Ominous in Afghanistan
The most ominous thing about Obama in Afghanistan is that Bush at least did us the courtesy of lying about Iraq as if “we the people” actually mattered. –Serious Soundbytes
richard vajsApril 7th, 2010 at 4:01 am
We are in Afghanistan for many reasons – one of the most important is because they are a convenient enemy. They are Islamic, dirtass poor, uneducated, and armed with the most primitive of weapons. A perfect match for our Stargate troopers armed with drones, lasers and robots. If we can’t run up the score against them, who else are we going to find?
richard vajsApril 7th, 2010 at 4:05 am
Oh, another reason why we fight the Afghanis – they have the manhood to at least fight back, although they have no chance. Another group might realize their chances are nil and just lay there and get slaughtered. And where is the glory in that?
Bruce RichardsonApril 7th, 2010 at 2:07 pm
It matters not whether our president is Republican or Democrat. This is a resource war. The rubric of a "war on terror" is an attempt to tell the American public and the world community that we are justified in slaughtering Afghans. Washington continues to blatantly lie, presenting the Afghans as complicit in 9/11. Mullah Omar, according to State Department documents had bin Laden under 24/7 surveillance to prevent him form attacking anyone from Afghan soil. And then there's the Berlin conference convened in June of 2001. U.S. occicials (Deputy Under Secretary of State Christina Rocca) told Pakistan's Secretary Niaz Niak that the US "would attack Afghanistan before the snow flies in October" months prior to 9/11. This war is predicated on our insatiuaiable appetite for energy, and to exclude Russian and Iranian competitors from developing Central Asia.
L. Reichard WhiteApril 7th, 2010 at 6:33 am
Mr. Richardson, if you have a link to Under Sec. Rocca’s comment, I would appreciate if you would share it.
I’m not surprised, but many would be a lot more than just surprised. Try incredulous, maybe.
JLSApril 7th, 2010 at 3:39 pm
Great observations both!
E. A. CostaApril 7th, 2010 at 10:09 am
The American elite, like the British Imperialists before them, are very good at revising history to their own purposes. How many subconsciously, for example, think that the "Charge of the Light Brigade" was a victory, either in the specific battle or the war? Or that the US and British defeated the NAZI's in World War II?
In fact it was the Red Army that defeated the Germans in Europe, and the decisive battle–Zhukov's victory against the Japanese–took place in the East even before the "World War" formally began. At best the US played a subsidiary role and the second front was helpful but not decisive.
The US can claim victory against the Japanese in the Pacific, and it was specifically the USMC that won it, not the USN nor the atomic bomb (which was directed against Stalin and backfired).
The US had vast technical superiority in the Korean "police action", as well as many allies, and fought to what is universally acknowledged as a draw.
Vietnam was clearly a loss, however the US military and the Right try to spin it.
In Clinton's war against Yugoslavia the US got a quick "surrender", largely by bombing infrastructure and civilians. The Yugoslav military, however, was mostly untouched and the Russians managed to score a Stealth into the bargain. In fact the quick and seeming victory was the result of the Yugoslavia's weak leadership, and that "victory", which set the stage for the second attack on Iraq, has been a disaster for the US.
The first Gulf War was also a draw–though one must investigate the matter closely to see it.
So far the mess in Iraq is looking like a draw or an outright US defeat, with Iran as the ultimate beneficiary.
The logistics alone suggest it will be the final American and NATO graveyard, not even to mention that mainland China will never let the US "win".
The standard comparison of the US among the naive, encouraged also by the "anti-Rome" cryptotypes of the Protestants, has been with ancient Rome, both as Republic and Empire.
This is historically naive, both about ancient Rome and the US. Such analogies are always inadequate but the more penetrating will note that if one had to chose between Rome and Carthage, the US looks much closer to Carthage, and will likely meet the same fate soon enough.
Like the British–a brutal, genocidal commercial empire relatively short in duration.
One of the uncomfortable realities that many Americans refuse to face is that despite its many toys–perhaps partly because of them–the US military isn't really very good for anything except killing civilians and fighting to stalemates or outright losses.
The standard US cliche that the US military's purpose is "to break things and kill people" is an index of the whole flawed psychology.
That is not the role of a successful military, tactically or strategically, at all.
ObombYA needs to RESIGN for serial commision of HIGH TREASONApril 7th, 2010 at 11:43 am
this lying M.F. in washington needs to resign. just like the last mass murdering pile of shit, this one has to go. the nation is in trouble, it can little afford more war mongering and mass murdering, we’re a sinking ship and this asshole wants to kill more people for no other reason than to steal their OIL from them.
MarkApril 7th, 2010 at 9:00 pm
This "serious soundbite" is fatuous babbling. Just try stating the opposite, and you'll see that it makes just as much sense, and therefore none at all: 'The most ominous thing about Obama in Afghanistan is that Bush at least did us the courtesy of telling us the truth about Iraq, as if “we the people” actually mattered!'
L. Reichard WhiteApril 7th, 2010 at 2:17 pm
Very thought provoking “parallax” view, E. A. Costa. Thanx.
Sorry Mark, but I don’t get your point. I suppose, if gravity made things fall up – – – – ??
Vic AndersonApril 7th, 2010 at 11:18 pm
More Obamanifest Insanity!
richard vajsApril 8th, 2010 at 3:45 am
I appreciate the comments that link our occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan to our corporate lusting of these countries natural resources, but I must disagree. The corporate mentality knows that there are many ways to skin a cat, and this mentality will always gravitate to the quickest and least costly. In the case of Iraq, Saddam was willing to sell all of the oil he could – he had no intentions of pulling Iraq’s main product off the map. After destroying Iraq, American oil companies are worse off getting their hands on Iraqi resources. In the case of Afghanistan, the quickest route to a natural gasline would probably be through bribery. After all this tribal state depends upon illegal morphine as its main export.
No, the impetus for our occupations and planned attack upon Iran is a disgusting love of military might. This savage love of killing “bad guys” and the thrill of one-side combat has become a cherished thing in America. Our “finest young citizens” are in the military, our wealth and prestige and feelings of well being are reflected in flyovers of military planes at public events. We are bullies and we love it.
richard vajsApril 8th, 2010 at 6:21 am
No-one needs to lie the average American into war. All we need is some redneck singing about “putting a boot up someone’s ass, courtesy of the red, white and blue”. Some mawkish Lee Greenwood lyrics. The crowd cheering when the spotlight is on some young Marine in his dress blues. America is going through another seizure from our chronic disease of militarism. America loves getting its way by force or intimidation. The oil etc, was just a good excuse for doing what we love – kicking some underarmed third world country around. This is a refraining trait in America – we went after Canada in the War of 1812, after Mexico in 1848, Spain in 1898 etc. etc. Always easy pickings. We didn’t like getting punched back in VietNam. and it took a while to get over that., but Boy, we are crapping in tall cotton now with the hadjis as our punching bags.
E. A. CostaApril 8th, 2010 at 6:46 pm
Compare Marcuse's "Aggressiveness In Advanced Industrial Society":
Michael M.April 8th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
The neocons and theocrats have infiltrated the libertarians. Noticed how Republicans made fun of libertarians (and liberals) for YEARS. Now all of a sudden the Republican â€œbrand nameâ€ is a cancer so they all of a sudden are now libertarians? Itâ€™s bullshit and we are being fooled!
The same neocons who dissed Ron Paul every chance they had are joining libertarian ranks. They are against everything we are for! They believe in nation building and expanding our empire, they believe in discriminating against anyone who isnâ€™t exactly like them (athiests, gays), they are for the war on drugs, I could go on and on!
bogi666April 9th, 2010 at 11:58 am
BULLIES BULLY BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID.Bullying is/has bankrupt the USG and just as the cost of the Great Wall of China bankrupt the country, the society collapsed and it was invaded by the Mongols.. The cost of the USG's Great Electronic Wall of Space and its 100's of worldwide outposts will result in bankruptcy. The mission statements of the NSA, NSC is to secure and control the resources of the planet and the Pentagons mission is to enforce this policy. The Pentagon consumes 60% of the Federal budget which provides protection for the interests of the CORPORATE WELFARE KINGS world wide which don't pay taxes for their own protection. EXXON net income last year $45 billion paid no taxes while it is protected by the Pentagon.WHY IS THE US. SO AFRAID?
L. Reichard WhiteApril 12th, 2010 at 6:33 am
Good observations! Maybe it’s because keeping the U.S. population frightened via U.S. MSM (Main Street Media) enables the MilitaryIndustrialCongressionalComplex to stay in business?
jr565April 12th, 2010 at 9:06 am
Since our commander in chief now openly assassinates american citizens who belong to terrorist organizations (ostensibly, as they have yet to have trials) doesn't that invalidate 100% of the lib talking points vis a vis Bush's evilness?
If we can assassinate, why wouldn't we be able to rendition, or water board? If we can assassinate without trial then why would we need to read people their Miranda rights on the battlefield and hold civilian trials?
It sounds like you libs elected a president who believes in the theory of the unitarian executive too. So why all the caterwauling over the past 8 years? And why did the cat suddenly get 99% of liberals tongues? Is their outrage switched off as soon as they are promised free health care or if their president is from the right party?
You guys have been had. And even worse, the majority of you could care less, which means your outrage was about as fake as Obama's "I am the agent of change" Mantra you guys bought into.
jr565April 12th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
I personally don't want to hear anymore about how bad waterboarding is, or how bad illegal rendition is, or how bad TORTURE is or how bad using phosporous in war, or carpet bombing civilians, or holding military tribunals is somehow wrong, since Obama has done all of it, with almost no outrage exhibited by the majority of lefties/dems.
By the way, Seymour Hersh had stories about these super secret assassination squads in Iran setup by evil BOOSH and CHENEY (Hitler and Goebels to the left) that the left ran with for months. Yet somehow these death squads never materialized. How did Seymour get scooped on this story? And where is his followup article about the presidents open policy of assassinating american citizens? What's the matter Seymour? Cat got your tongue?
L. Reichard WhiteApril 13th, 2010 at 11:37 am
I agree with you: The left half of the War Party is as bad as the right half is.
No excuses for either.
L. Reichard WhiteNovember 4th, 2012 at 4:38 am
Thanks E.A. Costa! That piece should have a place of its own!!
L. Reichard WhiteFebruary 8th, 2013 at 7:08 am
To the best of my knowledge, Libertarians haven't elected ANY president. Not even a member of Congress. Ron Paul was repeatedly elected to Congress but as a Republican – – –
Advertise on Antiwar.com
Copyright © Antiwar.com 2014