is run by military men who see a role for them which is not there. The MIC is essentially bleeding the coffers of many nations, making private corporations and their shareholders enormously wealthy.

Just as there will never be an end to theft, there will always be “rebels” who choose violence to express their grievances. None of these groups has the power to do harm in proportion to the size of the MIC we have to defend against such mischief. But random acts of violence are unacceptable and should be thwarted and the perpetrators brought to justice.

We flood the world with weapons, prop up oppressive leaders and their people naturally rise up against the oppression. We then occupy these regions under some false premise usually and are now making a bad situation worse, becoming targets as unwanted occupiers. We then are face with an insurgency which we are the direct cause of. The more troops we add, the more we kill the more the people fight back and the insurgency grows.

There is no exit from these wars because we would have to decimate the population and we don’t recognize these enemies as a legitimate counter party to a treaty. We don’t negotiate with terrorists. This pleases the MIC no end. And if there isn’t an insurgency the CIA goes in and stands one up and the process takes on a life of its own.

By: remo

remo — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 01:04:16 +0000

my reading has the 70′s US support for extremist Islam as manufacturing violent covert/overt actions aimed at destabilizing a moderate nationalist govt operating out of Kabul at the time. The so called golden years . The neocon Brezneski congratulates his own cleverness in drawing the soviets down into ‘their Vietnam’. By having acid thrown in the faces of Afghan women by paid terrorists out of data bases funded and trained by cia and whoever else digs in these black holes of pain. Mercenary Jihadists later utilized in Bosnia and Chechnya and set up as Patsy hijackers in the great 911 false flag con.Itself organized as the pivot for all actions following. A familiar and constant bloody road the dust on which mr obama now walks, parroting the speeches of freedoms lost and love of ‘folk’ that nobody outside the firewall believes any more.

By: C F Oxtrot

C F Oxtrot — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 18:22:42 +0000

From the piece –

“Before this all began in the 1970’s and the U.S. support for extremist Islam began, Afghanistan did have a government. It was decentralized, but it was a government and it did function alongside a secular tribal structure that had been moving toward modernization for a century.”

Q: Why does American perspective on “moving toward modernization” matter?

Q: Who says “modernization” is what anyone needs? Or what Afghanis need?

Q: Isn’t the fundament of the error in invading Afghanistan simply stated as Americans wanting everyone to be like America, and not being willing to let Afghanis live how they wish?