If anybody can explain to me how anything we accomplish in Afghanistan is worth this happening or will do anything to stop it in the future, I'd like to hear it....
From AP -- KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -- A Taliban suicide bomber rammed a van into an armored NATO bus Saturday, killing 13 American troops and four Afghans in the deadliest attack on coalition forces in Kabul since the war began - a major setback for the U.S.-led coalition as it begins to draw down combat troops.
What are we doing over there? We're just running around being targets for suicide bombers. We will never, NEVER be able to negotiate peace with the Taliban, Al Qaeda, or whatever primitive, heroin-addled tribe currently controls things there.
To me, the fallacy of the US's middle east policy for my entire lifetime, is the absurd notion that these people can be negotiated with. That they are like us. They are not. They can't be reasoned with---we've tried that. They can't be bought---we've tried that. They can't be killed in any appreciable numbers---we've tried that.
What the bloody hell are we doing? Seriously, I'd like to hear somebody give me the talk that they would give the parents, widow, and 2 children of one of the men who got blown up yesterday, as an attempt to justify to them why the Afghanistan mission was worth the life of their husband/father.
21 comments:
"The 1st Marine Division suffered over 6,500 casualties during their month on Peleliu."
How can a worthless volcanic island in the middle of nowhere be worth that? Wow, maybe it was a battle in a global war.
Maybe letting the Islamist bad guys know they can make us quit by killing Americans would encourage them to kill more Americans.
I'm guessing the island had strategic significance. What's the similar significance of Afghanistan? I mean we're not going to take and bold Afghanistan.
"If anybody can explain to me how anything we accomplish in Afghanistan is worth this happening ..., I'd like to hear it...."
Afghanistan is well worth the cost in treasure and lives. The trick is in understanding that the real reasons for this, or any war, are far different from the stated reasons, and in understanding that the beneficiaries are not, and never were meant to be, the indigenous people or the American people.
PARTIAL LIST OF BENEFITS:
Afghanistan is rich in natural resources. (oil, iron, chromium, silver, gold, magnesium, lithium, uranium)
It enriches bankers and military contractors. (War advances the main purpose of government, which is to transfer wealth and power from the many to the few.)
American troops protect the production of opium and move the product. (The CIA is heavily dependent on the proceeds of the drug trade to finance its illegal operations.)
Demonization (The war affords Ed and others the opportunity to engage in the wholesale demonization of Arabs and Muslims.)
Clash of Civilizations (Said demonization helps move the U.S. and the world closer to WWIII. Thanks, Ed.)
It angers Arabs and Muslims (thus moving the U.S. and the world closer to a clash of civilizations).
It weakens America (thus assuring that America will be brought to its knees in the above-mentioned clash of civilizations).
Isaac, I am well aware of the clandestined motives of the military/industrial complex and the role it plays in war. And though we claim to be liberating some poor put-upon minorities, it's really about commercial opportunities either for the inevitable rebuilding or other commercial ventures. Though I think it's also about the misguided attempt to snuff out terrorists where they live.
If commerce is the case, then we should state it and hire mercenaries to fight and die....I probably wouldn't have a problem with that.
"If commerce is the case, then we should state it and hire mercenaries to fight and die....I probably wouldn't have a problem with that."
Kill others for our commercial benefit? That is contemptible. You need to be ashamed of yourself.
Thank God there are men like Fred Reed in this world.
"I read frequently among the lesserly neuronal of the supposed honor of soldiers, of the military virtues of courage, loyalty, and uprightness – that in an age of moral decomposition only the military adhere to principles, and that our troops in places like Afghanistan nobly make sacrifices to preserve our freedoms and democracy. Is not all of this nonsense?
"Honor? A soldier is just a nationally certified hit-man, perfectly amoral. When he joins the military he agrees to kill anyone he is told to kill, regardless.... How is this honorable? It is cause for lifelong shame.
"It is curious that so many soldiers think that they are Christians. Christianity is incompatible with military service...."
"I think that wars should be fought by the people who profit from them, and they should use swords, so they have to look the people they murder right in the eyes."
Michael Rivero
HOW TO TURN THE BLOOD OF OUR CHILDREN INTO GOLD FOR THE BANKERS
1. Nation A and Nation B are at peace, and free of debt.
2. The bankers hire the media [and the Right Rant] to demonize Nation B. Donations are made to candidates who are willing to murder a few million people for a piece of the profits.
3. The bankers loan nation A the money to buy weapons to blow up nation B.
4. Nation B says "You can't do that to us and get away with it!"
5. The bankers loan nation B the money to buy weapons to blow up nation A.
6. The war rages on and eventually one side wins and one sides loses. It doesn't really matter which one, as both Nation A and Nation B are now heavily into debt to the bankers.
7. The bankers loan nation A the money to repair and replace all they lost in the war. Nation A eventually gets back to the exact same life they had before the war only now they are hopelessly in debt to the bankers.
8. The bankers loan nation B the money to repair and replace all they lost in the war. Nation B eventually gets back to the exact same life they had before the war only now they are hopelessly in debt to the bankers.
9. The bankers hire the media [and the Right Rant] to demonize Nation C. Donations are made to candidates who are willing to murder a few million people for a piece of the profits.
10. Repeat steps three through nine ad nauseam.
Isaac, your simplistic, childlike, and dangerously cynical view of how the world works is fascinating. I'm not denying that there are profiteers involved in every administration and every war, but those aren't generally the reasons for war. These bankers and government contractors are opportunists, not causitive agents.
And as far as TRR is concerned. I have received not one penny to advocate for any cause....though I'd certainly entertain any reasonable offers.
Do you mean to say that you demonize Muslims for free? You are missing the boat, man. Don't give away what you could be getting paid for!
I'm not demonizing Muslims. They behave demonically. Give me one redeeming virtue of Islam as currently practiced. And keeping their mouths shut makes "peaceful" Muslims guilty, so the "peaceful majority" argument doesn't wash.
You would never conflate the Woodsboro Baptist Church with the Episcopal Church. You would never mistake Ted Pike for John Hege. Yet you would have us believe that all 1.6 billion Muslims are a monolith.
What would make a man say such an inane thing? A number of possible explanations come to mind.
He might just be misinformed. That would be understandable. If a man did not apply critical thinking skills to what he heard from the media, politicians, disinformation agents, and from non-Christian pastors (the majority) in post-Christian churches (again, the majority), he might say that about Muslims.
He might be a tool of those who are salivating for WWIII.
He might be in the employ of those who are salivating for WWIII.
He might be stupid, or retarded, or lazy (though, I am satisfied, that is not true in your case).
No doubt there are other possible explanations, some less damning than others. One thing is for sure, however. Any man who says that Muslims are a monolith is dead wrong.
Isaac, I didn't imply that the world's Muslim population is ideologically monolithic, and you cannot deny that the occasional Muslims who denounce terrorism, violence, and the other tenets of Islam that compel Muslims to convert, subjugate, or slay infidels, are few and far between.
Actually, when singled out, almost all interviewed Muslims, even westernized ones, will express understanding of and support for those passages in the Koran that compel Muslims to convert by force the world to their "one true religion".
You, sir, are just plain wrong, as even the most cursory of research would have informed you. For instance:
It is a basic Islam principle not to force people to convert to Islam and not to force non Muslims to be judged according to Islam law.
In Quran it is mentioned explicitly that Christians should be judged according to their Bible and Jews to be judged according to their Torah unless a non Muslim asks to be judged according to Quran.
And the following:
Among the most widely believed myths about Islam in the West today is the myth of forcible conversion to Islam.
What is the truth? Did Muslims really force others to convert to Islam? Is there any evidence for consistent forcible conversion throughout the Islamic history?
As a matter of fact, there is no such evidence anywhere in the history of Islam.
Many distinguished Western historians have attested this fact, foremost among whom is Sir Thomas W. Arnold in his book, "The Preaching of Islam".
Also there is Marshall G. Hodgson in his book, "The Venture of Islam", Albert Hourani in his book, "A History of the Arab People", Ira Lapidus in his book, "History of Islamic Societies", L.S. Starorianos in his book, "A Global Hisotry, the Human Heritage" and many others.
P.S. I can't help but notice that in all your denunciations of what you say are Islam's evils, you have never denounced the Talmud and Talmudists for such texts as, "Every Jew who spills the blood of the godless (non-Jews), is doing the same as making a sacrifice to God." (Bammidber raba c 21 & jalkut 772)
Help us understand your asymmetrical treatment of the two religions, please, sir.
While I don't pretend to be a scholar in either, by simple observation, the Israelis don't commit acts of terrorism on civilians. Now before you blow an anurism in your brain Isaac at my statement, civilian casualties that happen when Israel retaliates against the Palestinians are largely due to the Palestinians hiding among civilians to try to get Israel not to shoot at them.
I don't have to study texts, all I have to do is observe current behavior to see the difference.
Once again, sir, you are just plain wrong. The three greatest perpetrators of terrorism in the history of the world are (in alphabetical order) the CIA, MI-6 and the Mossad.
You may disagree, and I expect that you will, but jingoistic patriotism aside, the facts are what they are.
Our differences come down to our respective definitions of terrorism. Other than the rantings of obscure authors about how western intelligence services are the source of all evil in the modern world, what acts of terrorism can you point to?
And don't tell me that 9/11 was an inside CIA/Mossad job.
For your reading pleasure, sir:
The United States is a Leading Terrorist State
Noam Chomsky interviewed by David Barsamian
Monthly Review, vol. 53, no. 6, November, 2001
(chomskyDOTinfo/interviews/200111—02DOThtm)
Noam Chomsky??? Are you friggin' kidding me? That repulsive son-of-a-bitch hates the US. Of course he thinks we're terrorists, it's the worst thing you can impune someone with these days....that is right after "racist" and "sexual harasser".
Noam Chomsky...heh heh....'fraid you just jumped the shark there Isaac.
Ahooga! Ahooga!
Ad hominem alert! Ad hominem alert!
This is not a test. Repeat, this is not a test.
Post a Comment