US envoy removed from Afghan post
POSTED BY: GinoBiffaroni
UPDATED: Monday, October 19, 2009 15:50
VIEWED: 5838
PAGE 1 of 1
A senior UN official in Afghanistan has been removed from his post following a row about how to handle the country's disputed election, the BBC has learned.
Peter Galbraith had angered Afghan President Hamid Karzai by criticising the country's election commission.
Mr Galbraith, from the US, was said to have called for a complete recount.
Last week the top UN Afghan envoy, Kai Eide, said Mr Galbraith had left the country after a row between them, but he denied he had ordered him to go.
UN sources say Secretary General Ban Ki-moon decided to end Mr Galbraith's mission after it became clear he was no longer able to carry out his work in Afghanistan, says the BBC's Lyse Doucet.
Some Afghan cabinet ministers had said they no longer wanted to work with him.
AFGHAN POLL FRAUD
15 Sep:Election Complaints Commission +chief says 10% of votes need to be recounted
8 Sep: Poll complaints body orders some recounts nationwide
8 Sep: IEC says votes from 600 polling stations "quarantined"
3 Sep: Claims 30,000 fraudulent votes cast for Karzai in Kandahar
30 Aug: 2,000 fraud allegations are probed; 600 deemed serious
20 Aug: Election day and claims 80,000 ballots were filled out fraudulently for Karzai in Ghazni
18 Aug: Ballot cards sold openly and voter bribes offered
Election: Main fraud allegations
Last week, Mr Eide told the BBC the dispute had been resolved by Mr Galbraith agreeing to leave the country for a while.
He described Mr Galbraith as "a valuable deputy" and said he hoped they could "re-establish a good team and work together".
Mr Eide declined to talk about details of his disagreement with Mr Galbraith, but said the UN should respect the constitutional bodies in charge of the presidential election "to avoid any impression that there is foreign interference".
The row is between two men who have known each other for a long time but have very different styles, but a UN source said that had not been the only factor in Mr Galbraith's removal, says our correspondent.
It is understood that Mr Ban would not have dismissed Mr Galbraith - who came to the post with US support - without backing from the Washington, she adds.
The US, along with other foreign missions in Afghanistan, appears to want to move on from the election dispute to deal with the country's other considerable problems, she says, but this will anger observers who believe a more robust response is needed to the allegations.
EU election observers have said that about 1.5m votes - about a quarter of all ballots - cast in August's presidential vote could be fraudulent.
They say that 1.1 million votes cast for President Karzai are suspicious.
Guess they don't like being called crooked bastards
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8281934.stm
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, are they gonna replace him with someone from Bush's campaign team....
Someone who understands a few thousand votes have no meaning
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The senior UN envoy removed from his post in Afghanistan has told the BBC his dismissal sent "a terrible signal" to the world about the organisation.
Peter Galbraith said he believed he had been removed because of a dispute with his superior over how to handle fraud allegations in the country's elections.
He said that in not addressing the "extensive" evidence of fraud, the UN had failed its Afghan mandate.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8284123.stm
If such a fraud cannot be addressed, then Afghanistan is truely lost
Funny what happens when you make your enemy the voice of truth
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Support by Afghan people may wane: NATO commander
The coalition does not have an indefinite amount of time to defeat the Taliban insurgency in Afghanistan because public support there will not last indefinitely, the top U.S. and NATO commander says.
Speaking at a London think-tank, the International Institute for Strategic Studies, Gen. Stanley McChrystal said success in Afghanistan will depend on convincing ordinary Afghans that coalition forces could help deliver a better life.
Last week, McChrystal delivered a report seeking 40,000 more combat troops in Afghanistan. Failing to do so would mean that the U.S. would fail to meet its objectives of causing irreparable damage to Taliban militants and their al-Qaeda allies, he said.
The latter option would involve few troops and more unmanned drones and special forces units. NATO contributes roughly two-thirds of the more than 100,000 international troops in Afghanistan, including more than 3,000 from Canada.
White House officials say it may take weeks more before the president decides whether to overhaul the U.S. strategy in Afghanistan or send more troops.
Jones later told senators in a classified briefing after the meeting that the administration's Afghanistan strategy will depend largely on the outcome of the Aug. 20 Afghan presidential election. A recount is underway following allegations of massive fraud.
With files from The Associated Press
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/10/01/afghanistan-mcchrystal001.htm
l
While NATO publicly is continuing to support the mission, NATO members are either debating to, or planning to remove their troops from this mess
Instead of dealing with the False election, drug economy, fraud and corruption... US diplomats are busy running about begging countrys not to pull out their troops. General McChrystal wants 40,000 more troops now, and he will likely want replacements if say half of the NATO troops leave, as is being debated in Germany, the Netherlands, Canada, and Italy.
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,618420,00.html
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This a lot of bumps. You want to keep a thread on the Afghan war, you have some good points. Care to dig up some maps and casualty figures?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This is getting bumps because it needs and deserves them. I keep meaning to get to this, but there's damned little to snark about in Afghanistan right now. It's a horror show, and it's not getting better.
Any bets on how long Karzai lasts?
Anyone remember what happened to Najibullah, the last "President" that was installed by a foreign power there? Let's just say Mussolini got off easy.
Mike
The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
This a lot of bumps. You want to keep a thread on the Afghan war, you have some good points. Care to dig up some maps and casualty figures?
The sad thing is I think McCrystal is right, if his approach had of been implemented from the beginning, I think he could have won over the people of Afghanistan...
But after the debacle Bush and Cheney set in motion, How could you trust the west? Especially with all the post Soviet indifference...
Just makes me mad... and if I'm mad, you could just imagine what people living there must think of the situation.
Bush / Cheney was horrible
Obama isn't making things better
my country is suppose to pull out next year, and they will even if the government here falls to make it happen
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
This is getting bumps because it needs and deserves them. I keep meaning to get to this, but there's damned little to snark about in Afghanistan right now. It's a horror show, and it's not getting better.
Any bets on how long Karzai lasts?
Anyone remember what happened to Najibullah, the last "President" that was installed by a foreign power there? Let's just say Mussolini got off easy.
Mike
The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams
Remember Diem, I think a remake of that could be very likely
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ngo_Dinh_Diem#Coup_and_assassination
Coup and assassination
The body of Diem in the back of the APC, having been executed on the way to military headquarters.
Main articles: Cable 243, 1963 South Vietnamese coup, and Arrest and assassination of Ngo Dinh Diem
On orders from U.S. President John F. Kennedy, Henry Cabot Lodge, the American ambassador to South Vietnam, refused to meet with Diem. Upon hearing that a coup d'etat was being designed by ARVN generals led by General Dương Văn Minh, the United States gave secret assurances to the generals that the U.S. would not interfere. Dương Văn Minh and his co-conspirators overthrew the government on November 1, 1963.
The coup was very swift. On November 1, 1963, with only the palace guard remaining to defend President Diem and his younger brother, Ngô Đình Nhu, the generals called the palace offering Diem safe exile out of the country if he surrendered. However, that evening, Diem and his entourage escaped via an underground passage to Cholon, where they were captured the following morning, November 2. The brothers were executed in the back of an armoured personnel carrier by Captain Nguyen Van Nhung while en route to the Vietnamese Joint General Staff headquarters.[60] Diem was buried in an unmarked grave in a cemetery next to the house of the U.S. ambassador.[61]
Aftermath
Upon learning of Diem's ouster and death, Ho Chi Minh is reported to have said, "I can scarcely believe the Americans would be so stupid."[62] The North Vietnamese Politburo was more explicit, predicting: "The consequences of the 1 November coup d'état will be contrary to the calculations of the U.S. imperialists ... Diem was one of the strongest individuals resisting the people and Communism. Everything that could be done in an attempt to crush the revolution was carried out by Diem. Diem was one of the most competent lackeys of the U.S. imperialists ... Among the anti-Communists in South Vietnam or exiled in other countries, no one has sufficient political assets and abilities to cause others to obey. Therefore, the lackey administration cannot be stabilized. The coup d'état on 1 November 1963 will not be the last."[62]
After Diem's assassination, South Vietnam was unable to establish a stable government and numerous coups took place during the first several years after his death. While the U.S. continued to influence South Vietnam's government, the assassination bolstered North Vietnamese attempts to characterize the South Vietnamese as supporters of colonialism
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think this is a hopeless lost cause. We were in there to sew chaos to spread that chaos to Iran and Pakistan and we have admitted as much. The local combatants have many nuclear industrial powers to draw on for potential aid:
China
Pakistan
India
Iran
The five former soviet republics
Russia
And of course, US. Don't think they can't work for us and then turn around and use those weapons against us, because they've done it before.
But really, we're totally outclassed. It's the same reason we never go to war in Africa. Unless you put boots on the ground numbering in 8 digits, you're not even in the running. Our 5 digit force is a suicide mission. Someone bring those guys home.
As for Karzai, he's a dead duck. I'd say next march...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think the bigger question is what would happen if the west pulled out...
back to the chaos and suffering that brought the Taliban to power?
or does the US need Afghanistan as a land base for the invasion of Iran?
which also has made me mad lately,
as far as anybody has been able to prove Iran is in compliance with both the NPT and IAEA treatys...
yet they have had to put up with the hysteria Obama started during the G20...
and Israel, throwing stones refuses to sign either treaty, submit to any inspection, and had exported nuclear weapons tech to South Africa .
Embargos = Bullshit
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And all this makes the latest tiny tragedy all the more upsetting.
Some kid got fatally bonked by a box of coalition propaganda leaflets - which is kind of a sad echo of our entire doings there.
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_8560/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=7msUsAfb
FWIW - I think McChrystal is the wrong guy for the job, so does Gates, but there's no way to yank him unless he does something even stupider than usual, since he has seniority and political backing.
Ask WHERE, and you'll understand why I dislike him.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I think the bigger question is what would happen if the west pulled out...
back to the chaos and suffering that brought the Taliban to power?
or does the US need Afghanistan as a land base for the invasion of Iran?
which also has made me mad lately,
as far as anybody has been able to prove Iran is in compliance with both the NPT and IAEA treatys...
yet they have had to put up with the hysteria Obama started during the G20...
and Israel, throwing stones refuses to sign either treaty, submit to any inspection, and had exported nuclear weapons tech to South Africa .
Embargos = Bullshit
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
Right there with ya, Gino.
If Iran "must" open up its nuclear facilities, shouldn't Israel, France, Great Britain, Canada, the United States, Brazil, South Africa, India, Pakistan, et al, have to do the same?
Or are the rules different if the country happens to be our enemy du jour?
Mike
The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And all this makes the latest tiny tragedy all the more upsetting.
Some kid got fatally bonked by a box of coalition propaganda leaflets - which is kind of a sad echo of our entire doings there.
http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_8560/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=7msUsAfb
FWIW - I think McChrystal is the wrong guy for the job, so does Gates, but there's no way to yank him unless he does something even stupider than usual, since he has seniority and political backing.
Ask WHERE, and you'll understand why I dislike him.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
I think McChrystal has had several good ideas. Less reliance on using airstrikes planned with questionable intell, more positive engagement with the locals ( ie trying to win over the Afghans by having the troops not treat the locals like crap ), he is calling the administration on its lack of clear strategic goals, and the commitment to attain them, he has also been critical of the corruption in the Afghan government.
The political side of this the US has fought these problems since the Vietnam war, but how can you face those problem if not head on, I'm sure Gates doesn't like that at all. Indecision and lack of clarity from Washington is at least 1/3 of the problem.
http://www.longwarjournal.org/threat-matrix/archives/2009/09/mcchrysta
l_to_resign_if_not_gi.php
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090921/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_afghanistan
So, ok I 'll ask Where? Why?
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I think the bigger question is what would happen if the west pulled out...
back to the chaos and suffering that brought the Taliban to power?
or does the US need Afghanistan as a land base for the invasion of Iran?
which also has made me mad lately,
as far as anybody has been able to prove Iran is in compliance with both the NPT and IAEA treatys...
yet they have had to put up with the hysteria Obama started during the G20...
and Israel, throwing stones refuses to sign either treaty, submit to any inspection, and had exported nuclear weapons tech to South Africa .
Embargos = Bullshit
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
Right there with ya, Gino.
If Iran "must" open up its nuclear facilities, shouldn't Israel, France, Great Britain, Canada, the United States, Brazil, South Africa, India, Pakistan, et al, have to do the same?
Or are the rules different if the country happens to be our enemy du jour?
Mike
The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams
What amazes and sickens me is how willing all the western powers are to run along behind Obama on this and beat on the same drum?
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,652115-2,00.html
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Caught some of his radio interview on On Point yesterday -
http://www.onpointradio.org/2009/10/peter-galbraith-on-afghanistan
Galbraith:
"President Obama’s strategy requires a partner who is credible. We cannot do the job in Afghanistan on our own. We need to have a credible Afghan government that is interested in providing services to the people, that is capable of providing good, honest administration, on both the national and the local level. And whose tenure in office is accepted by the Afghan people. The Karzai government has been characterized for the last 7 years by corruption and ineffectiveness. And now, if President Karzai in fact continues in office, it will be the product of an election in which there was a massive fraud. I’m not saying that President Karzai would not have won anyhow, I think it’s quite possible that he would’ve won, and certainly if there was a run-off. But nonetheless, the fraud has tainted the credibility of the process, and therefore will certainly affect how Afghans, and particularly those who supported Karzai’s opponents, see the legitimacy of the government….
What we had in this election was wholesale fraud. That is to say, in at least a thousand polling centers, the polling centers never opened. And yet, votes were manufactured in those polling centers, or perhaps not even manufactured, merely reported. And in that circumstance, it’s possible that 1/3 of the votes that President Karzai was reported to have received were fraudulent. Incidentally, there was also fraud in the tally of Dr. Abdullah and Ramazan Bashardost, the third candidate, maybe in some of the others. But not on the scale that there was for President Karzai."
Ouch - some of the comments are pretty good too.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com 
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Two of the biggest mistakes
1. Bringing in a exile to head the government
2. Trying to build a government from the top - down
To establish a democracy, particularly one with so many diverse and sometimes hostile groups you need to start simple.
Someone asked me, what would you have done? So I gave it some thought
You don't start at the top, instead you appoint a temporary military governor ( such as McA in Japan )
then build democracy at the grassroots level.
Village / Town / City. get services running, tend to the people, etc
When an area becomes more or less secure ( many areas were six months in ) you elect provincial governors.
When you have enough Provinces secure enough to have elections, you elect a parliament to begin the process of debating and writing a constitution. Once this process is complete, ( I think areas which had not participated up to this point would see it as in their interest to get involved ) Then another election is held, under the rules of the new constitution... the military governor hands off control of the government... then bamm
it is now up to them.
Handing power over to warlords and exiles....
Well the whole " nationbuilding " effort up to now reminds me of this movie scene
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Bump for further thought as well, many excellent points. a great number of them made by gino
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My problem with McChrystal is that unofficially, he's in the same boat with Erik Prince, politically and morally speaking.
I worry that his personal biases and intolerance are gonna mess with his judgement, you understand ?
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Bump for further thought as well, many excellent points. a great number of them made by gino
More like "the vast majority of them". :)
I find it refreshing to get an outside view of our military actions. I've never been convinced that we're getting an accurate reporting of it here at home.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike,
Yeah, I was just not speaking in hyperbole, but there are some other excellent points like this one:
Quote:
Frem:
My problem with McChrystal is that unofficially, he's in the same boat with Erik Prince, politically and morally speaking.
Yeah this was my gut reaction as well. I read the back and forth between him and Obama and it seemed like McChrystal was gunning for an all out hopeless cause here, almost reminiscent of the WWI generals. I just wanted to read more on the subject before commenting.
One thing doesn't take a lot of research to say:
We're getting our heads handed to us like everyone else, ever, and for a very obvious reason. No, it's not "they're crazy bastards" nor is it "Mountains! eek! run for the hills!"
It's the straightforward reality that you can't conquer total anarchy. Not easily. This is why we suck in Somalia as well. It's the same thing that defeated the Greeks and then the Romans in Germany and Russia.
Once you have an established power structure, that structure keeps control of the population. Capture that, and you capture the country. Obviously, we would have had fewer troubles in Iraq if we had not then tried to dismantle the power structure and build a new one in its place.
But if you look at Nazi and Soviet conquest of Europe, it was relatively easy, because there was a very solid local power structure to take. Once you control Paris, Paris controls France. Not a lot else to be done. Once you control Kabul, you control Kabul, and that's about it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The only things I know about McCrystal I have read since his appointment. Special Forces background, and that he was fairly non political up to the point that some former subordinates figure that if Obama doesn't reinforce or change the mission he'd resign...
I like that as it was the "yes" men which largely helped to create this mess
Also he was one of the few to be calling for less airstrikes ( both manned and unmanned ) as well as changes with Karzai and Afghan gov corruption.
I think with his background, and from what he has said that trying to win over the people, and building infrastructure was the only way to win, and he has also said that the present gov there is a major obstacle...'
Seems a honest statement of fact next to the party line from Washington
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1927403,00.html
and if he does resign in protest, that may also serve to bring an end to this mess.
Seems refreshing as Petraeus was reminiscent of Westmoreland, and look how that ended.
I looked and tried to find a connection with Prince ( who is a douche ) and couldn't find any, not saying it isn't there.
My feeling is the use of " contractors " should be outright banned.
Oh, and Dream you can conquer anarchy, but you can't play sides ( like Somalia, and Afghanistan ) you have to play it straight, you have to present the hope of something better, and you have to beat down any corrupt bastard that messes with the solution publicly.
You can't goe in guns blazing saying " were gonna hunt down them Taleban basterds " as has been the case.
We could talk about the " Nazi and Soviet conquest of Europe " at lenght if you like, but I think there was much more to it.
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gino, Dream:
Keep looking. Look into McChrystal's involvement in the cover-up of Pat Tillman's friendly-fire death, which was used to make the man a hero (he already was) and as a recruiting tool for a war he was against (Iraq). According to some, that whitewash and cover-up of the way he died started with McChrystal.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Mike,
Yeah, I was just not speaking in hyperbole, but there are some other excellent points like this one:Quote:
Frem:
My problem with McChrystal is that unofficially, he's in the same boat with Erik Prince, politically and morally speaking.
Yeah this was my gut reaction as well. I read the back and forth between him and Obama and it seemed like McChrystal was gunning for an all out hopeless cause here, almost reminiscent of the WWI generals. I just wanted to read more on the subject before commenting.
One thing doesn't take a lot of research to say:
We're getting our heads handed to us like everyone else, ever, and for a very obvious reason. No, it's not "they're crazy bastards" nor is it "Mountains! eek! run for the hills!"
It's the straightforward reality that you can't conquer total anarchy. Not easily. This is why we suck in Somalia as well. It's the same thing that defeated the Greeks and then the Romans in Germany and Russia.
Once you have an established power structure, that structure keeps control of the population. Capture that, and you capture the country. Obviously, we would have had fewer troubles in Iraq if we had not then tried to dismantle the power structure and build a new one in its place.
Bingo. And despite the protestations of some around this board, that's also what would make the U.S. damned hard to invade or defeat on our home soil. We tend to rally behind our "leaders" when threatened, but if invaded, we wouldn't *rely* on them; we'd for the most part fight to the last man to defend our families, our homes, and our land. Our "national" leadership only goes so far, and just under the surface there's a seething semi-anarchy, as has been witnessed over the summer at the town hall meetings.
Quote:
But if you look at Nazi and Soviet conquest of Europe, it was relatively easy, because there was a very solid local power structure to take. Once you control Paris, Paris controls France. Not a lot else to be done. Once you control Kabul, you control Kabul, and that's about it.
Yup. And agreed, Iraq should have been done far differently, if it was going to be done at all. Depose Saddam or run him into exile, then USE his higher-ups to restore a sense of order, and then SLOWLY start phasing them out in favor of more U.S.-friendly puppets. That's not to say I advocate puppet regimes, just that if you're going to do it anyway, at least let the people have a semblance of involvement and "choice" in the matter. Makes it easier to mollify them, don'tcha know...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike
I always thought the Tillman thing wreaked the way the cheney hunting story did: IIRC, the first version of friendly fire report stated that two US perimeter patrols were circling in opposite directions Generally, the first leak is true, and later versions are cover ups, but if true, then there's a problem: This is never done, for this specific reason it's not done. (Just like you never fire behind you in a hunting line.) If this was done, then someone ordered it, probably with intended consequences.
Quote:
Bingo. And despite the protestations of some around this board, that's also what would make the U.S. damned hard to invade or defeat on our home soil. We tend to rally behind our "leaders" when threatened, but if invaded, we wouldn't *rely* on them; we'd for the most part fight to the last man to defend our families, our homes, and our land. Our "national" leadership only goes so far, and just under the surface there's a seething semi-anarchy, as has been witnessed over the summer at the town hall meetings.
I have to slightly disagree with you agreeing with me
That may be true, but the power structure *is* in place, and the state police and national guard of any US state might have its hands full, but would have some ability to hold that state, more so than if were total anarchy.Quote:
Yup. And agreed, Iraq should have been done far differently, if it was going to be done at all. Depose Saddam or run him into exile, then USE his higher-ups to restore a sense of order, and then SLOWLY start phasing them out in favor of more U.S.-friendly puppets. That's not to say I advocate puppet regimes, just that if you're going to do it anyway, at least let the people have a semblance of involvement and "choice" in the matter. Makes it easier to mollify them, don'tcha know...
Yeah, there were a lot of better ways to do this one. Saddam was a menace because he was a puppet, and we didn't want him to become someone elses puppet, puppets are like that, or to go indy on our ass. The fact is, most govts. are puppet govts. which is one reason why I oppose the idea of govt.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Gino, Dream:
Keep looking. Look into McChrystal's involvement in the cover-up of Pat Tillman's friendly-fire death, which was used to make the man a hero (he already was) and as a recruiting tool for a war he was against (Iraq). According to some, that whitewash and cover-up of the way he died started with McChrystal.
I assume your talking about the silver star citation?
Put yourself in his shoes, the order to award the medal was very likely political, probably from SecDef...
What do you do, refuse to sign off on the medal? at that point any investigation would have been ongoing, any information classified without any conclusion... is it no wonder the citation was vague and inaccurate ?
There should have been no medal awarded until after the investigation was over, so what do you do ?
From what I read McChrystal reported what had happened up the chain of command repeatedly,
not the actions of a coverup
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here we go, the election was a fraud and the UN monitors there to ensure a fair election did nothing
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8288383.stm
great for the taleban recruiting drive
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I didn't mean a direct connection, I meant McChrystal privately has that same damned attitude.
You know, that the problem with Afghanistan is that it's fulla Afghans, a buncha rag-head sand ******s who are all going to hell anyway so might as well speed the process and oh what a shame we can't get em to kill each other instead of wasting our precious resources...
THAT attitude.
Besides the fact that he's climbed the ranks politically, using preparation H for lip gloss, there's big gaping holes in his public service record, and for a fact folks, they do NOT give out them stars for humanitarian reasons, so I find myself wondering what the bastard did back in Jan 2001 to get it.
Ponder the history of what it takes to "make one's bones" as a General - and the fact that Patton and McArthur did so by stomping on US Veterans at the behest of the government that screwed em - more often than not, it takes an act so monstrous that the "loyalty" of the person is undeniable.
And when poring over McChrystals record, all I got is questions, and no answers at all.
That in combination with a certain amount of known religious and racial intolerance regarding the man, makes me cynical and suspicious, his role in JSOC completely reeks of blackops, and he's buddy buddy with the same alphabet intel goons who're in my opinion the single greatest threat to our nation and it's people on the planet.
So yeah, I think he's the wrong guy for the job.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I didn't mean a direct connection, I meant McChrystal privately has that same damned attitude.
You know, that the problem with Afghanistan is that it's fulla Afghans, a buncha rag-head sand ******s who are all going to hell anyway so might as well speed the process and oh what a shame we can't get em to kill each other instead of wasting our precious resources...
THAT attitude.
Besides the fact that he's climbed the ranks politically, using preparation H for lip gloss, there's big gaping holes in his public service record, and for a fact folks, they do NOT give out them stars for humanitarian reasons, so I find myself wondering what the bastard did back in Jan 2001 to get it.
Ponder the history of what it takes to "make one's bones" as a General - and the fact that Patton and McArthur did so by stomping on US Veterans at the behest of the government that screwed em - more often than not, it takes an act so monstrous that the "loyalty" of the person is undeniable.
And when poring over McChrystals record, all I got is questions, and no answers at all.
That in combination with a certain amount of known religious and racial intolerance regarding the man, makes me cynical and suspicious, his role in JSOC completely reeks of blackops, and he's buddy buddy with the same alphabet intel goons who're in my opinion the single greatest threat to our nation and it's people on the planet.
So yeah, I think he's the wrong guy for the job.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
I can only judge him by the actions I see, and he has come out with more honesty about the problems in Afghanistan than anyone else in the command structure...
airstrikes are down %40 I read someplace,
and the speeches to the troops seem to focus on treating the locals better, and to be more tolerant of the cultural differences...
plus the fact he is really forcing Obama and Gates to actually make some sort of decisions, and to make them publicly on what the mission is suppose to be anyway...
From what you have said, if he started in with that attitude, I would be denouncing him too, just haven't seen it yet, and with a special forces background I really wouldn't expect it either, the primary purpose of the SF is to go into countrys and train local forces.
Also, from what you have said is there anyone you would consider the right person for the job since ALL general officers are bad?
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, given the situation, really there's only two halfway decent options, and Ralston is a freakin flyboy, not to mention corrupt as it gets and blatantly in bed with general dynamics and the turks.
(see also: Sibel Edmonds)
Which leaves General Pace - whom we oughta drag out of retirement and put in charge of step by step disengagement of our forces from the area.
I know Pace is a sumbitch, and Gates hates the hardassed, ambitious bastard, but he's OUR sumbitch, and like Gates, will follow orders without regard to personal feelings on the matter.
Even with the inevitable friction between him and Gates, who kinda put a knife in his back to climb into the position he did, it'd still go better with a sand-eating marine in charge who has enough knowledge of the area and its inhabitants to not make the obvious, boneheaded mistakes every else has been - Pace is also less likely to sit on his ass in an air conditioned office back in washington and fly it by wire, he'll go OUT there, and start knocking the heads of staff officers on site till shit gets done.
That said, I hate Pace too, but he *IS* the man for the job, since you asked.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
his role in JSOC completely reeks of blackops
You don't say... JSOC in Afghanistan *is* black ops these days. And no one seemed to notice that under the new setup the Al Qaeda cells that we've recruited have access thru JSOC to make any requests they want for any equipment in the US military and the top oversight on this is Hillary Clinton? This is insane. And, of course, such "contractors" are under no treaty or bloodoath or anything they might actually honor to *not* turn around and then use that equipment against us.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Some more reading for you to catch up on.
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20090525/zirin2
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Posted by DreamTrove:
And, of course, such "contractors" are under no treaty or bloodoath or anything they might actually honor to *not* turn around and then use that equipment against us.
Oh, come on - you're not even being realistic! There's absolutely NO CHANCE at all that that could ever happen! Nobody has EVER used our own weapons or training against us - how could they, once we've shown them the light of freedom?
[/sarcasm]
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Well, given the situation, really there's only two halfway decent options, and Ralston is a freakin flyboy, not to mention corrupt as it gets and blatantly in bed with general dynamics and the turks.
(see also: Sibel Edmonds)
Which leaves General Pace - whom we oughta drag out of retirement and put in charge of step by step disengagement of our forces from the area.
I know Pace is a sumbitch, and Gates hates the hardassed, ambitious bastard, but he's OUR sumbitch, and like Gates, will follow orders without regard to personal feelings on the matter.
Even with the inevitable friction between him and Gates, who kinda put a knife in his back to climb into the position he did, it'd still go better with a sand-eating marine in charge who has enough knowledge of the area and its inhabitants to not make the obvious, boneheaded mistakes every else has been - Pace is also less likely to sit on his ass in an air conditioned office back in washington and fly it by wire, he'll go OUT there, and start knocking the heads of staff officers on site till shit gets done.
That said, I hate Pace too, but he *IS* the man for the job, since you asked.
-F
Since we're playing fantasy football here and pulling people out of retirement how about Anthony Zinni
Obama hasn't made the disengagement call yet, I can't see Ralston coming up with a winning strategy unless he gets some kickass staff officers to back him up...
Pace would be a good choice, but I wonder why Gates / Obama retired him ? had to have been more than a personality clash...
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Mike
Thanks for the Nation story. In the words of Rupert Giles: "Bloody priceless."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/world/asia/13military.html
From Oct 3rd, describes a new manual of operations having been written based on mistakes that were made in a July 2008 disaster at Wanat:
"More than a year has passed since an Afghan police commander turned on coalition forces and helped insurgents carry out a surprise attack that killed nine Americans, wounded more than 30 United States and Afghan troops and nearly resulted in the loss of an allied outpost in one of the deadliest engagements of the war."
"The handbook, “Small-Unit Operations in Afghanistan,” strikes a tone of respect for the Taliban and other insurgent groups, which are acknowledged to be extremely experienced fighters; even more, American soldiers are warned that the insurgents rapidly adapt to shifts in tactics."
"The manual includes a chapter titled “Cultural Engagements,” offering guidance to small-unit leaders on building relationships with wavering village elders and trust among distrustful village residents — a process that cannot be left to senior officers who may be back at headquarters.
The manual describes how to train better for the defense of remote forward operating bases in harsh Afghan terrain, especially in contested areas where the loyalties of local people are uncertain. The detailed “how to” lists include instructions on such battlefield techniques as deploying mortars more effectively than soldiers did at Wanat, where they did not take into account terrain that provided cover for attackers."
Sadly, it sounds like 8 years in and we're still learning the hard way and basically "tweaking."
I don't buy the "winning hearts and minds" there's nothing to suggest that we can, and certainly if it is possible we're looking at how many more years to gain trust? Do we think the Afghans are that easy?
Also -
a) ask a military person what the solution is and you'll get a military answer - what general is going to say "we can't win this one."
b) "mix with the Afghan people" sounds like what a military guy would say to the new liberal president and his liberal followers - it's nicer. Sounds like a stall imho.
And just happened yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?hp
"KABUL, Afghanistan — Insurgents besieged two American outposts in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday, American and Afghan officials said, killing eight Americans and two Afghan policemen in a bold daylight strike that was the deadliest for American soldiers in more than a year (Wanat)."
It does feel like we're being played. 
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Pizmo: Yup. Ask for another 20,000 troops here and 60,000 there, and before you know it, you've got 500,000 American soldiers on the ground in hostile territory. Sound familiar?
More importantly, I have yet to hear a comprehensive answer for what exactly constitutes a "win". At what point are we able to say "That's it - mission accomplished; let's go home."? You know that no one has an answer when they refuse to give you one. What I'm hearing now, and ALL I'm hearing lately, is things like "well, we don't want to pick a 'date-certain' for withdrawal..." and things like that - the EXACT SAME things we were told about Iraq when it was realized that what we had there was a clusterfuck of biblical proportions, with no way out and no end in sight.
We are now hearing more support for a "surge" in Afghanistan, with lots of backslapping about how "successful" the surge in Iraq was, and all they're talking about in terms of this "surge" is more boots on the ground. It wasn't the number of soldiers that helped in Iraq - it was the fact that we actually started paying the enemy cashy money to stop attacking us. Nobody likes to talk about that aspect of it, but the plain simple fact of it is that there were people there who were getting tired of the infighting, and we took advantage of the situation by offering them cash to not kill us. So far, I'm not hearing anything of the kind coming out of Afghanistan.
Mike
The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/world/asia/13military.html
From Oct 3rd, describes a new manual of operations having been written based on mistakes that were made in a July 2008 disaster at Wanat:
"More than a year has passed since an Afghan police commander turned on coalition forces and helped insurgents carry out a surprise attack that killed nine Americans, wounded more than 30 United States and Afghan troops and nearly resulted in the loss of an allied outpost in one of the deadliest engagements of the war."
"The handbook, “Small-Unit Operations in Afghanistan,” strikes a tone of respect for the Taliban and other insurgent groups, which are acknowledged to be extremely experienced fighters; even more, American soldiers are warned that the insurgents rapidly adapt to shifts in tactics."
"The manual includes a chapter titled “Cultural Engagements,” offering guidance to small-unit leaders on building relationships with wavering village elders and trust among distrustful village residents — a process that cannot be left to senior officers who may be back at headquarters.
The manual describes how to train better for the defense of remote forward operating bases in harsh Afghan terrain, especially in contested areas where the loyalties of local people are uncertain. The detailed “how to” lists include instructions on such battlefield techniques as deploying mortars more effectively than soldiers did at Wanat, where they did not take into account terrain that provided cover for attackers."
Sadly, it sounds like 8 years in and we're still learning the hard way and basically "tweaking."
I don't buy the "winning hearts and minds" there's nothing to suggest that we can, and certainly if it is possible we're looking at how many more years to gain trust? Do we think the Afghans are that easy?
Also -
a) ask a military person what the solution is and you'll get a military answer - what general is going to say "we can't win this one."
b) "mix with the Afghan people" sounds like what a military guy would say to the new liberal president and his liberal followers - it's nicer. Sounds like a stall imho.
And just happened yesterday:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/world/asia/05afghan.html?hp
"KABUL, Afghanistan — Insurgents besieged two American outposts in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday, American and Afghan officials said, killing eight Americans and two Afghan policemen in a bold daylight strike that was the deadliest for American soldiers in more than a year (Wanat)."
It does feel like we're being played.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
I agree and disagree
If back in 2002 things had not been so badly mismanaged, I think the Afghan people would have more willing to accept a new political system and all the change that goes with it...
But idiots screwed it all up by overuse of airstrikes and drones, treating the Afghans as a second class people, acting like an occupation force, installing the most ineffective corrupt regime imaginable, etc, etc, etc
I think there is nothing to do at this point but slink away with your tail between your legs... but that too has consequences
Also, the people who planned and executed this debacle need to be recognized as the idiots they are... or maybe they will be right back in positions of trust again... And I do mean the idiots at the political end.
Public tar and feathering works for me, but at least a public acknowledgment would be nice.
" small-unit leaders on building relationships with wavering village elders and trust among distrustful village residents "
can never work when on the larger scale your actions are build hate and distrust across the country...
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
Pizmo: Yup. Ask for another 20,000 troops here and 60,000 there, and before you know it, you've got 500,000 American soldiers on the ground in hostile territory. Sound familiar?
More importantly, I have yet to hear a comprehensive answer for what exactly constitutes a "win". At what point are we able to say "That's it - mission accomplished; let's go home."? You know that no one has an answer when they refuse to give you one. What I'm hearing now, and ALL I'm hearing lately, is things like "well, we don't want to pick a 'date-certain' for withdrawal..." and things like that - the EXACT SAME things we were told about Iraq when it was realized that what we had there was a clusterfuck of biblical proportions, with no way out and no end in sight.
We are now hearing more support for a "surge" in Afghanistan, with lots of backslapping about how "successful" the surge in Iraq was, and all they're talking about in terms of this "surge" is more boots on the ground. It wasn't the number of soldiers that helped in Iraq - it was the fact that we actually started paying the enemy cashy money to stop attacking us. Nobody likes to talk about that aspect of it, but the plain simple fact of it is that there were people there who were getting tired of the infighting, and we took advantage of the situation by offering them cash to not kill us. So far, I'm not hearing anything of the kind coming out of Afghanistan.
Mike
The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams
I know you guys have a hate on for McChrystal, but I think he is trying to do this...
By calling for more troops and some policy guidance from Washington ( publicly ) he is calling out Obama to define exactly what the mission is, and to support it or end it.
" Last week, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO forces in Afghanistan, said the military situation in the country is in "some ways deteriorating," and that foreign forces must "redefine" their strategy. "
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/10/04/afghanistan-nuristan-battle.h
tml
and the waffling assholes on the council of foreign relations really hate that
" Richard Haass: It is fine for generals and civilians to ask for more resources. One of their responsibilities is to speak truth to power if they think they need more resources to accomplish the mission. To do that in public is not appropriate, though. The president deserves to have these issues debated in private. Whoever leaked General McChrystal's memorandum, acted unfairly and unprofessionally. "
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,651782,00.html
meanwhile in Iraq, the game continues and Iran is probability going to win
" After six years of rebuilding and reforming, southern Iraq has become a de facto theocratic Shia state, with widespread dissension among feuding movements and leaderships. There is no single dominant grouping in this internal struggle for power. Paradoxically, the longer infighting continues the more Iran benefits, spreading Shia influence deep into the Sunni Arab heartland. "
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-forces-that-assure-ir
aqs-demise/article1307578/
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh I don't doubt that McChrystal is tryin, but he's gettin in his own way, I worry that his prejudices are tripping him up, and really, how DO you pull off the insane, impossible, and ridiculous ?
Same problem Gates had at the beginning of this, and one reason I do respect him, cause no matter how stupid the orders, he will at least TRY to carry them out without getting too political about it - problem is that he's ambitious, and yeah, he did climb into that chair on a knife planted solidly in Pace's back, which I am sure Pace ain't too damn happy about.
Thing is, if you're GOING to do something this insane and try to make it work, you need an officer who is going to get out there on the ground and kick the staff officers hard enough to dislodge their head from the brown-round, and a chair polisher like McChrystal ain't gonna do that - you can NOT do this from washington, and you can't do it from an air conditioned office in the capital neither - you have GOT to go into the teeth of it, hands on, and for that (no offense you Army grunts) you need a fuckin Marine.
Of course, we *could* use the GOTH plan Gates came up with a while back, and write the whole situation off - I got no problem with that, but I am sure some would.
-Frem
GOTH Plan = GO To Hell plan, what you do when it all goes to hell on you, not that you can plan it too deeply, but having SOME idea of what to do in advance is handy.
Basically, 48 hours, spike and ditch any equipment that cannot be handed off to friendlies and recovered, and get the troops stateside ASA-F-P, then sort it out once they're here.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Straight from the source, Mr. Galbraith's op-ed in the Sunday Washington Post. I'll copy the entire thing for those who don't have Post logins.
Quote:
By Peter W. Galbraith
Sunday, October 4, 2009
Before firing me last week from my post as his deputy special representative in Afghanistan, U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon conveyed one last instruction: Do not talk to the press. In effect, I was being told to remain a team player after being thrown off the team. Nonetheless, I agreed.
As my differences with my boss, Norwegian diplomat Kai Eide, had already been well publicized (through no fault of either of us), I asked only that the statement announcing my dismissal reflect the real reasons. Alain LeRoy, the head of U.N. peacekeeping and my immediate superior in New York, proposed that the United Nations say I was being recalled over a "disagreement as to how the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA) would respond to electoral fraud." Although this was not entirely accurate -- the dispute was really about whether the U.N. mission would respond to the massive electoral fraud -- I agreed.
Instead, the United Nations announced my recall as occurring "in the best interests of the mission," and U.N. press officials told reporters on background that my firing was necessitated by a "personality clash" with Eide, a friend of 15 years who had introduced me to my future wife.
I might have tolerated even this last act of dishonesty in a dispute dating back many months if the stakes were not so high. For weeks, Eide had been denying or playing down the fraud in Afghanistan's recent presidential election, telling me he was concerned that even discussing the fraud might inflame tensions in the country. But in my view, the fraud was a fact that the United Nations had to acknowledge or risk losing its credibility with the many Afghans who did not support President Hamid Karzai.
I also felt loyal to my U.N. colleagues who worked in a dangerous environment to help Afghans hold honest elections -- at least five of whom have now told me they are leaving jobs they love in disgust over the events leading to my firing.
Afghanistan's presidential election, held Aug. 20, should have been a milestone in the country's transition from 30 years of war to stability and democracy. Instead, it was just the opposite. As many as 30 percent of Karzai's votes were fraudulent, and lesser fraud was committed on behalf of other candidates. In several provinces, including Kandahar, four to 10 times as many votes were recorded as voters actually cast. The fraud has handed the Taliban its greatest strategic victory in eight years of fighting the United States and its Afghan partners.
The election was a foreseeable train wreck. Unlike the United Nations-run elections in 2004, this balloting was managed by Afghanistan's Independent Election Commission (IEC). Despite its name, the commission is subservient to Karzai, who appointed its seven members. Even so, the international role was extensive. The United States and other Western nations paid the more than $300 million to hold the vote, and U.N. technical staff took the lead in organizing much of the process, including printing ballot papers, distributing election materials and designing safeguards against fraud.
Part of my job was to supervise all this U.N. support. In July, I learned that at least 1,500 polling centers (out of 7,000) were to be located in places so insecure that no one from the IEC, the Afghan National Army or the Afghan National Police had ever visited them. Clearly, these polling centers would not open on Election Day. At a minimum, their existence on the books would create large-scale confusion, but I was more concerned about the risk of fraud.
Local commission staff members were hardly experienced election professionals; in many instances they were simply agents of the local power brokers, usually aligned with Karzai. If no independent observers or candidate representatives, let alone voters, could even visit the listed locatioNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think Mike hit it: Depends on the goal.
Here's some possible goals:
1. foster chaos, grow opium, aid terrorism, hope it spills over into neighboring countries.
2. Set up military bases in the west to attack Iran with
3. Keep a secure green zone with an internationally recognized puppet govt. that can sign treaties and include Afgh. in some globalist supernation.
Anything else I'll mark down for 0% chance.
1, we're fostering chaos, but it's coming back to bite us in the ass rather than spreading. Sure, it's spread to "pakistan" but not to any part of Pakistan that's controlled from Islamabad.
2, that's going to be tricky, depends on our definition of base, but we're working on it.
3, I don't think it's going to last. It would take a lot of troops just to hold down the fort, and we're losing ground. Kabul isn't the power center that Baghdad is. If I were Hamid Karzai I would be making peace with my creator right about now.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh I don't doubt that McChrystal is tryin, but he's gettin in his own way, I worry that his prejudices are tripping him up, and really, how DO you pull off the insane, impossible, and ridiculous ?
Same problem Gates had at the beginning of this, and one reason I do respect him, cause no matter how stupid the orders, he will at least TRY to carry them out without getting too political about it - problem is that he's ambitious, and yeah, he did climb into that chair on a knife planted solidly in Pace's back, which I am sure Pace ain't too damn happy about.
Thing is, if you're GOING to do something this insane and try to make it work, you need an officer who is going to get out there on the ground and kick the staff officers hard enough to dislodge their head from the brown-round, and a chair polisher like McChrystal ain't gonna do that - you can NOT do this from washington, and you can't do it from an air conditioned office in the capital neither - you have GOT to go into the teeth of it, hands on, and for that (no offense you Army grunts) you need a fuckin Marine.
Of course, we *could* use the GOTH plan Gates came up with a while back, and write the whole situation off - I got no problem with that, but I am sure some would.
-Frem
GOTH Plan = GO To Hell plan, what you do when it all goes to hell on you, not that you can plan it too deeply, but having SOME idea of what to do in advance is handy.
Basically, 48 hours, spike and ditch any equipment that cannot be handed off to friendlies and recovered, and get the troops stateside ASA-F-P, then sort it out once they're here.
on reflection, Pace was CJCS or VCJCS during the planning and execution of this entire debacle
If he wasn't in agreement with the failed strategy and or the execution of it... he sure had some opportunity to either fix it or otherwise address these problems from the initial planning up to the point he was relieved.
So either he was in agreement with how things went down ( minus the torture in Iraq, I know he spoke out on that )
or he was a yes man for the Bush stooges
either way. I say no... he isn't the guy for the job he already dropped that ball
Problem is Obama has to get off his ass and decide to shit or go home, he doesn't reinforce how can he ask NATO to send more troops into an American made debacle...
If he decides to pull out, write off Pakistan which might not have been a problem if the US had of left Musharraf alone and stirring the hornets nest with your drones... not a good idea
Iraq will likely flame up again ( not that it died down much )
and a variety of other fun consequences that erode US credibility
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
War advisers must be candid but discreet: Gates
http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN3024169220091005
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday called for patience and discretion as President Barack Obama decides how to conduct the war in Afghanistan, urging advisers to speak "candidly but privately" on strategy.
Gates did not single out anyone in his address at an Army convention in Washington, but his comments followed very public remarks by the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan as well as Obama's national security adviser.
"I believe that the decisions that the president will make for the next stage of the Afghanistan campaign will be among the most important of his presidency," Gates said.
"So it is important that we take our time to do all we can to get this right. And in this process, it is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations -- civilians and military alike -- provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately."
Obama is convening his top foreign policy advisers for a series of meetings to consider options for the eight-year-old war, in the face of rising casualties and souring public opinion. His administration is split over whether to boost U.S. forces or take an alternative path.
Vice President Joe Biden has privately proposed narrowing the mission in Afghanistan, concentrating instead on attacking al Qaeda targets that are based primarily in neighboring Pakistan.
General Stanley McChrystal, the commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, last week told the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London such a strategy would probably be "shortsighted."
Don't tell us to make a decision, we will make it on our own time, and still find a way to blame the military for it!!!
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
bump
Sacked UN man attacks mission
Peter Galbraith
Mr Galbraith had been critical of the Afghan election commission
The UN official removed from his post after criticising Afghanistan's presidential election has lashed out at the UN mission in the country.
Peter Galbraith said the $300m mission is now "leaderless", calling the UN special envoy a "terrible manager".
Speaking to BBC News, he also accused Norwegian Kai Eide of failing to act upon evidence of electoral fraud.
Mr Eide responded by saying he had the full backing of the international community and the US administration.
"I feel that Galbraith is on a personal campaign for revenge, after what happened to him," Mr Eide said, adding: "It wasn't me who got fired, it was him."
Mr Galbraith angered Afghan President Hamid Karzai by reportedly calling for a complete recount of the vote.
The election has been overshadowed by widespread allegations of fraud. According to EU election observers, about 1.5m votes - about a quarter of all ballots - cast in August's presidential vote could be fraudulent.
They say that 1.1 million votes cast for President Karzai are suspicious.
"Once it became clear to Kai Eide that this evidence would be harmful to President Karzai, he ordered us to do nothing with it," he told BBC World News America.
"He had good relations with Karzai, and he became Karzai's man in the United Nations, rather than the United Nations representative to Karzai."
'Certainly concerned'
Mr Galbraith also launched a personal attack on his former boss, saying he had lost the confidence of many of the country's political opposition figures and was mistrustful of his own staff.
"So we now have a mission that costs over $300m a year with several thousand employees, that's leaderless," he said.
PETER GALBRAITH: KEY DATES
1979-1993: Senior adviser to US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations
1993-1998: First US Ambassador to Croatia, and co-author of Erdut Agreement that ended the war in Croatia
2000-2001: Director of Political, Constitutional and Electoral Affairs for the UN Transitional Administration in East Timor
2003: Resigns from the US government to write The End of Iraq: How American Incompetence Created a War Without End
Profile: Peter Galbraith
UN mission split over Afghan poll
UN sources say Secretary General Ban Ki-moon decided to end Mr Galbraith's mission after it became clear he was no longer able to carry out his work in Afghanistan. Some Afghan cabinet ministers had said they no longer wanted to work with him.
A UN spokeswoman at the headquarters in the US said the body was "certainly concerned" about the allegations of fraud.
"We're trying to do as much as we can to specify what the UN role exactly was, and what the UN role still is," Michele Montas said from New York.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8291920.stm
The key line : Mr Eide responded by saying he had the full backing of the international community and the US administration.
So the US is a co conspirator in the election fraud then?
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Oh I don't doubt that McChrystal is tryin, but he's gettin in his own way, I worry that his prejudices are tripping him up, and really, how DO you pull off the insane, impossible, and ridiculous ?
Same problem Gates had at the beginning of this, and one reason I do respect him, cause no matter how stupid the orders, he will at least TRY to carry them out without getting too political about it - problem is that he's ambitious, and yeah, he did climb into that chair on a knife planted solidly in Pace's back, which I am sure Pace ain't too damn happy about.
Thing is, if you're GOING to do something this insane and try to make it work, you need an officer who is going to get out there on the ground and kick the staff officers hard enough to dislodge their head from the brown-round, and a chair polisher like McChrystal ain't gonna do that - you can NOT do this from washington, and you can't do it from an air conditioned office in the capital neither - you have GOT to go into the teeth of it, hands on, and for that (no offense you Army grunts) you need a fuckin Marine.
Of course, we *could* use the GOTH plan Gates came up with a while back, and write the whole situation off - I got no problem with that, but I am sure some would.
-Frem
GOTH Plan = GO To Hell plan, what you do when it all goes to hell on you, not that you can plan it too deeply, but having SOME idea of what to do in advance is handy.
Basically, 48 hours, spike and ditch any equipment that cannot be handed off to friendlies and recovered, and get the troops stateside ASA-F-P, then sort it out once they're here.
You want a go to hell plan, something that may help the US both save face and maybe turn the situation around?
Dig through the files on the Afghan government, I'm sure they must exist, and have a real good look at who has been involved in the heroin trade, who has committed or ordered atrocitys and or torture, every asshole who committed a crime...
Pick a day and round them all up, fold that government on the basis of the fraudulent election and pass over all the evidence and accused to the ICC for trial.
Declare a unilateral ceasefire, and reorganize... The Taleban, I think would likely lay low until they figured out what was what, and then you make somekind of amnesty offer that would allow them to help shape their country. A parliamentary style government could be formed over say six months, including the people fighting you now because the system you installed was corrupted.
Then, pull out... militarily, politically, economically. Everything.
Meanwhile, Obama signs on to the ICC and along with the Afghan files, he turns over ALL the files on the alphabet thugs, politicians, lawyers, and CFR types and allows indictments and trials on them at the Hague. No findings that it wasn't against American law, no Presidential pardons later.
Better still, clear out GITMO and turn it over to the ICC for their use in this matter ( probably a shortage of cells at the Hague ) it would tickle me to hear that Cheney was sharing a cell there with Wolfie.
This wouldn't solve every problem, but it sure as hell would give pause to any reoccurance
and maybe then you could change the way you deal with Israel...
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
sounds like a nice fantasy. Of course, as much as I'd like to see the CFR rounded up and sent to Gitmo, I suspect they would assassinate Obama first.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Gino is about to forget something
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
You want a go to hell plan, something that may help the US both save face and maybe turn the situation around?
Dig through the files on the Afghan government, I'm sure they must exist, and have a real good look at who has been involved in the heroin trade, who has committed or ordered atrocitys and or torture, every asshole who committed a crime...
Pick a day and round them all up, fold that government on the basis of the fraudulent election and pass over all the evidence and accused to the ICC for trial.
Declare a unilateral ceasefire, and reorganize... The Taleban, I think would likely lay low until they figured out what was what, and then you make somekind of amnesty offer that would allow them to help shape their country. A parliamentary style government could be formed over say six months, including the people fighting you now because the system you installed was corrupted.
Then, pull out... militarily, politically, economically. Everything.
Meanwhile, Obama signs on to the ICC and along with the Afghan files, he turns over ALL the files on the alphabet thugs, politicians, lawyers, and CFR types and allows indictments and trials on them at the Hague. No findings that it wasn't against American law, no Presidential pardons later.
Better still, clear out GITMO and turn it over to the ICC for their use in this matter ( probably a shortage of cells at the Hague ) it would tickle me to hear that Cheney was sharing a cell there with Wolfie.
This wouldn't solve every problem, but it sure as hell would give pause to any reoccurance
and maybe then you could change the way you deal with Israel...
Too bloody right!
Clear them out, turn them over, pledge to work WITH all parties involved to form a government that THEY want - the people who have to live under it - and then pledge to HELP THEM.
Quote:
The key line : Mr Eide responded by saying he had the full backing of the international community and the US administration.
So the US is a co conspirator in the election fraud then?
Could well be. If nothing else, it now APPEARS that we're complicit, or at least complacent. Neither helps our cause, as far as I can see.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So the US is a co conspirator in the election fraud then?
Could well be. If nothing else, it now APPEARS that we're complicit, or at least complacent. Neither helps our cause, as far as I can see.
And it hurts the international election monitoring process
They let this stand, what can they say to Iran, or the Ukraine, or Honduras coming up. This doesn't just effect Afghanistan, it kills the ability to do anything positive in this reguard anywhere, and I suspect that is part of why this guy is so upset.
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
sounds like a nice fantasy. Of course, as much as I'd like to see the CFR rounded up and sent to Gitmo, I suspect they would assassinate Obama first.
that is why we he has a secret service
time to nut up or shut up
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
So the US is a co conspirator in the election fraud then?
Could well be. If nothing else, it now APPEARS that we're complicit, or at least complacent. Neither helps our cause, as far as I can see.
And it hurts the international election monitoring process
They let this stand, what can they say to Iran, or the Ukraine, or Honduras coming up. This doesn't just effect Afghanistan, it kills the ability to do anything positive in this reguard anywhere, and I suspect that is part of why this guy is so upset.
Well, hell - the U.S. lost ALL credibility to oversee or certify anyone else's elections in 2000, so it's not like this is really anything NEW. Now we've just proven - like we tried to do with John Bolton - that we can spread our own unique version of corruption to the UN, already a corrupt enterprise in its own ways.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nut up, thank you:
Quote:
that is why we he has a secret service
And who do you think shot JFK?
Do you really believe this "I'd get in between that man and a bullet," stuff? I mean, even if that kind of chivalry *did* exist, they would have said to Bush "Sorry, lunch break" and he would have believed them.
The secret service sure, protect the president, but they also serve to keep him from the public, because the special interests don't want to split the pie with the public, and if he gets too out of line, there's someone there to get rid of him.
More than who shot JFK, ask yourself "Why?"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
UN denies Karzai bias
The United Nations has denied allegations made by one of its former senior officials in Afghanistan that its mission there was biased in favour of President Hamid Karzai.
Peter Galbraith, the UN's former No. 2 official in Afghanistan, was sacked last week after accusing his boss of turning a blind eye to fraud that helped Karzai win the Aug. 20 presidential elections.
"The election was characterized by massive fraud," Galbraith told CBC News from the UN in New York. In certain provinces in the south, for example, there were as many as four to 10 times votes recorded as voters actually appeared," he said.
"By some calculations, up to 30 per cent of the vote for President Karzai were fraudulent."
Preliminary results released last month showed Karzai won the election with 54.6 per cent of the votes, enough to avoid a runoff with second-place finisher Abdullah Abdullah, his former foreign minister.
But the recount and audit ordered by a UN-backed fraud panel could cut Karzai's votes below the 50 per cent threshold needed to win outright.
About 13 per cent of the country's approximately 26,300 polling stations are considered questionable by the fraud panel because they had more than 100 per cent turnout or more than 95 per cent of votes for one candidate.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/10/06/galbraith-un-afghanistan006.h
tml
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Afghan sceptics alarm Nato chief
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8246986.stm
Anders Fogh Rasmussen 2.9.09
Mr Rasmussen says "running for the exits" in Afghanistan is not an option
Nato chief Anders Fogh Rasmussen says he is alarmed by growing scepticism about the war in Afghanistan.
In remarks prepared for a Nato ceremony in the US, Mr Rasmussen says he is worried the public debate "has started to go in the wrong direction".
The secretary general's comments came as EU leaders urged the UN to hold a major summit on Afghanistan's future.
Increasing violence is raising concern about the future of the country eight years after the US-led invasion.
Mounting allied casualties, a rising Afghan civilian death toll and claims of widespread electoral fraud have led to growing opposition to the campaign in Western countries.
"What we need is a clear step towards transition to Afghan leadership in all areas - security, health, education, development and governance," Mr Rasmussen's remarks, released by Nato, say.
He says the fact that Nato countries are losing soldiers in the fight against the Taliban is turning public opinion against the operation.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen's comments show the growing concern within Nato that perceived setbacks in Afghanistan are turning the public mood against the war.
It is a view borne out by the latest public opinion survey from the German Marshall Fund, released today, which shows that nearly two-thirds of Europeans (63%) are pessimistic about stabilising the situation in Afghanistan.
That is why Mr Rasmussen has stressed, like the UK, French and German leaders in their letter to the UN, the need for clear steps towards transition to Afghan leadership.
The danger is though that in signalling such a move to a transition phase - a message that they hope will signal the beginning of the end-game to Western public opinion - the same signal will be seen as a lack of commitment on the ground in Afghanistan itself.
He describes allegations of widespread fraud in last month's presidential election as "disturbing" and says there is a sense among many people in many countries "that we are not making progress fast enough".
But he adds: "We must stay in Afghanistan as long as necessary, and we will stay as long as necessary. Let no-one think that a run for the exits is an option. It is not."
Nato forces comprise about two-thirds of the more than 100,000 international troops based in Afghanistan.
Mr Rasmussen says although progress in the fight against insurgents has not been as fast as some had hoped, the situation on the ground is improving.
"The Taliban have no chance of taking power again, nor do terrorists have any safe haven in Afghanistan from which to threaten the world," he says.
"If we were to walk away... soon there will be terrorists in Afghanistan and attacking from Afghanistan, profound instability in Pakistan and in Central Asia.
"This is simply not a future we can allow to happen."
Summit call
Earlier, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel pressed the UN for a summit to discuss the aftermath of the Afghan elections.
They made the plea in a letter to UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
In it they said "benchmarks and timelines" should be agreed "to formulate a joint framework for our transition phase in Afghanistan... to set our expectations of ownership and the clear view to hand over responsibility step-by-step to the Afghans, wherever possible".
On Tuesday, Afghanistan's Election Complaints Commission said it had found "clear and convincing evidence of fraud" in last month's presidential election.
The UN-backed body has ordered a number of recounts and audits of votes.
Earlier, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel pressed the UN for a summit to discuss the aftermath of the Afghan elections.
not that it will do any good, except hopefully bring the bias
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Government trying to muzzle diplomat, lawyer says
The lawyer for a Canadian diplomat called to testify at a hearing into allegations of Afghan prison torture says the Conservative government is trying to keep her client silent.
In a letter sent to the Department of Justice and obtained by CBC News, Lori Bokenfohr said the government has invoked the national security order in response to Richard Colvin's decision to co-operate with the Military Police Complaints Commission.
The commission is examining whether military police officers had a duty to investigate the transfer of detainees when there were allegations of torture in Afghan prisons by Afghans.
But the order prohibits Colvin from telling the commission what he knows.
In the letter, Bokenfohr questions the government’s use of the orders, saying they were not “intended to be used tactically to intimidate witnesses from giving evidence in administrative proceedings carried out by government-created bodies.”
“We raise these issues to emphasize that the interests of justice are not served when an ordinary witness such as Mr. Colvin is threatened by the Department of Justice with severe penalties for abiding by the terms of a subpoena served on him,” Bokenfohr writes.
CBC News earlier reported that Colvin was the author of a 2007 report that contained claims of torture from Afghan detainees.
The report said one detainee claimed to have been beaten with cables and wires and electrocuted.
Another detainee said he was beaten and forced to stand for two days during interrogation. All the abuse was allegedly carried out by Afghans in Afghan prisons.
The report was widely circulated at the senior levels of the defence and foreign affairs departments.
But Defence Minister Peter MacKay has said the government has done nothing wrong in its dealings with the commission process.
"The commission is proceeding with its important work. We have provided thousands of documents, we have co-operated with witnesses, within the mandate of the commission," MacKay told the House of Commons.
NDP defence critic Jack Harris said the Conservative government is trying to keep Colvin from speaking about the abuse of Afghan detainees for fear of what he might say.
"The indication seems to be that much of this evidence might embarrass the government because it might reveal what they knew, when they knew it and whether they did anything about it or not."
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/06/diplomat-testimony-afghan.ht
ml
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Interesting Video
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Re: Funny movie line.
Actually that's untrue - one of the reasons Democrats are so less effective at getting things done is that they don't have the zombie like, slavish toeing of the line Republicans do.
Of course, on the one end of that you wind up with a clusterfuck, and on the other, tyranny...
So all hail to the FUBAR, I guess, not that the end result seems to matter too damn much.
Far as Afghanistan goes, I said my piece - and I'll have you know my first reaction when the idea of even floated was to slam my forehead into the keyboard hissing "You Id-i-ots!" - cause the only thing dumber than invading Afganistan is trying to have sex with a running garbage disposal.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Re: Funny movie line.
Actually that's untrue - one of the reasons Democrats are so less effective at getting things done is that they don't have the zombie like, slavish toeing of the line Republicans do.
Of course, on the one end of that you wind up with a clusterfuck, and on the other, tyranny...
So all hail to the FUBAR, I guess, not that the end result seems to matter too damn much.
Far as Afghanistan goes, I said my piece - and I'll have you know my first reaction when the idea of even floated was to slam my forehead into the keyboard hissing "You Id-i-ots!" - cause the only thing dumber than invading Afganistan is trying to have sex with a running garbage disposal.
-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it
I agree with you there, I too was against the original invasion...
and any hope of a pullout anytime soon is gone
Gates: US will stay in Afghanistan
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2009/10/20091064451860748.h
tml
but whether or not McChrystal is the right guy, I think he has the right, or at least better idea.
and calling Gates and Obama on their bullshit can only be the start. Maybe the best scenario has Obama saying no new troops, no change in direction and McChrystal resigning in protest, in order to bring more pressure to fix it or pull out.
I think the Republicans and the Democrats both for the most part are zombies to their own ideology...
But then I am a middle of the political spectrum kind of guy
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here's my chance to say a generic "I told you so".
WOO HOOO !
I too was against invading Afghanistan, for two reasons.
1) The whole fib about 'we know it was bin Laden but we can't tell' smelled bad. (And then afterwards they spent years scouring the country to find 'proof', scouring caves and homes, translating and pouring over 48 boxcars of papers. Really, if they had proof at the start, why did they need to find it later ?)
2) The Afghanistan government offered to give up bin Laden if the US would communicate why it thought it was him, and as long as he wouldn't go to the US, but to some other body, for example the ICC. But the US blew past that in the gin up to the war. Which should have made anyone wonder - if it was all about bin Laden, why didn't the US settle on getting him without a war ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Here's my chance to say a generic "I told you so".
WOO HOOO !
I too was against invading Afghanistan, for two reasons.
1) The whole fib about 'we know it was bin Laden but we can't tell' smelled bad. (And then afterwards they spent years scouring the country to find 'proof', scouring caves and homes, translating and pouring over 48 boxcars of papers. Really, if they had proof at the start, why did they need to find it later ?)
2) The Afghanistan government offered to give up bin Laden if the US would communicate why it thought it was him, and as long as he wouldn't go to the US, but to some other body, for example the ICC. But the US blew past that in the gin up to the war. Which should have made anyone wonder - if it was all about bin Laden, why didn't the US settle on getting him without a war ?
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
My feeling is the US is very against the idea of the ICC, because it implies that at some level, everyone, even they can be held responsible for their actions. Same reason why the UN security council has the veto, so they can protect their own bullshit no matter how unjustified.
The UN Security Council has rejected the UN-sanctioned Goldstone report
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/middleeast/2009/10/20091085482470957
8.html
The open arrest warrant for Kissinger in France
numerous other examples
" I don't believe in hypothetical situations - it's kinda like lying to your brain "
" They don't hate America, they hate Americans " Homer Simpson
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Yeah, I realize the US had and maybe still has issues with the ICC. Which to my mind speaks only to the US and its disdain for an international rule of law, since I have yet to find a cogent argument for why the ICC is a bad idea or a good idea executed badly.
***************************************************************
Silence is consent.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://www.globalpolicy.org/component/content/article/164/28438.html
By Irune Aguirrezabal Quijera
Coalition for the International Criminal Court
August 4, 2003
As part of the United States' campaign to exclude its citizens and military personnel from the jurisdiction of the ICC, the Bush administration has been approaching countries around the world seeking to conclude Bilateral Impunity Agreements (BIAs), or so called "Article 98" agreements. These agreements prohibit the surrender to the ICC of a broad scope of persons including current or former government officials, military personnel, and US employees (including contractors) and nationals. These agreements, which in some cases are reciprocal, do not include an obligation by the US to subject those persons to investigation and/or prosecution.
While these US-proposed bilateral agreements are purportedly based on Art. 98.2 of the Rome Statute, they are, in fact, a clear violation of the negotiators' intentions and go far beyond the letter and spirit of that article. Drafters of the Statute did not envisage situations of impunity, but sought to create a system to end impunity for the gravest crimes, in accordance with the principle of complementarity. As David Sheffer, former US ambassador for war crimes and a chief negotiator at the Rome Statute drafting conference, said in the Wall Street Journal published on 20 September 2002, "the original intent of the Art. 98 agreements was to ensure that Status of Forces Agreements (SOFAs) would not be compromised and that Americans on official duty could be specially covered by agreements that fit in the terms of the article".
Approximately 50 states have signed bilateral immunity agreements with the US to date, but few states have ratified these accords. Most of those states that have concluded an agreement have done so under strong US pressure. In some instances, these bilateral agreements have been linked to the American Servicemember´s Protection Act (ASPA), a US law which authorizes the withdrawal of US military assistance from States Parties to the ICC that did not conclude a BIA before 1 July 2003. NATO members, non-NATO allies (Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Australia, Argentina, New Zealand, The Republic of Korea, and Japan) and Taiwan are specifically exempt from this legislation, which is targeted at States Parties to the Rome Statute. Provisions in the ASPA also allow President Bush to issue waivers to those countries for US national security interests.
However, the Bush administration has been exercising unconscionable diplomatic tactics that go beyond the provisions of the ASPA: threatening poor countries in all regions of the world to violate their international obligations or otherwise lose vital US financial and political support. US Assistant Secretary of State Stephen Rademaker has reportedly threatened to deny benefits of the New Horizons program, which includes funds for hurricane relief and rural dentistry and veterinary efforts, to countries in the Caribbean Community. According to a senior official in the Niger Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the US has threatened to suspend cooperative development projects if Niger does not sign a bilateral immunity agreement. US Ambassador to Bahamas Richard Blankenship has publicly warned that if the Bahamas did not support the US position on the ICC, a significant amount of aid would be withheld, including aid for paving and lighting an airport runway. In the case of Bulgaria, loss of military aid has been linked to NATO membership. US Ambassador in Croatia Lawrence Rossin even published a letter in the Zagreb press warning that Croatia would lose $19 million in military aid unless they sign an immunity deal.
Despite this intense pressure, several states have resisted signing a BIA, and on July 1, the Bush administration announced its intention to impose its threat to cut off military aid to 35 States Parties, including Brazil, Bulgaria, Central African Republic, Colombia, Croatia, Estonia, Fiji, Peru, Slovenia, South Africa, Tanzania, Trinidad and Tobago
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
...cause the only thing dumber than invading Afganistan is trying to have sex with a running garbage disposal.
That's about the best analogy for it I've ever heard. And you're absolutely right - screwing the disposal WOULD be dumber, but you only get one crack at it, and then you thankfully won't reproduce, so the world need never worry about THAT genetic abnormality becoming the new norm...
For some besotted reason, though, every so often, some band of idiots decides that THEY are going to be the ones to do it RIGHT, and show the rest of the world how great they are, and do Afghanistan the right way. This generally precedes their utter failure as an empire by just a few years, it would seem.
So, folks - been nice knowin' ya, but I'm afraid the US-of-Fuckin'-A is well and truly down the shitter this time. Maybe future generations will "mis-remember" Dubya fiddling while the towers burned.
Mike
The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
The Daily Show's John Oliver recently did a run down of Empires defeated in Afghanistan. Alas, it's incomplete.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Afghan vote fraud 'widespread': UN official
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/10/11/afghan-vote-fraud.html
The head of the United Nations mission in Afghanistan said Sunday there was "widespread fraud" in August's presidential election, but denied allegations he tried to cover up evidence of cheating on behalf of President Hamid Karzai.
Kai Eide was responding to accusations from his former deputy, Peter Galbraith, who was fired on Sept. 30 by UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon due to the public dispute over how to deal with the fraud allegations.
The Norwegian diplomat refused to reveal any numbers showing the extend of fraud, saying "any specific figures would be speculative" before a recount is complete.
He would only say that irregularities have been discovered in some polling stations in the south and southeastern areas of Afghanistan.
Eide made the comments at a news conference in Kabul, where he appeared alongside ambassadors from the United States, France and Britain.
He referred to Galbraith's allegations as "personal attacks" against his integrity, adding they have "affected the whole election process."
Election workers began a partial recount, 12 per cent of the ballot boxes, on Oct. 5. A final result is expected in the coming days.
Preliminary results released last month showed Karzai the voting with 54.6 per cent, enough to avoid a run-off with second-place finisher Abdullah Abdullah, his former foreign minister.
But the recount and audit ordered by a UN-backed fraud panel could cut Karzai's votes below the 50 per cent threshold needed to win outright.
1. Are we all agreed they would have covered this up if Galbraith had not of came forward ?
2. If Karzai was cheating... should he not be disqualified from running again ?
3. What, if anything will come of this ?
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists 
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
For some besotted reason, though, every so often, some band of idiots decides that THEY are going to be the ones to do it RIGHT, and show the rest of the world how great they are, and do Afghanistan the right way. This generally precedes their utter failure as an empire by just a few years, it would seem.
No offense to any poster, but if "we" are smart enough to see that being in Afghanistan is a Major Fubar move, then TPTB know it too, and they know'd it before we did. I refuse to believe the "they're incompetent" explanation - that's too easy. I can just hear them saying, "let them think we're idiots, that's what they want to think anyway." There's something(s) else going on.
Gino - What's next? There will be a fully sanctioned (and sanitized) run-off recount and guess who'll win? There will be lots of official finger wagging too. "We warned them not to do it again and they said they wouldn't."
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
No offense to any poster, but if "we" are smart enough to see that being in Afghanistan is a Major Fubar move, then TPTB know it too, and they know'd it before we did. I refuse to believe the "they're incompetent" explanation - that's too easy. I can just hear them saying, "let them think we're idiots, that's what they want to think anyway." There's something(s) else going on.
I don't buy that "they" are smart enough to know how screwed "they" are. I mean, they *knew* how screwed we were in 1967, according to internal documents, yet stayed for another eight years. And the majority of U.S. soldier who died in Vietnam did so AFTER it was already known by TPTB that it was a war we could NEVER win.
So no, I don't think "they" know all this, if past events are any indication. Also, bear in mind that "they" thought Iraq was a great idea, too. Well, they either actually thought that, or they really ARE incompetent, depending on who you believe. These are many of the same people in the trenches who sat there and said that the Iraq occupation would take no more than days, possibly weeks, and cost the U.S. at most $17 billion.
Mike
The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
What lies beneath the war in Afghanistan
By ERIC MARGOLIS, SUN MEDIA
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/eric_margolis/2009/10/11/
11369636-sun.html
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."
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.
False. The 9/11 attacks were planned in Germany and Spain, and conducted mainly by U.S.-based Saudis to punish America for supporting Israel.
Taliban, a militant religious, anti-Communist movement of Pashtun tribesmen, was totally surprised by 9/11. Taliban received U.S. 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 Taliban against Russia's Central Asian allies.
Al-Qaida only numbered 300 members. Most have been killed. A handful escaped to Pakistan. Only a few remain in Afghanistan. Yet President Barack Obama insists 68,000 or more U.S. troops must stay in Afghanistan to fight al-Qaida and prevent extremists from re-acquiring "terrorist training camps."
This claim, like Saddam Hussein's non-existent weapons of mass destruction, is a handy slogan to market war to the public. Today, half of Afghanistan is under Taliban control. Anti-American militants could more easily use Somalia, Indonesia, Bangladesh, North and West Africa, or Sudan. They don't need remote Afghanistan. The 9/11 attacks were planned in apartments, not camps.
The United States should not be waging war on Taliban. However backwards and oafish its Pashtun tribesmen, they have no desire or interest in attacking America. Even less, Canada.
Taliban are the sons of the U.S.-backed mujahidin who defeated the Soviets in the 1980s. As I have been saying since 9/11, Taliban never was America's enemy. Instead of invading Afghanistan in 2001, the U.S. should have paid Taliban to uproot al-Qaida.
The Pashtun tribes want to end foreign occupation and drive out the Afghan Communists, who now dominate the U.S.-installed Kabul regime. But the U.S. has blundered into a full-scale war not just with Taliban, but with most of Afghanistan's fierce Pashtun tribes, who comprise over half the population.
Obama is wrestling with widening the war. After eight years of military operations costing $236 billion US, the U.S. commander in Afghanistan just warned of the threat of "failure," a.k.a. defeat. Canada has so far wasted $16 billion Cdn. on the war. Western occupation forces will be doomed if the Afghan resistance ever gets modern anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles.
The U.S. is sinking ever deeper into the South Asian morass. Washington is trying to arm-twist Pakistan into being more obedient and widening the war against its own independent-minded Pashtun tribes -- wrongly called "Taliban."
Washington's incredibly ham-handed efforts to use $7.5 billion US to bribe Pakistan's feeble, corrupt government and army, take control of military promotions, and get a grip on Pakistan's nuclear arsenal, have Pakistan's soldiers on the verge of revolt.
Obama has been under intense pressure from flag-waving Republicans, much of the media, and the hawkish national security establishment to expand the war. Israel's supporters, including many Congressional Democrats, want to see the U.S. seize Pakistan's nuclear arms and expand the Afghan war into Iran.
Obama should admit Taliban is not and never was a threat to the West; that the wildly exaggerated al-Qaida has been mostly eradicated; and that the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan is causing more damage to U.S. interests in the Muslim world -- now 25% of all humanity -- than Bin Laden and his few rag-tag allies. The bombing in Madrid and London, and conspiracy in Toronto, were all horribly wrongheaded protests by young Muslims against the Afghan war.
We are not going to change the way Afghans treat their women by waging war on them, or bring democracy through
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Thought this was good too, Not Afghanistan, but brought to you by the same idiots
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 ura
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
No offense to any poster, but if "we" are smart enough to see that being in Afghanistan is a Major Fubar move, then TPTB know it too, and they know'd it before we did. I refuse to believe the "they're incompetent" explanation - that's too easy. I can just hear them saying, "let them think we're idiots, that's what they want to think anyway." There's something(s) else going on.
I don't buy that "they" are smart enough to know how screwed "they" are. I mean, they *knew* how screwed we were in 1967, according to internal documents, yet stayed for another eight years. And the majority of U.S. soldier who died in Vietnam did so AFTER it was already known by TPTB that it was a war we could NEVER win.
So no, I don't think "they" know all this, if past events are any indication. Also, bear in mind that "they" thought Iraq was a great idea, too. Well, they either actually thought that, or they really ARE incompetent, depending on who you believe. These are many of the same people in the trenches who sat there and said that the Iraq occupation would take no more than days, possibly weeks, and cost the U.S. at most $17 billion.
Heh - sadly it comes down to I don't trust them and you think they're incompetent, which doesn't rule out us both being right.
And looks like I was wrong about covering up the voter fraud - just saw cnn report the UN acknowledged as much... but what will they do next...
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/11/afghanistan.un/index.html
Also:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2359652/posts
Barack Obama ready to pay Afghan fighters to ditch the Taliban
London Times ^ | 10/10/2009
Mike, I know you have been saying something like this recently...
"Afghans are known for changing sides back and forth during their long years of war — there is an old saying that “you can rent an Afghan but never buy one” — and battles have often been decided by defections rather than combat.
Paying Taliban foot-soldiers to switch sides could spare US lives and save money, say its advocates. A recent report by the Senate foreign relations committee estimated the Taliban fighting strength at 15,000, of whom only 5% are committed idealogues while 70% fight for money — the so-called $10-a-day Taliban..."
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Looks like if the UN tries to fix anything to do with the fraud in this election Karzai is going to call it foreign interference by the infidels
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8304592.stm
But it doesn't matter anyway because Abdullah was paid off by someone, and the ECC is trying to fudge the math to avoid a runoff election...
If it were my country, I would be planting IEDs too
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"If a foreign army invaded your country, then what in the fuck would you do? Yes, what in the fuck would you do?"
Wasn't Karzai the one who when he was elected had his place of legal residence in New Mexico or something, while working for what was not officially the CIA?
Why do I think it wasn't really the Taliban chopping off fingers to discourage voters. Oh right, the polls. Yeah, curious how someone with 24% or so can win an election...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Okay, I know this is going to sound right out of PN's loony-tunes playbook, and I've never really been able to figure out the why's and how's of it, but the day before the Afghanistan election, I was watching the news, and they were talking about possible problem areas, and showing U.S. troops patrolling and practicing taking buildings - and they were showing them "practicing" on an odd-looking building - modern, multi-story, but with staircases on the outside, which struck me as strange.
And then, the next day, the "news" reports that the Taliban had taken a large building in Kabul - and they show that exact same building as the one the Taliban occupied and controlled for most of the day.
It struck me as incongruous, made me wonder, "What the fuck?" - I mean, we were just there, IN that building, showing how we were protecting everybody, and then the very next day it's taken by Taliban? Really?
Seems more than a little coincidental.
And I'm not even a paranoid, just paying attention.
Mike
The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Heh - sadly it comes down to I don't trust them and you think they're incompetent, which doesn't rule out us both being right.
Too true. That we don't necessarily agree on the reasons doesn't change the outcome...
Quote:
Barack Obama ready to pay Afghan fighters to ditch the Taliban
London Times ^ | 10/10/2009
Mike, I know you have been saying something like this recently...
"Afghans are known for changing sides back and forth during their long years of war — there is an old saying that “you can rent an Afghan but never buy one” — and battles have often been decided by defections rather than combat.
Paying Taliban foot-soldiers to switch sides could spare US lives and save money, say its advocates. A recent report by the Senate foreign relations committee estimated the Taliban fighting strength at 15,000, of whom only 5% are committed idealogues while 70% fight for money — the so-called $10-a-day Taliban..."
Well, I hate to suggest that Afghan warriors are for sale to the highest bidder, because I think they're a proud and fierce people with a long history of being shat on and resisting that shit at every opportunity, but if they're willing to switch allegiances or even just leave our guys alone for cash, let's pay up.
You know what's funny about this? How long do you think it will be before the right-wing nutjobs start whinging about "negotiating with terrorists" or paying them off? How long? Never mind the fact that that is EXACTLY what was done in the famous "Surge" in Iraq, and the only reason it worked as well as it did.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And I'm not even a paranoid, just paying ENOUGH attention.
Fixed that for you.
Now go back and take a closer look at some other stuff, like the background aftermath of WTC, or Nick Berg - ain't the front and center that gives shit away, it's whats in the backgrounds that folks forget to hide.
Then you'll really be pissed off.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
And I'm not even a paranoid, just paying ENOUGH attention.
Fixed that for you.
Now go back and take a closer look at some other stuff, like the background aftermath of WTC, or Nick Berg - ain't the front and center that gives shit away, it's whats in the backgrounds that folks forget to hide.
Then you'll really be pissed off.
-F
What's really scary is that on so much stuff, I'm really NOT paying much attention. It's just that I have a near-constant stream of inputs, often several sources at once - radio, TV, print, internet, podcasts, actual obvervations and conversations - that I start seeing patterns coming up through all the weft and warp.
Mike
The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Frem,
Re: Backgrounds
So you noticed that too... Most people miss that. Backgrounds are very telling. I would'a pegged Berg's execution as Abu Ghraib, from the background, but I'd be willing to grant a similar structure to like places constructed under socialist rule, but we were given no indication that insurgent groups had control of any of these. I wasn't sure about the weapons, uniforms that appear in the background, I wasn't able to sort that out.
I'm curious though, re: 9/11. What's the particular background points you have picked out, and have you checked them against the FOX video. I take the FOX video of the event as probably the most credible piece of footage, since apparently there was some memo put out that said "don't shoot this stuff, and if you do, hand us your tapes" and the fox guys missed the meeting, 'cause they'd already aired it. Also, of course, there are random people with cameras, which work if you have different people with cameras showing the same background anomalies, otherwise, you're in danger of conspiracy modified data, and the conspiracy crowd will do this sort of thing just as fast as the MSM or the admin, just to get loyal followers...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
DT - I DO know what a cutter charge looks like, and there's some damned obvious shots in the book AFTERMATH which are very telling evidence of their use - I-beams do NOT break at perfect 45 degree angles when hit, warped, or melted.
Plus I know what they sound like, you know - I DO know a lil bit about blowin shit up.
-F
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
Heh - sadly it comes down to I don't trust them and you think they're incompetent, which doesn't rule out us both being right.
Too true. That we don't necessarily agree on the reasons doesn't change the outcome...Quote:
Barack Obama ready to pay Afghan fighters to ditch the Taliban
London Times ^ | 10/10/2009
Mike, I know you have been saying something like this recently...
"Afghans are known for changing sides back and forth during their long years of war — there is an old saying that “you can rent an Afghan but never buy one” — and battles have often been decided by defections rather than combat.
Paying Taliban foot-soldiers to switch sides could spare US lives and save money, say its advocates. A recent report by the Senate foreign relations committee estimated the Taliban fighting strength at 15,000, of whom only 5% are committed idealogues while 70% fight for money — the so-called $10-a-day Taliban..."
Well, I hate to suggest that Afghan warriors are for sale to the highest bidder, because I think they're a proud and fierce people with a long history of being shat on and resisting that shit at every opportunity, but if they're willing to switch allegiances or even just leave our guys alone for cash, let's pay up.
You know what's funny about this? How long do you think it will be before the right-wing nutjobs start whinging about "negotiating with terrorists" or paying them off? How long? Never mind the fact that that is EXACTLY what was done in the famous "Surge" in Iraq, and the only reason it worked as well as it did.
I doubt it would work, How big is the price on BinLadens head?
and how much and how long are you willing to spend money? hell I'd go to ground for a week or a month for a big pay day, then I'd go looking for another...
Why not pay off the guys in Somalia too, after all they have a pretty good list of wrongs... call it reparations
Besides, most of the Taliban who laid down the gun, were harassed and tortured by your local allies... and were driven back into the fight. What is fool me once in Pashtun ???
Maybe a biggish payment and a withdrawl with a binding promise to not come around here no more...
and leave Karzai and his asshole to face his people, then maybe
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8309464.stm
Italy fury at 'Taliban pay' claim
Italian troops in Afghanistan (file pic)
Italy has strongly denied that it pays militants to reduce casualties
Italy has angrily denied a UK newspaper report that it paid Taliban fighters in Afghanistan to keep the peace.
Italy's defence minister said his country was planning to sue the Times newspaper over the claims.
French forces took over the area unaware of the policy, leaving them unaware of the risks, the paper says. Ten soldiers were killed within weeks.
In France, opposition socialists demanded the defence minister should answer questions on the claims.
The Times' report, quoting Western military officials, says the policy was operated by Italian secret services in Afghanistan's Sarobi area, east of Kabul.
A lot of Nato countries with troops operating in the rural areas of Afghanistan pay the insurgents so not to be attacked
Anonymous Afghan commander to AFP agency
Warlords as well as Taliban commanders were paid, the paper says, with the amounts running to tens of thousands of dollars.
France took over control of the region in 2008, apparently believing it to be a low-risk area, the paper says, as only one Italian had died in the previous year.
But within a month of the French take-over, 10 soldiers were killed and 21 injured in a mountain ambush.
An unnamed Afghan army officer also told French news agency AFP that Italy had paid the Taliban to avoid casualties.
"We knew that Italian forces were paying the opposition (fighters) in Sarobi so they would not be attacked. We have information on similar agreements made in the western Herat province by Italian soldiers under Nato command there," he said.
"A lot of Nato countries with troops operating in the rural areas of Afghanistan pay the insurgents so not to be attacked."
'Garbage'
But Italy, France and Nato dismissed the claims.
"These are rumours, and it is not the first time we have heard them," said French Admiral Christophe Prazuck.
If it does go on, it's the Afghan government (that does it) rather than international forces
Nato spokesman General Eric Tremblay
In Italy, Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's office also rejected the report.
"The Berlusconi government has never authorised or allowed any form of payment of sums of money in favour of members of the insurgent Taliban in Afghanistan, and is not aware of similar initiatives by the previous government," it said in a statement.
Italian Defence Minister Ignazio La Russa described the report as "garbage" and "offensive" and said staff were preparing a lawsuit against the newspaper.
Map
Nato spokesman General Eric Tremblay said he was "not aware" of Italy having paid off Taliban militants.
"If it does go on, it's the Afghan government (that does it) rather than international forces," he told French news agency AFP.
France's Socialist Party opposition said Defence Minister Herve Morin should appear before parliament's defence committee to provide an explanation.
Italy also denied a separate element of the Times' report, which said the US ambassador had submitted a formal complaint after discovering Italians had been buying off insurgents in the far-west Herat province.
A US spokeswoman in Rome said the embassy did not comment "on internal diplomatic conversations that may or may not have occurred"
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I doubt it would work, How big is the price on BinLadens head?
and how much and how long are you willing to spend money? hell I'd go to ground for a week or a month for a big pay day, then I'd go looking for another...
Why not pay off the guys in Somalia too, after all they have a pretty good list of wrongs... call it reparations
Besides, most of the Taliban who laid down the gun, were harassed and tortured by your local allies... and were driven back into the fight. What is fool me once in Pashtun ???
Maybe a biggish payment and a withdrawl with a binding promise to not come around here no more...
and leave Karzai and his asshole to face his people, then maybe
You say "you/your" like you think we represent our government - or am I reading that wrong?
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I think it's generic as in if we voted for Bush we want war & if we voted for Obama we want social reform, or some such.
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
You say "you/your" like you think we represent our government - or am I reading that wrong?
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I think he means the royal "you". As in, "you", the American people. Your nation. You.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Your government acts on your behalf, who takes the heat when they F**K up
Some times it cost you money, sometimes your friends
but if people felt more responsibility for the actions of their government, perhaps those governments wouldn't run amuck, or at least be held accountable
when the US firebombed Japan, for example... those people were paying the price for a government they had little control over, you figure a democracy would take a little more ownership, because in theory at least they have the most say.
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
I doubt it would work, How big is the price on BinLadens head?
and how much and how long are you willing to spend money? hell I'd go to ground for a week or a month for a big pay day, then I'd go looking for another...
Why not pay off the guys in Somalia too, after all they have a pretty good list of wrongs... call it reparations
Besides, most of the Taliban who laid down the gun, were harassed and tortured by your local allies... and were driven back into the fight. What is fool me once in Pashtun ???
Maybe a biggish payment and a withdrawl with a binding promise to not come around here no more...
and leave Karzai and his asshole to face his people, then maybe
Good point(s). It may be that they see an offer of $20,000,000 as just bullshit, or pure fantasy, as in "that's so much money it's not possible". Make it $200, and we might get somewhere.
And honestly, with 20 million bucks, what the hell are you going to do in Afghanistan? What will you buy? A mustache factory? A mud assembly line? A big pile of rocks, and another big pile of rocks to put them on? A giant pile of heroin for which you have no real use or market?
Maybe the only play left for us is to say, "You pick your government that YOU want, and as long as you don't fuck with America, we won't fuck with you, and if you decide you want to educate your women or modernize your lives, we'll be happy to try to help, and we can maybe get the rest of the world to help, too - starting with a coalition of Islamic countries."
I mean, at this point, we have no idea what DOES work as far as Afghanistan goes, but we have some very solid evidence of what DOESN'T work, and we seem to be just rewriting that same playbook in a much larger font right now.
And it's very tempting to just walk away from Afghanistan and Iraq, but that's what Colin Powell warned against when he said it was the "Pottery Barn foreign policy". You break it, you own it. We broke the shit out of both those countries. Truth be told, Afghanistan was horribly broken to start with, but we smashed it to splinters, and now it's ours. Ditto Iraq. That's what Bush never got: Powell was warning him against going into Iraq, because once you're there, you're fucked, and you're stuck. Afghanistan, if anything, looks like it's shaping up to be an even worse mess.
Mike
The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You say "you/your" like you think we represent our government - or am I reading that wrong?
And, ya know, it's actually supposed to be the other way 'round. Not that we've ever seen much evidence of that...
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
when the US firebombed Japan, for example... those people were paying the price for a government they had little control over, you figure a democracy would take a little more ownership, because in theory at least they have the most say.
What have you been smoking?
I think you have no idea how it really works in the U.S. Remember, this is the place where Obama won a resounding majority in the election, and Democrats swept in in a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, and picked up even more seats in the House, and we STILL have people running scared because there are nutjob teabaggers jumping up and down and screaming "This isn't what we voted for!" - when clearly, it IS exactly what "we" voted for!
So yeah, we're really good about owning our decisions, until those decisions don't turn out the way we'd hoped they would...
America: Give me liberty, or give me something else.
Mike
The percentage you're paying is too high-priced
While you're living beyond all your means;
And the man in the suit has just bought a new car
From the profit he's made on your dreams
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Hahahaha, WE have no idea, how can peeps outside???
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I think you have no idea how it really works in the U.S.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:Quote:Hahahaha, WE have no idea, how can peeps outside???
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I think you have no idea how it really works in the U.S.
The laughing Chrisisall
No kidding.
I was just yanking Gino's chain a bit. He seems a good sport, and I think he'll get the joke.
Mike
Let the wild rumpus start!
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I think he means the royal "you". As in, "you", the American people. Your nation. You.
Yeah, um, geee, thx?
This is a forum where U S of A folk repeatedly bitch about their GOV, from all sides, I thought it was appropriate to point out to Gino - by way of a direct question - that *we* are not *you* or "them." "We" do not make policy and "we" do not bomb Afghans, etc. etc. I dislike the connections - I want to see if Gino blindly "hates Americans" as his one time signature might suggest, or if he just hates American Policy.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Wow. It's late, and I have munchings to go before I sleep.
Originally posted by Kwicko:
No kidding.
Later.
The hungry Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Pardon me for speaking for you Gino, but I believe you hate policy over peeps.
Originally posted by pizmobeach:
I want to see if Gino blindly "hates Americans" as his one time signature might suggest, or if he just hates American Policy.
The laughing Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:Quote:
Originally posted by Kwicko:
I think he means the royal "you". As in, "you", the American people. Your nation. You.
Yeah, um, geee, thx?
This is a forum where U S of A folk repeatedly bitch about their GOV, from all sides, I thought it was appropriate to point out to Gino - by way of a direct question - that *we* are not *you* or "them." "We" do not make policy and "we" do not bomb Afghans, etc. etc. I dislike the connections - I want to see if Gino blindly "hates Americans" as his one time signature might suggest, or if he just hates American Policy.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
Hate against such a large body of people would be quite challenging...
So where does the buck stop ?
Let say Iraqi torture as a case...
Bush, Cheney, Rice... lots of documents pointing at them, responsibility .... no
The CIA and Military guys who followed orders doing the deed...
minimal responsibility, sure some guys were held out, for either went too far or for PR... but Obama pretty much gave them all a pass too
So now who is responsible, who lets it go on, or fails to do anything about it?
The US public, I think if justice was blind we'd have no terrorism
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
The US public, I think if justice was blind we'd have no terrorism
Gino - just for the official FFF record I welcome your posts, I WANT your posts, I want a non-US, an outsider's perspective. I just don't want it to be a hater's perspective.
I actually find a majority of what you post to be in line with a number of the Americans who post here in that it is PURE FANTASY, as in wishful thinking.
Sorry, I wish for many things too, I even wish for the same things - in Afghanistan we are in total agreement - who the eff are we to even be there? MY America only goes somewhere to help. I'm obviously out of the loop.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by pizmobeach:Quote:
Originally posted by GinoBiffaroni:
The US public, I think if justice was blind we'd have no terrorism
Gino - just for the official FFF record I welcome your posts, I WANT your posts, I want a non-US, an outsider's perspective. I just don't want it to be a hater's perspective.
I actually find a majority of what you post to be in line with a number of the Americans who post here in that it is PURE FANTASY, as in wishful thinking.
Sorry, I wish for many things too, I even wish for the same things - in Afghanistan we are in total agreement - who the eff are we to even be there? MY America only goes somewhere to help. I'm obviously out of the loop.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
I had to think about what line you were talking about...
I have one of the flues and am running a 40 degree fever
it was a line from the Simpsons,
They don't hate America, they hate Americans
kinda a shot at the people who think the war on terror is caused by some form of jealously, or envy.
It is not the ideal or dream of American they hate, it is the Americans who run around pulling shit in the name of that dream
sigh, not think straight tonight
as for Afghanistan, I honestly think they cannot allow the Karzai government to stand, and maintain any credibility with the people there.
Love to hear what McCrystal has to say about that one
Either your with the terrorists, or ... your with the terrorists
Lets party like its 1939
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
This morning:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/world/asia/20afghan.html?_r=1&hp
"KABUL, Afghanistan — A special audit committee submitted its election fraud findings after a lengthy investigation on Monday, and a Western official familiar with them said they appeared likely to show that President Hamid Karzai had won about 48 percent. The findings could force a runoff vote with Mr. Karzai’s top challenger, but it was unclear whether Mr. Karzai would accept the findings."
Thanks for the clarification on the "you" thing too btw.
Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME