|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by kurty[B]
.....The next administration has to deal with this mess, and it's not going to be as easy as "pull out all our troops now!". I hate to say it, but by putting our forces in Iraq and Afghanistan Bush has directed most of terrorist attention there. Pulling out all our forces would redirect attacks to our soil. So, we can have 3-4 or more people die each day over there, or have a few hundred to thousand die on our soil, and we go back to the "I can't believe this, we have to retaliate some how!" mentality and we make some bold move, and end up in the exact situation we are in now (democrat or no in office). Remember, after 9/11 even most Democrats bent over backwards to permit going to war.......
|
I could not disagree with you more....there is no "war on terror", a long, long, war where we fight them "over there", so we don't have to "fight them here". If there was, the following incident that I wrote about yesterday,
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...t=96966&page=4 and containted this:
Quote:
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070416/berman
..........The apparent purging of Black at Abramoff's behest demonstrates the clout the lobbyist wielded at both the DOJ and the White House. Then-White House political director Ken Mehlman, the recent chairman of the Republican National Committee, told White House official Leonard Rodriguez, a protégé of Karl Rove, to "reach out to make Jack aware" of all Guam-related information, including candidates for US Attorney, according to the IG report.
In May 2002 Abramoff used his influence to kill a risk-assessment report of Guam and the neighboring Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI), requested by Black, that called for federalizing immigration laws on the islands, a move that might have jeopardized the influx of cheap labor to CNMI and Abramoff's $1.6 million lobbying contract with its local government. Abramoff learned of the report from John Ashcroft's then-chief of staff, David Ayres, whom he hosted at a Washington Redskins game. "We'll hope that higher ups will take some time to squash this," Abramoff wrote. Sure enough, the report never came out, and the DOJ demoted its author, regional security specialist............
|
.....would not be happening. The contradictions between what the Bush admin. says, and what it does, should be a wake up call for all Americans.
This is from the POTUS's own hand picked commission. The idea of deploying an army of 175,000, at a direct cost of more than $2 billion per week, to control "this" so that we "don't have to fight them here" (in the US) is not believable or practical....
From page 10 of the Baker ISG report:
Quote:
http://www.usip.org/isg/iraq_study_g...oup_report.pdf
....Sources of Violence
Violence is increasing in scope, complexity, and lethality. There are multiple sources of
violence in Iraq: the Sunni Arab insurgency, al Qaeda and affiliated jihadist groups, Shiite
militias and death squads, and organized criminality. Sectarian violence—particularly in and
around Baghdad—has become the principal challenge to stability.
Most attacks on Americans still come from the Sunni Arab insurgency. The insurgency
comprises former elements of the Saddam Hussein regime, disaffected Sunni Arab Iraqis, and
common criminals. It has significant support within the Sunni Arab community. The
insurgency has no single leadership but is a network of networks. It benefits from participants’
detailed knowledge of Iraq’s infrastructure, and arms and financing are supplied primarily from
within Iraq. The insurgents have different goals, although nearly all oppose the presence of U.S.
forces in Iraq. Most wish to restore Sunni Arab rule in the country. Some aim at winning local
power and control.
Al Qaeda is responsible for a small portion of the violence in Iraq, but that includes some
of the more spectacular acts: suicide attacks, large truck bombs, and attacks on significant -
religious or political targets. Al Qaeda in Iraq is now largely Iraqi-run and composed of Sunni Arabs. Foreign fighters—numbering an estimated 1,300—play a supporting role or carry out
suicide operations. Al Qaeda’s goals include instigating a wider sectarian war between Iraq’s
Sunni and Shia, and driving the United States out of Iraq....
|
When the US took over in Afghanistan and installed their "puppet" Kharzai, there was no "drug problem" In Afghanistan:
Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6205220.stm
Last Updated: Monday, 4 December 2006, 05:03 GMT
Afghanistan: A job half done
......Five years on, there is consensus on an urgent need to get a grip on the situation.
It is more difficult now with the emergence of a new "mafia": a nexus of drug smugglers, criminals, and in some provinces Taleban, filling a vacuum left by the government.
Nato forces are now acutely aware their fight is also about jobs and reconstruction. As General Eikenberry puts it: "Where the road ends, the Taleban begins".
As another harsh winter closes in, long cold nights without electricity, even in Kabul, concentrate Afghan minds. .........
|
The expectations that the imposed border "agreement" ....the "Dunbar Line" would expire, after 100 years, as it was suppose to, but didn't, IMO has as much to do with what is described as "Taleban insurgency" as it does about associating the fighting with "al-Qaeda".
Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6572399.stm
Thursday, 19 April 2007
Afghanistan 'border fence' clash
Afghan troops have torn down part of a new anti-Taleban fence being erected by Pakistan on the border between the two countries, officials in Kabul say.
They say the move led to fighting between Afghan and Pakistani troops.
But Pakistan has denied the fence claim, saying the clashes started after one of its patrols came under fire.
It was the first such fighting since Pakistan announced plans earlier this year to fence and mine sections of the border to restrict Taleban fighters....
.....Afghanistan argues that the border between the two countries - known as the Durand Line - is disputed because it cuts off part of its territory.
The Durand Line was drawn up in 1893 by British India, which once included Pakistan, to divide powerful Pashtun tribes.
The BBC's M Ilyas Khan in Karachi says few expect Pakistan's fence plan to stop Taleban movement.
But the measures might help ease pressure on Pakistan from the US, Nato and the UN who want it to do more to curb militant attacks in Afghanistan, he says.
|
The problem with a troop "pull out" now, is not about postponing or shifting the "GWOT", at best a propagandized myth. The problem is what to do about a region containing resources vital to the US, moreso because, instead of spending $1 trillion to fund a "Manhattan Project" style, research project to develop alternative energy sources, the US threw the money away destabilizing that key energy source region, and the result is that the most threatening and largest nation in that region that was checked militarily by Iraq, is now free to interrupt energy supplies/manipulate petroleum pricing, as it chooses... |