Afghanistan war

[moreluck]

It's surprising that the approval rating is THAT high !!!

 

[over9five]

It's surprising that the approval rating is THAT high !!!

It's not even 37%!!!

 

[oldguyups]

Thats fine if you want to go down that road. Repost then and Blame Clinton for 9/11.

I'll go further down that road and blame Reagan.

 

[moreluck]

Should we start the gay rumor about B.O. ?? The Enquirer is already mentioning it.

What about that weird incidence of murder linked to Obama?

 

[moreluck]

Obama Gay Nightmare

Author Larry Sinclair, who insists he had sex and did cocaine with Barack Obama, is taking his campaign for revenge to Congress - and insiders say the furious First Lady vows to crush him! GLOBE bares all the details of the bitter battle in an exclusive you can't afford to miss.

 

[tieguy]

I'll go further down that road and blame Reagan.

even better if you do I can then blame Clinton for the current economic mess.

Is this your first ID here?

 

[tieguy]

Watching his speech. I see a student dozing off with every crowd shot.

Poor cadets their day probably starts around 4 am. This time slot is usually when their going to bed. Instead they have to see in those seats for Obamas photo op.
Obama screws the military every chance he gets.

 

[tieguy]

I'm not sure I can add anything to this scathing review of Obama's speech by Joan Walsh at Salon.Com who has been one of his biggest supporters.

http://www.salon.com/news/afghanist.../walsh/politics/2009/12/01/afghanistan_speech

 

[Babagounj]

Obama Gay Nightmare

Author Larry Sinclair, who insists he had sex and did cocaine with Barack Obama, is taking his campaign for revenge to Congress - and insiders say the furious First Lady vows to crush him! GLOBE bares all the details of the bitter battle in an exclusive you can't afford to miss.

I really want to hear more about his "love " child born to one of his staffers in Maryland. This child actually has valid birth documents with the last name of obama. Unfortunately she only lived a few months.

 

[The Other Side]

Watching his speech. I see a student dozing off with every crowd shot.

Poor cadets their day probably starts around 4 am. This time slot is usually when their going to bed. Instead they have to see in those seats for Obamas photo op.
Obama screws the military every chance he gets.

TIEGUY,

seems like the neo-conservatives on this board need a reminder....and I will provide one.

In 8 years, BUSH went from 53% approval rating when he took office, to almost 90% in 2001, then 7 years later, he was the worst in history!

No matter where OBAMA's ratings are presently, they are still HIGHER than BUSH. When OBAMA gets into the low 20's (like BUSH), then you will have a leg to stand on.

The majority of americans in this country do not like the "military action" in afghanistan. The country is war weary. There is a "minority" of americans (like yourself) who believe that a military victory can be won, even though thats an impossible task.

This country is NOT willing to extend to the goverment, an "open-ended" war with no time table for "re-assessment" and a transfer of responsibility to the afghan goverment. The non-sense about "gettting the terrorists" who attacked us went out the window when BUSH allowed Bin Laden to escape when he was in TORA BORA. Now, its a civil war between the many factions of the taliban.

Most people dont realize that the "taliban" isnt one group, but groups from many countries. These factions have combined from several countries to fight the US in afghanistan. The drug lords in afghanistan have a choice to make, side with the US or side with a faction of the taliban. Either way, they have a vested interest in heroin production. They can either lose the poppy fields to the goverment (and the profits) or stay in business and share those profits with the taliban.

We are not the WORLD POLICE, and I for one do like our yound men and women fighting and dying in Afghanistan just to protect a goverment who's main business is poppy fields and heroin.

There is NO overwhelming support for this war in this country, and most americans want our troops out of there as soon as possible.

We are entering our 9th year of occupation of afghanistan and we are no closer to victory than the day we invaded the country.

The President is right, build up our forces along with the NATO countries, train the goverment troops to levels where they can transition into responsibility. In 18 months, if there is NO progress, and the current goverment is still full of drug lords and gangsters, then we get out.

I applaud this decision. I wont fight for my political party with the lives of our young men and women in uniform.

Peace

 

[tieguy]

Here's Michael Moore calling Obama the war president. Any doubt that Obama was worried about the political ramifications of this troop increase?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/an-open-letter-to-preside_b_373457.html

 

[oldguyups]

Here's Michael Moore calling Obama the war president. Any doubt that Obama was worried about the political ramifications of this troop increase?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-moore/an-open-letter-to-preside_b_373457.html

Well, given your past comments on Micheal Moore, I would gather that you think Obama did a good thing.

How do you conclude that President Obama is concerned about anything Michael Moore says?

 

[tieguy]

Well, given your past comments on Micheal Moore, I would gather that you think Obama did a good thing.

How do you conclude that President Obama is concerned about anything Michael Moore says?

Am I making you uncomfortable?

 

[wkmac]

Should we start the gay rumor about B.O. ?? The Enquirer is already mentioning it.

What about that weird incidence of murder linked to Obama?

Author Larry Sinclair, who insists he had sex and did cocaine with Barack Obama, is taking his campaign for revenge to Congress - and insiders say the furious First Lady vows to crush him! GLOBE bares all the details of the bitter battle in an exclusive you can't afford to miss.

No comment because I don't think I need too!


Note to self, consider the possible and principle information sources in the future of this poster. Price check on isle 5!

I'm not sure I can add anything to this scathing review of Obama's speech by Joan Walsh at Salon.Com who has been one of his biggest supporters.

http://www.salon.com/news/afghanistan/index.html?story=/opinion/walsh/politics/2009/12/01/afghanistan_speech

Will we see links in the future from Antiwar.com too?


Could we even see links to this guy? Looking at the rulebook (a certain poster's rule book) linking a story at Salon or other "alleged" (his belief) "LIBERAL" website would invoke the "liberal" rule and I also find it interesting had Joan Walsh showed up here at BC and offered an opinion, who would be the first here to attack with the "liberal" verbal missles?

Hmmm, need to look back in the archives and see what some here said when Rumy refused to put more boots on the ground. This Afghan "surge" seems aweful similar to another "Surge" ironically called "The New Way Forward" and like this recent action, was announced to the nation in a national TV address on Jan. 10, 2007. A surge to my memory that was cheered and welcomed. This was after the democrats took over Congress and Bush got Rumy (the guy who refused to "esculate") out of the way and then put in a man who started learning the ropes actually in the Carter adminstration only later to serve in broader republican efforts. Now we have Obama doing in effect the same thing as a previous adminstration and we have folks who think anyone antiwar is some type of lesser than human maroon now using their (the antiwar) opinions to advance their (our BC republicans) political agenda. The President ramps up war which they love and fully endorse yet they display a contempt for the current President who does exactly like the previous guy. But then inconsistency and pure hypocrisy is not a trait found missing here so there you go!

There's a galaxy of stuff not to like about Obama and I don't, he flat $ux IMO but then so did Bush so again, there you go!

Thats fine if you want to go down that road. Repost then and Blame Clinton for 9/11.

I'll go further down that road and blame Reagan.

CIA's Intervention in Afghanistan
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser​

Le Nouvel Observateur, Paris, 15-21 January 1998​

Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?

Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Q: Some stirred-up Moslems? But it has been said and repeated Islamic fundamentalism represents a world menace today.

B: Nonsense! It is said that the West had a global policy in regard to Islam. That is stupid. There isn't a global Islam. Look at Islam in a rational manner and without demagoguery or emotion. It is the leading religion of the world with 1.5 billion followers. But what is there in common among Saudi Arabian fundamentalism, moderate Morocco, Pakistan militarism, Egyptian pro-Western or Central Asian secularism? Nothing more than what unites the Christian countries.

I think you both have it a bit wrong on the historical timeline but then the truth just doesn't work the same when the real purpose is to drive a certain political narrative!

BTW: You democrats uh correction, "thinking democrats" who claim to be out to defend the poor and oppressed souls (noble cause it may be) should take a real serious look at Zebig's words above. Boiled down to hard truth, we used a nation of people as pure cannon folder, poor and oppressed people I might add, for ourselves to achieve and benefit from a political end. An end I might add was more about bidness and economic domination than pure military defense of a real and actual threat. 2 empire bullies going head to head to dominate the post WW2 world for the sake of filthy lucer and nothing more. This immoral, unethical use of people proudly crowed above by ole' Zebig was done by a President who claims to be a champion of human rights and defending human dignity.

Now Obama talks of a civilian surge and what comes to mind is KBR, Halliburton and let's not forget the democrats blood soaked hands of their own Daddy Warbucks not to mention his and Mrs. Warbucks benefitting from the current economic malise. Are you sure you really did vote out those horrible, evil, nasty capitialist republicans? Don't look now democrats but the man you voted for change and transparency is now a full partner in the real designs of warcraft in the Middle East!

The people who do/did/does this kind of stuff you tell us will help and protect us from all manner of those out to do us harm. You better realize at the end of the day that the folks in office whether there is a "D" or an "R" behind their names are no different. They are scoundrels of the lowest order because power and pure moral corruption will only attract the lowest order human in the first place!

If many of us can admit we got conned in the early 80's by republicans and Reagan, the so-called conservative it's time other good people admit the democrats and Obama are pulling a similar con job. Keep you eyes open and watch the facts as we go forward as the truth will be there to see.

 

[moreluck]

You know, wkmac, it's amazing how many times the Globe & Enquirer have been right and accurate with their breaking news......they deserve a bit of respect for that! TMZ has been good at it too.

CBS, NBC and ABC are "late with the news".

 

[wkmac]

You know, wkmac, it's amazing how many times the Globe & Enquirer have been right and accurate with their breaking news......they deserve a bit of respect for that! TMZ has been good at it too.

CBS, NBC and ABC are "late with the news".

Need I say more (pun intended) folks!

 

[tieguy]

Will we see links in the future from Antiwar.com too?


Could we even see links to this guy? Looking at the rulebook (a certain poster's rule book) linking a story at Salon or other "alleged" (his belief) "LIBERAL" website would invoke the "liberal" rule and I also find it interesting had Joan Walsh showed up here at BC and offered an opinion, who would be the first here to attack with the "liberal" verbal missles?

Some of us believe this thread is for debate some believe its to post and run. To each their own.

I've read Joans postings and watch her on the various talk shows from time to time. Its rare that she gives me something worth posting. When she does i'll post the link rather then liberally paraphrasing from some mysterious faux news source.

As for the liberal rantings Obama is doing his best to prove me right.

 

[wkmac]

It is already a 30-year war begun by one Democratic president, and thanks to the political opportunism of the current commander in chief the Afghanistan war is still without end or logical purpose. President Barack Obama’s own top national security adviser has stated that there are fewer than 100 al-Qaida members in Afghanistan and that they are not capable of launching attacks. What superheroes they must be, then, to require 100,000 U.S. troops to contain them.
The president handled that absurdity by conflating al-Qaida, which he admitted is holed up in Pakistan, with the Taliban and denying the McChrystal report’s basic assumption that the enemy in Afghanistan is local in both origin and focus. Obama stated Tuesday in a speech announcing a major escalation of the war, “It’s important to recall why America and our allies were compelled to fight a war in Afghanistan in the first place.” But he then cut off any serious consideration of that question with the bald assertion that “we did not ask for this fight.”
Of course we did. The Islamic fanatics who seized power in Afghanistan were previously backed by the U.S. as “freedom fighters” in what was once marketed as a bold adventure in Cold War one-upmanship against the Soviets. It was President Jimmy Carter, aided by a young liberal hawk named Richard Holbrooke, now Obama’s civilian point man on Afghanistan, who decided to support Muslim fanatics there. Holbrooke began his government service as one of the “Best and the Brightest” in Vietnam and was involved with the rural pacification and Phoenix assassination program in that country, and he is now a big advocate of the counterinsurgency program proposed by Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal to once again win the hearts and minds of locals who want none of it.

Robert Scheer "Here We Go Again" At Truthdig

The Crushing Legacy of Bush and Cheney


Rachel Maddow Obama: War President

Glenn Greenwald Obama's Exceedingly Familar Justification for Esculation

Now with respect to Congressman Obey and the proposal for a war tax, we’re already paying a war tax. A substantial amount of the tax dollars that Americans pay today go for paying for wars. And we don’t need to pay more. The point is well taken and that is that we’re already paying more for war. We’re already spending more for a military buildup than any nation. As a matter of fact, than all the nations of the world put together. We are in 130 countries.
You would think that we don’t have enough to do here at home. You would think that we don’t have 47 million Americans who go to bed hungry, 47 million Americans who don’t have any health care, 15 million Americans who are out of work, another 10 million Americans whose homes are threatened with foreclosure, people going bankrupt, business failures. All these things are happening in our country and we’re acting like a latter-day version of the Roman Empire, reaching for empire while inside we rot.

Dennis Kucinich on Democracy Now

Huffington Post Jon Stewart: Obama is Channeling Bush

 

[wkmac]

From the 1998 Congressional Record. ​

Emphasis added to text.​

U.S. INTERESTS IN THE CENTRAL ASIAN
REPUBLICS HEARING BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ASIA AND THE PACIFIC
OF THE COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL
RELATIONS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION
FEBRUARY 12, 1998​

STATEMENT OF JOHN J. MARESCA, VICE
PRESIDENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, UNOCAL CORPORATION

Mr. Maresca. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's nice to see you again. I am John Maresca, vice president for international relations of the Unocal Corporation. Unocal, as you know, is one of the world's leading energy resource and project development companies. I appreciate your invitation to speak here today. I believe these hearings are important and timely. I congratulate you for focusing on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and the role they play in shaping U.S. policy.
I would like to focus today on three issues. First, the need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas resources. Second, the need for U.S. support for international and regional efforts to achieve balanced and lasting political settlements to the conflicts in the region, including Afghanistan. Third, the need for structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and the development of appropriate investment climates in the region. In this regard, we specifically support repeal or removal of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.
Mr. Chairman, the Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves. Just to give an idea of the scale, proven natural gas reserves equal more than 236 trillion cubic feet. The region's total oil reserves may well reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil. Some estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels. In 1995, the region was producing only 870,000 barrels per day. By 2010, western companies could increase production to about 4.5 million barrels a day, an increase of more than 500 percent in only 15 years. If this occurs, the region would represent about 5 percent of the world's total oil production.
One major problem has yet to be resolved: how to get the region's vast energy resources to the markets where they are needed. Central Asia is isolated. Their natural resources are land locked, both geographically and politically. Each of the countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia faces difficult political challenges. Some have unsettled wars or latent conflicts. Others have evolving systems where the laws and even the courts are dynamic and changing. In addition, a chief technical obstacle which we in the industry face in transporting oil is the region's existing pipeline infrastructure.
Because the region's pipelines were constructed during the Moscow-centered Soviet period, they tend to head north and west toward Russia. There are no connections to the south and east. But Russia is currently unlikely to absorb large new quantities of foreign oil. It's unlikely to be a significant market for new energy in the next decade. It lacks the capacity to deliver it to other markets.

At Unocal, we believe that the central factor in planning these pipelines should be the location of the future energy markets that are most likely to need these new supplies. Western Europe, Central and Eastern Europe, and the Newly Independent States of the former Soviet Union are all slow growth markets where demand will grow at only a half a percent to perhaps 1.2 percent per year during the period 1995 to 2010.
Asia is a different story all together. It will have a rapidly increasing energy consumption need. Prior to the recent turbulence in the Asian Pacific economies, we at Unocal anticipated that this region's demand for oil would almost double by 2010. Although the short-term increase in demand will probably not meet these expectations, we stand behind our long-term estimates.
I should note that it is in everyone's interest that there be adequate supplies for Asia's increasing energy requirements. If Asia's energy needs are not satisfied, they will simply put pressure on all world markets, driving prices upwards everywhere.
The key question then is how the energy resources of Central Asia can be made available to nearby Asian markets. There are two possible solutions, with several variations. One option is to go east across China, but this would mean constructing a pipeline of more than 3,000 kilometers just to reach Central China. In addition, there would have to be a 2,000-kilometer connection to reach the main population centers along the coast. The question then is what will be the cost of transporting oil through this pipeline, and what would be the netback which the producers would receive.
For those who are not familiar with the terminology, the netback is the price which the producer receives for his oil or gas at the well head after all the transportation costs have been deducted. So it's the price he receives for the oil he produces at the well head.
The second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. One obvious route south would cross Iran, but this is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route is across Afghanistan, which has of course its own unique challenges. The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades, and is still divided by civil war. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of the pipeline we have proposed across Afghanistan could not begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders, and our company.

Last October, the Central Asia Gas Pipeline Consortium, called CentGas, in which Unocal holds an interest, was formed to develop a gas pipeline which will link Turkmenistan's vast Dauletabad gas field with markets in Pakistan and possibly India. The proposed 790-mile pipeline will open up new markets for this gas, traveling from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan in Pakistan. The proposed extension would move gas on to New Delhi, where it would connect with an existing pipeline. As with the proposed Central Asia oil pipeline, CentGas can not begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan Government is in place.

U.S. assistance in developing these new economies will be crucial to business success. We thus also encourage strong technical assistance programs throughout the region. Specifically, we urge repeal or removal of section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. This section unfairly restricts U.S. Government assistance to the government of Azerbaijan and limits U.S. influence in the region.

 

[wkmac]

Questioning of John Meresca VP Unocal during 1998 Congressional Hearings.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Professor Starr. I would like to turn now to Mr. Maresca. I do recognize and agree with you about the place where the major oil demand is growing in the world. I understand why a southern directed route is more advantageous to serve that. I heard what you had to say about the inadequacy of a pipeline to serve the oil potential if exploited in that region. I wonder if you could address this point to start with. Given the long history of violence in Afghanistan, can Unocal reasonably expect a pipeline to remain secure? The second thing I would ask is, if in fact the political and economic, mostly political problems are solved in Central Asia, how quickly do you think that the exportable oil resources would overwhelm the capacity of one pipeline? Is this something that all of a sudden when the keys are turned, we're going to have a huge amount of exportable oil and gas?
Mr. MARESCA. First, on the question about Afghanistan, of course we're not in a phase where we are negotiating on a contract because there is no recognized government really to negotiate with. However, we have had talks and briefings with all the factions. It is clear that they all understand the significance for their country of this pipeline project, and they all support it, all of them. They all want it. They would like it to start tomorrow. All of the factions would like it to start tomorrow if we could do it.
So I believe that over time, if it's built, it would be secure. I believe that the Afghans will see it as a national asset once it's built. It will provide them with many millions of dollars in transit fees. It will provide them with real jobs and technology and a lot of other things.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Maresca, if I could just interrupt here. Why wouldn't you have the situation whereby whoever is in power drawing resources from that pipeline would find that their adversaries would decide to damage their resource base and stop the flow?
Mr. MARESCA. It's not going to be built until there is a single Afghan Government. That's the simple answer. We would not want to be in the situation where we became the target of the other faction. In any case, because of the financing situation, credits are not going to be available until there is a recognized government of Afghanistan.
Mr. BEREUTER. So you are not making any suggestions about the prospects of that or timing of that. It's just you are not going to move or it's not going to be moved from another source until that happens. That would be your judgment?
Mr. MARESCA. That's my judgment. We do of course follow very closely the negotiations which have been going on. We are hopeful that they will lead somewhere. All wars end. I think that's a universal rule. So one of these days this war too will end. Then I believe the pipeline will be secure. Now as for your other question, I would answer it by saying that the energy industry is a very far-sighted activity. We have to look 10, 20 years out into the future because the projects are vast. They take a long time to put together. We have to anticipate what volumes will be 20 years later. That's what we have been doing throughout the industry, not just Unocal.
How quickly will oil volumes coming from this region overwhelm a few pipelines? I think it's very difficult to say. Certainly the first couple of pipelines that are built will be filled. After that, I think the third and fourth pipelines and the fifth pipeline that are built out of that area will probably also be filled. After that, it becomes a question as to which pipeline comes online first and which provides the cheapest route. That is why this question of netback is so important.
Netback is essentially a measurement of the incentive of the producer to use a certain route because it measures what he is going to get as a return. That is why to a certain extent, these pipelines will be in competition on a commercial basis.