After NATO Summit, U.S. To Intensify Military Drive Into Asia

[Che a chara]

Stop NATO
November 17, 2010

After NATO Summit, U.S. To Intensify Military Drive Into Asia
Rick Rozoff

http://rickrozoff.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/nato-obama.jpg?w=300&h=200


Barack Obama, the latest rotating imperator of the first global empire, will arrive in Lisbon on November 19 to receive the plaudits of 27 North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies and secure their continued fealty on issues ranging from the war in Afghanistan to a continental interceptor missile system, extended deployment of American tactical nuclear weapons in Europe, participation in the Pentagon’s cyber warfare plans and expanded military missions in the planet’s south and east.

Perfunctory discussions of minor details notwithstanding, strictly pro forma to maintain the myth of NATO being a “military alliance of democratic states in Europe and North America,” the banners and pennants of 26 European nations, Canada and dozens of other countries contributing troops for the Afghan mission will be lowered in the presence of the leader of the world imperium.

No fewer than 38 European nations have supplied NATO troops for the Afghanistan-Pakistan war as well as providing training grounds and transport centers to support the war effort. As envisioned for at least a century, through peaceful means or otherwise, Europe has been united, not so much by the European Union as under the NATO flag and on the killing fields of Afghanistan. It is now relegated to the role of pre-deployment training area and forward operating base for military campaigns downrange: The Middle East, Africa and Asia.

So uncritically and unquestioningly compliant has Europe been in the above regards that Obama and the governing elite in the imperial metropolis as a whole have already looked beyond the continent for additional military partners. With the exception of fellow members of the NATO Quint – Britain, Germany, France and Italy (Britain more and Italy less than the others) – Alliance partners are accorded the same status and assigned the same functions as American territories like Puerto Rico, Guam and the Northern Mariana Islands: Geopolitically convenient locations for live-fire military training and for troop, warplane and warship deployments.

Two millennia ago the Pax Romana of Augustus brought roads and ports, aqueducts and irrigation, amphitheaters and libraries, and Greek writers from Aristotle to Aeschylus to occupied territories. Bellum Americanum burdens its vassals and tributaries with military bases, interceptor missile batteries, McDonald’s and Lady Gaga.

In Lisbon Obama will chastise his NATO and NATO partnership auxiliaries and foederati, as is the prerogative and wont of the global suzerain and as his predecessor George W. Bush has done recently, for being chary of expending more blood and treasure for the war in Afghanistan. However, he will also display the magnanimity befitting his preeminent stature by patting his European satraps on their bowed heads and intoning, “Well done, good and faithful servants. You have been faithful with a few things; I will put you in charge of many things.”

With the European continent placed securely under the multi-circled Achilles shield of NATO, U.S. nuclear weapons, an interceptor missile system and a cyber warfare command, Washington is moving to realms as yet not completely subjugated.

http://rickrozoff.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/20100608_100602-cyberdefense_rdax_276x184.jpg?w=276&h=184

Africa has been assigned to the three-year-old U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) and perhaps only five of the continent’s 54 nations – Eritrea, Libya, the Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic, Sudan and Zimbabwe – have avoided becoming ensnared in bilateral military ties with the Pentagon and concomitant U.S-led military exercises and deployments.

The U.S. has also expanded its military presence in the Middle East: Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and Yemen.

Two years ago Washington reactivated its Fourth Fleet for the Caribbean Sea and Central and South America and last year’s coup in Honduras and this September’s attempted coup in Ecuador are proof that the U.S. will not allow developments in Latin America to pursue their natural course unimpeded.

The U.S. has intensified efforts to forge and expand military alliances and deployments in the Asia-Pacific region, but there is still a small handful of countries there not willing to accept a subordinate role in American geostrategic designs. They are, to varying degrees and in differing manners, Russia, China, Iran, North Korea and Myanmar. Attempts to replicate the “color revolution” model used in former Soviet republics in Myanmar and Iran since 2007 have failed, “regime change” plans for North Korea are of another nature, and neither China nor Russia appears immediately susceptible to equivalents of the so-called Rose, Orange, Tulip and Twitter revolutions in Georgia, Ukraine, Kyrgyzstan and Moldova, respectively. The preferred technique being applied to Russia at the moment is cooption, though its success is not guaranteed as the U.S. and NATO military build-up around Russia’s borders continues unabated.

What’s left is the military expedient. In the first half of November the quadrivirate in charge of U.S. foreign policy – President Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Michael Mullen – all toured the Asia-Pacific area. Collectively they visited ten nations there: India, Indonesia, South Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Tonga.

Clinton and Gates were in Malaysia at separate times and both joined Mullen on November 8 for the annual Australia-United States Ministerial (AUSMIN) meeting in Melbourne, where the U.S. military chief called the 21st century the “Pacific century.” [1]

In India Obama secured what William Hartung, Director of the Arms and Security Initiative at the New America Foundation, estimated to be the sixth largest arms deal in U.S. history. [2]

In Australia, Gates and Mullen won a backroom arrangement to move U.S. military forces into several Australian bases.

While in New Zealand, Clinton in effect renewed the Australia, New Zealand, United States (ANZUS) Security Treaty as a full tripartite mutual defense pact after a 24-year hiatus in regard to her host country.

On November 13 Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan “thanked the United States…for supporting Tokyo in a series of recent disputes with Russia and China” [3], an allusion to a statement by Clinton on October 27 that the U.S. would honor its military assistance commitment to Tokyo over the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands dispute with China and her spokesman Philip Crowley’s affront to Russia five days afterward over the Kuril Islands, which he identified as Japanese territory. [4]

In a tete-a-tete ahead of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit in Yokohama, the Japanese head of state “sought US President Barack Obama’s assurance on defence in the Asia-Pacific region,” as “Tokyo’s territorial disputes with China and Russia are becoming high priorities for Kan, who told Obama through a translator, ‘The US military presence is only becoming more important.’” [5]

Verbatim, Kan said:

“Japan and the United States, at this meeting of APEC, of pan-Pacific countries, we shall step up our cooperation. So we agreed on doing that. And in Japan’s relations with China and Russia, recently we’ve faced some problems, and the United States has supported Japan throughout, so I expressed my appreciation to him for that.

“For the peace and security of the countries in the region, the presence of the United States and the presence of the U.S. military I believe is becoming only increasingly important.” [6]

In return, Obama “voiced support for Japan to become a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council and reaffirmed the U.S.-Japan security alliance.”

He also assured Kan that the U.S.-Japan alliance is “the cornerstone of American strategic engagement in the Asia Pacific” and “the commitment of the United States to the defense of Japan is unshakable.”

According to a U.S. armed forces publication, “While Obama’s support for the continuing security alliance is no surprise, it comes amid tension in Japan over China’s…claims on territory in the East China and South China seas.” [7]

In less than five months the Pentagon has made its military presence felt throughout the Asia-Pacific area:

The U.S. Marine Corps and Navy participated in Exercise Crocodile 10 in East Timor (Timor-Leste) from June 19-26, which included “weapons firing skills, amphibious assault serials, jungle training, flying operations, and a helicopter raid on an abandoned prison” and provided “an opportunity for multi-national forces to work together in the planning and conduct of a complex military exercise.” [8]

In October of 2009 2,500 U.S. and Australian troops engaged in maneuvers in the country, which marked the first U.S.-East Timor joint military exercise.

This July the U.S. led the multinational Angkor Sentinel 2010 command post and field exercises in Cambodia with American forces and troops from the host nation, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Australia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Mongolia and the Philippines.

For 40 days in late June and throughout July the U.S. led the Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) 2010 war games in the Pacific Ocean off Hawaii with 32 ships, five submarines, more than 170 planes and 20,000 troops from all four branches of the American armed forces and from Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Peru, South Korea, Singapore and Thailand.

http://rickrozoff.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/100624-n-4281p-ffg41_hi_visit-rimpac2010.jpg
Rim of the Pacific 2010

From July 25-28 the U.S. conducted joint war games with South Korea, codenamed Invincible Spirit, in the Sea of Japan/East Sea with the involvement of 20 warships including the nuclear-powered supercarrier USS George Washington, 200 warplanes including F-22 Raptor stealth fighters, and 8,000 troops.

http://rickrozoff.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/gw-flyby-500x357.jpg
Invincible Spirit

The next month U.S. Pacific Command and U.S. Army Pacific presided over the Khaan Quest 2010 military exercise in Mongolia. In the same month American and British troops ran the Steppe Eagle 2010 NATO Partnership for Peace exercise in Kazakhstan.

USS George Washington and the USS John S. McCain destroyer led the first-ever joint U.S.-Vietnam military exercise, consisting of naval maneuvers in the South China Sea, in early August.

Less than a week later the U.S. and South Korea began this year’s Ulchi Freedom Guardian military exercise in the latter country with 30,000 U.S. and 50,000 South Korean troops participating. [9]

In early September Washington and Seoul held an anti-submarine warfare exercise in the Yellow Sea.

At the end of the same month Indian troops joined U.S. marines and sailors in Exercise Habu Nag 2010, the fifth annual bilateral U.S.-India amphibious training exercise with that codename, in the East China Sea off the coast of Okinawa.

In October at least 3,000 U.S. troops participated in the nine-day Amphibious Landing Exercise 2011 in the Philippines. “The bilateral training exercise, conducted with the Armed Forces of the Philippines, is designed to improve interoperability, increase readiness and continue to build professional relationships between the two countries.” [10]

At the beginning of the same month U.S. warships and troops joined 6,000 Australian soldiers and counterparts from New Zealand for Exercise Hamel in northeast Australia, described in the local press as “massive war games.” [11]

Also in October, South Korea for the first time hosted a multinational military exercise with 14 members of the U.S.-created Proliferation Security Initiative, which included ships and military personnel from the U.S., Canada, France, Australia and Japan.

U.S. marines “conducted urban training exercises” in Singapore on November 6. A Marine Corps lieutenant present “gave a short class on identifying danger areas in a combat environment” and “talked about isolating them by sight, or suppressive fire, and the importance of gaining footholds in enemy territories.” [12]

http://rickrozoff.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/size0-army_mil-90506-2010-11-01-121114.jpg?w=300&h=199
Opening ceremony of Yudh Abhyas 2010


On November 14 the U.S. and Indian armies completed the 14-day Yudh Abhyas 2010 military exercise in Alaska. Last year’s Yudh Abhyas featured the largest U.S.-India joint military maneuvers ever held.

100,000 American and another 50,000 NATO troops are fighting in the tenth year of their collective war in Afghanistan. The U.S. is escalating deadly drone missile strikes and NATO is increasing helicopter gunship raids in Pakistan.

The Pentagon has indeed marked this as its Asia-Pacific century.

1) U.S. Department of Defense, November 7, 2010
2) Business Insider, November 6, 2010

http://www.businessinsider.com/top-10-us-arms-deals-in-history-2010-11

….
Obama, Gates And Clinton In Asia: U.S. Expands Military Build-Up In The East
Stop NATO, November 7, 2010

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/11/07/obama-gates-and-clinton-in-asia-u-s-expands-military-build-up-in-the-east

3) Russian Information Agency Novosti, November 13, 2010
4) U.S. Supports Japan, Confronts China And Russia Over Island Disputes
Stop NATO, November 4, 2010

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/u-s-supports-japan-confronts-china-and-russia-over-island-disputes

5) Deutsche Presse-Agentur, November 13, 2010
6) The White House, November 13, 2010
Remarks by President Obama and Prime Minister Kan of Japan in
Statements to the Press in Yokohama, Japan

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2010/11/13/remarks-president-obama-and-prime-minister-kan-japan-statements-press-yo

7) Stars and Stripes, November 14, 2010
8) Australian Government
Department of Defence
June 24, 2010
9) U.S.-China Crisis: Beyond Words To Confrontation
Stop NATO, August 17, 2010

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/08/17/part-ii-u-s-china-crisis-beyond-words-toward-confrontation

10) U.S. Marine Corps, October 22, 2010
11) Australian Broadcasting Company, October 4, 2010
12) U.S. Marine Corps, November 9, 2010


LINK: http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/11/17/after-nato-summit-u-s-to-intensify-military-drive-into-asia/

[Ele'ill]

Good post.



[slot reserved for riot porn]

zSmOwAreuP4

[Lt. Ferret]

i dont see the issue, and the writer attempts to be so bombastic that any legitimate points are swallowed up in the insecure drive to write like a revolutionary.

[Ele'ill]

i dont see the issue, and the writer attempts to be so bombastic that any legitimate points are swallowed up in the insecure drive to write like a revolutionary.

So which is it- do you not see the issues or do you disagree with them?

[Havet]

How can you even know if the summit hasn't been held yet?

[Ele'ill]

Most summit itineraries are 'made public' in the form of generalized lists. I'm sure it's not all that will be discussed.

[Lt. Ferret]

So which is it- do you not see the issues or do you disagree with them?


i do not see the central issue of the military agreements and continuation of agreements between the united states and its allies.

on a similiar note, i feel that the vibe of the article is somewhat forced in order to pursue an issue that the united states has military allies and a military force in afghanistan.

[Che a chara]

on a similiar note, i feel that the vibe of the article is somewhat forced in order to pursue an issue that the united states has military allies and a military force in afghanistan.

It does sure. The US military are bringing in large tanks to Afghanistan.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/151614.html

The US has stepped up it's terrorist attacks in Pakistan and Yemen. They continue to donate to Israel weapons of mass destruction and have agreed a large arms deal with the Saudis which no doubt will have some advantageous military agenda for the US. The US are also sabre rattling Iran and bullshitting that Hezbollah are operating on the US/Mexico border.

Also, How many NATO countries are pulling their troops out of the region ?

[Havet]

Most summit itineraries are 'made public' in the form of generalized lists. I'm sure it's not all that will be discussed.

I was talking about the actual agreed-upon outcomes of the summit

[empiredestoryer]

why does a terrorist nation like america want to kill more people in asia

[Bud Struggle]

why does a terrorist nation like america want to kill more people in asia

They are an equal opporunity destroyer. :D

[Lt. Ferret]

It does sure. The US military are bringing in large tanks to Afghanistan.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail/151614.html

The US has stepped up it's terrorist attacks in Pakistan and Yemen. They continue to donate to Israel weapons of mass destruction and have agreed a large arms deal with the Saudis which no doubt will have some advantageous military agenda for the US. The US are also sabre rattling Iran and bullshitting that Hezbollah are operating on the US/Mexico border.

Also, How many NATO countries are pulling their troops out of the region ?


i know theyre bringing in large tanks i just trained one of the calvary brigades about to deploy over there. of course, those large tanks are simply part of a mostly infantry based unit being sent over there. they still have tanks in iraq, just not a lot. most units that go over there are still infantry and mountain units.


a LOT of various sunni arab countries are getting hella arms deals from the US, mostly air and missile defense, because they hate and fear iran. iran has filled up the vacuum created by the US invasions of iraq and afghanistan even better than the US has. so, now they are very willing to buy Patriot and Avenger systems in order to protect themselves from iranian missiles.

im not opposed to using drone attacks in pakistan or yemen, if they are keeping civilian casualties to a minimum, which usually at this point theyre not becuase since we stepped up the use of them the safety precautions have been declining, you used to practically have to get confirmation from a general to fire one of those things.

if im supposed to have love for reactionary religious fundamentalists because of some misplaced notion of leftist nationalism or anti-imperialism. i dont. theyre scum bags. they cut noses off women, they would put most of the leftists here to the sword if they could get their grubby mitts on them. and if we can limit civilian casualties to a bare minimum? game on.

[Ele'ill]

http://antinatoportugal.wordpress.com/

[Che a chara]

i know theyre bringing in large tanks i just trained one of the calvary brigades about to deploy over there. of course, those large tanks are simply part of a mostly infantry based unit being sent over there. they still have tanks in iraq, just not a lot. most units that go over there are still infantry and mountain units.


a LOT of various sunni arab countries are getting hella arms deals from the US, mostly air and missile defense, because they hate and fear iran. iran has filled up the vacuum created by the US invasions of iraq and afghanistan even better than the US has. so, now they are very willing to buy Patriot and Avenger systems in order to protect themselves from iranian missiles.

im not opposed to using drone attacks in pakistan or yemen, if they are keeping civilian casualties to a minimum, which usually at this point theyre not becuase since we stepped up the use of them the safety precautions have been declining, you used to practically have to get confirmation from a general to fire one of those things.

if im supposed to have love for reactionary religious fundamentalists because of some misplaced notion of leftist nationalism or anti-imperialism. i dont. theyre scum bags. they cut noses off women, they would put most of the leftists here to the sword if they could get their grubby mitts on them. and if we can limit civilian casualties to a bare minimum? game on.

Dude there's ways and means to combat the extremist threat. But this illusionary 'war on terror' has breeded more terrorist activity. If NATO withdraws it's troops you'll see a vast decrease in Taliban activity, as the Taliban have previously stated.

The presence of foreign troops is the main reason you see the west being the target of attacks in their own countries. these are retaliatory attacks and will continue if the west keeps on interfering.

Iran is no military threat whatsoever to any other Muslim land. Iran has opened ties with Iraq and welcomed dialogue with Afghanistan, which the USA has hypocritically seen as interference. I wish Iran all the best in these endeavours.

There's no doubt change is needed in these mentioned countries, but look at the disgusting state Iraq is in after the US led invasion, mass slaughter and 'liberation' :rolleyes:. Openness, inclusion and dialogue is needed. Not NATO bombs.

[scarletghoul]

Dude there's ways and means to combat the extremist threat. But this illusionary 'war on terror' has breeded more terrorist activity. If NATO withdraws it's troops you'll see a vast decrease in Taliban activity, as the Taliban have previously stated.

The presence of foreign troops is the main reason you see the west being the target of attacks in their own countries. these are retaliatory attacks and will continue if the west keeps on interfering.

Iran is no military threat whatsoever to any other Muslim land. Iran has opened ties with Iraq and welcomed dialogue with Afghanistan, which the USA has hypocritically seen as interference. I wish Iran all the best in these endeavours.

There's no doubt change is needed in these mentioned countries, but look at the disgusting state Iraq is in after the US led invasion, mass slaughter and 'liberation' :rolleyes:. Openness, inclusion and dialogue is needed. Not NATO bombs.but but we have to fight the terrorists in order to stop them fighting back

[Lt. Ferret]

Dude there's ways and means to combat the extremist threat. But this illusionary 'war on terror' has breeded more terrorist activity. If NATO withdraws it's troops you'll see a vast decrease in Taliban activity, as the Taliban have previously stated.

The presence of foreign troops is the main reason you see the west being the target of attacks in their own countries. these are retaliatory attacks and will continue if the west keeps on interfering.

Iran is no military threat whatsoever to any other Muslim land. Iran has opened ties with Iraq and welcomed dialogue with Afghanistan, which the USA has hypocritically seen as interference. I wish Iran all the best in these endeavours.

There's no doubt change is needed in these mentioned countries, but look at the disgusting state Iraq is in after the US led invasion, mass slaughter and 'liberation' :rolleyes:. Openness, inclusion and dialogue is needed. Not NATO bombs.


youre pretty delusional if you think iran isnt a threat to the other arab nations, or doesnt have aspirations to raise its influence with the shia minorities in iraq and saudi arabia. it was bankrolling the shia uprisings in iraq for years, and still sends them a lot of money and aid to their political parties. the domestic aid came after the military aid proved unfruitful.

if nato leaves afghanistan without the taliban and the afghan government signing a political agreement to share power (which is inevitable) you wil most likely see a contracted civil war, or the taliban taking control of the country again and a purge of karzai supporters.

right now taliban and karzai government politicos are making tentative gains. karzai likes to throw a wrench in the proceedings to make both the taliban and the NATO forces cringe and try to accomodate him. if it were up to me we'd get rid of karzai and make peace iwth the taliban and go home.

iraq is recovering. it was in a disgusting state after its government was overthrown, but it was in a disgusting state after the gulf war til 2003, and held hostage by a fascist iraqi regime which killed off its citizens for 30 years prior to that, and before that, a reactionary monarchy and before that, a colony of the british and before that an ottoman colony. its not like theres some beautiful time in iraqi history where it had either a democratic form of government or a socialist/marxist one.

[scarletghoul]

youre pretty delusional if you think iran isnt a threat to the other arab nations
:lol: I stopped reading here. If you think Iran is an 'Arab nation', it's probably a waste of time to read the rest.

[Lt. Ferret]

:lol: I stopped reading here. If you think Iran is an 'Arab nation', it's probably a waste of time to read the rest.


no, but it threatens arab nations. nice fail there.

[Che a chara]

youre pretty delusional if you think iran isnt a threat to the other arab nations, or doesnt have aspirations to raise its influence with the shia minorities in iraq and saudi arabia. it was bankrolling the shia uprisings in iraq for years, and still sends them a lot of money and aid to their political parties. the domestic aid came after the military aid proved unfruitful.

if nato leaves afghanistan without the taliban and the afghan government signing a political agreement to share power (which is inevitable) you wil most likely see a contracted civil war, or the taliban taking control of the country again and a purge of karzai supporters.

right now taliban and karzai government politicos are making tentative gains. karzai likes to throw a wrench in the proceedings to make both the taliban and the NATO forces cringe and try to accomodate him. if it were up to me we'd get rid of karzai and make peace iwth the taliban and go home.

iraq is recovering. it was in a disgusting state after its government was overthrown, but it was in a disgusting state after the gulf war til 2003, and held hostage by a fascist iraqi regime which killed off its citizens for 30 years prior to that, and before that, a reactionary monarchy and before that, a colony of the british and before that an ottoman colony. its not like theres some beautiful time in iraqi history where it had either a democratic form of government or a socialist/marxist one.

You really think that the US gives a shit about other Muslims in the region after annihilating the infrastructure, homes and children in Muslim lands ? c'mon.

The US talks up Iran's threat because Iran's interest is anti-Imperialist. No doubt Iran wants to raise influence in the middle east, but my guess is that that influence is one of peace and reconciliation, and yes maybe some of the interest lies at a certain religious denomination, as you mention the Shi'a are a minority in the middle east, a massive minority, so why wouldn't there be some outreach to them ?


if it were up to me we'd get rid of karzai and make peace iwth the taliban and go home.

EXACTLY. ENDGAME :D

[Bud Struggle]

EXACTLY. ENDGAME :D

Me, too. (Though I might drop an Atomic Bomb on them on the way out. :D) )

[Ele'ill]

Bud, come on...

[ComradeMan]

Me, too. (Though I might drop an Atomic Bomb on them on the way out. :D) )

What's scary Bud, is that I know you wouldn't do that- it's just your bizarre sense of humour, but there are some people who really do think like that.

Nuke them all!!!! Let God sort them out!!!

Madness, madness!!! A world gone mad!!!

[RGacky3]

Me, too. (Though I might drop an Atomic Bomb on them on the way out. :D) )

I love that attitude, America invades them, it does'nt work out, so its their fault so lets bomb them. Honestly.

Well, I say ew gotta get rid of Obama, but on the way out, why not send a couple more airplanes into buildings, because hey, why not, its just a mess in America anyway.

I get its just a joke, but then don't get offended at 911 jokes.

[Bud Struggle]

I love that attitude, America invades them, it does'nt work out, so its their fault so lets bomb them. Honestly.

Well, I say ew gotta get rid of Obama, but on the way out, why not send a couple more airplanes into buildings, because hey, why not, its just a mess in America anyway.

I get its just a joke, but then don't get offended at 911 jokes.

Well America isn't a mess--maybe it doesn't work for you. Maybe it doesn't work for a bunch of people--but it does work for a lot more.

I have no problem with us going into Afghanistan and cleaning the place out after 9/11. What I'm not interested in is all the this very expensive and costly nationbuilding--trying to give these people democracy and building them a state. That's their job to build their own country. if they want to be ruled by mullahs or whatever--thst's their business. I don't think it didn't work out--we got what we wanted, or at least what I wanted, a place that isn't going to threaten America. What the US government might have wanted is another thing--they want a democratic capitalistic state--and that isn't going to happen. But really, who cares about that?

If they pose a threat to the US they should be dealt with--and Afghanistan was involved in 9/11. If they bomb us--they should be dealt with. If they don't bother us (like Iraq) they should be left alone.

[RGacky3]

Well America isn't a mess--maybe it doesn't work for you. Maybe it doesn't work for a bunch of people--but it does work for a lot more.



Every country works for some people.


I have no problem with us going into Afghanistan and cleaning the place out after 9/11. What I'm not interested in is all the this very expensive and costly nationbuilding--trying to give these people democracy and building them a state.

Whos trying to build them a state? Whos trying to "bring" them democracy?


That's their job to build their own country. if they want to be ruled by mullahs or whatever--thst's their business. I don't think it didn't work out--we got what we wanted, or at least what I wanted, a place that isn't going to threaten America. What the US government might have wanted is another thing--they want a democratic capitalistic state--and that isn't going to happen. But really, who cares about that?


You got a place that is'nt going to threaten America??? AFHANISTAN NEVER THREATENED AMERICA, never, not once, the taliban did'nt.

Al Queda did, and the taliban OFFERED to turn them over if there was evidence that they did 9-11 you might say (oh they were just saying that), but theres no way of knowing that now is there.

America did'nt get rid of the threat, not at all, if any thing it purpetuated by making a bunch of dissaffected young people angry at the US and more likely to join Al Queda, a group still strong and kicking and a group that is not a country.

The US government does'nt want a democratic capitalist state, they want obedience.


If they pose a threat to the US they should be dealt with--and Afghanistan was involved in 9/11. If they bomb us--they should be dealt with. If they don't bother us (like Iraq) they should be left alone.

Afghanistan was not invovled, thats like saying the mafia does crime in the US, which means we must bomb Italy and overthrow the government there.

[Bud Struggle]

Every country works for some people. Sure--even places like Cuba work for some.


Whos trying to build them a state? Whos trying to "bring" them democracy? The US is building something of a democratic state. They shouldn't have bothered.


You got a place that is'nt going to threaten America??? AFHANISTAN NEVER THREATENED AMERICA, never, not once, the taliban did'nt.

Al Queda did, and the taliban OFFERED to turn them over if there was evidence that they did 9-11 you might say (oh they were just saying that), but theres no way of knowing that now is there. They should have just turned them over when asked.


America did'nt get rid of the threat, not at all, if any thing it purpetuated by making a bunch of dissaffected young people angry at the US and more likely to join Al Queda, a group still strong and kicking and a group that is not a country. It doesn't matter. As long as the US has the capability to take care of any threat and dispose of the terrorists--then everythig is fine. It's not like there are that many of them--it's maybe a few thousand--and they have bee spectacularly unsuccessful since 9/11, but i agree that US should spend less time in foreign wars and more time in operations that will nutralize these guys.


The US government does'nt want a democratic capitalist state, they want obedience. They want a state that's friendly to the US that creates no trouble.


Afghanistan was not invovled, thats like saying the mafia does crime in the US, which means we must bomb Italy and overthrow the government there. They were involved enough--there was a lot of colatteral damage there to be sure--but they should have turned over Al Queda when asked.

[RGacky3]

Sure--even places like Cuba work for some.


Yeah, juts because it works for some people, like the US does, does'nt make it a mess, like the US is.


The US is building something of a democratic state. They shouldn't have bothered.


How are they doing that? What do you think would happen if the Afghani people elect to natinalize their mines and legalize poppy production?

The Afghani state is subservient to the US and you know it, they have no interest in building any democracy.


They should have just turned them over when asked.


The US should have provided evidence like any civilized country is expected to do for extradition, unter international law.


It doesn't matter. As long as the US has the capability to take care of any threat and dispose of the terrorists--then everythig is fine.

Except they don't, and they never will.


It's not like there are that many of them--it's maybe a few thousand--and they have bee spectacularly unsuccessful since 9/11, but i agree that US should spend less time in foreign wars and more time in operations that will nutralize these guys.


There are not many actual members of Al Queda, but there are quite a few sympathisers, as for your second point, maybe they should stop engaging in terrorism, and stop giving people a reason to join those groups.

I wonder why there are no Islamic groups out there saying "Death to Finland" probably because finland does'nt engage in state terrorism against them.


They want a state that's friendly to the US that creates no trouble.


What they want is a state thats subservient to the US, remember up until 911 the Taliban was friendly and did'nt create any trouble, and the Taliban did'nt do 911, Al Queda did.

After it happened they requested what every state would when extradition is requested, evidence, I would hardly call asking the US to obay international law "causing trouble" or not "being friendly."

No, what the US wants, and you know it, is a Subservient state, a vassel state.


They were involved enough--there was a lot of colatteral damage there to be sure--but they should have turned over Al Queda when asked.

How were the invovled? Do you have ONE shread of evidence that the Taliban government even knew about 911 before it happened?

btw, 911 had a lot of collateral damage as well, bombing towns, is'nt "collateral damage" thats terrorism.

As for your second point, the US should have followed international law and provided evidence for extradition.

[Che a chara]

Well America isn't a mess--maybe it doesn't work for you. Maybe it doesn't work for a bunch of people--but it does work for a lot more.

Morally, ethically and for the greater good says otherwise :D


I have no problem with us going into Afghanistan and cleaning the place out after 9/11. What I'm not interested in is all the this very expensive and costly nationbuilding--trying to give these people democracy and building them a state.That's their job to build their own country.

But Bud it's the US military that is bombing these towns, cities, rural areas and the entire infrastructure and labelling all civilians buildings, hospitals, schools and land as collateral damage. Who should be accountable and responsible for these acts of terrorism ?

If you didn't want '9/11' to happen then the US shouldn't have been the aggressor and instigator of such acts of retaliation. That blame lies directly at the feet of the government, it's security and the military. Get on their back and don't be blaming the Muslim/Arab poor for rebelling after their natural resources are stolen and their shacks and huts are bombed by million dollar weaponry.


If they pose a threat to the US they should be dealt with--and Afghanistan was involved in 9/11. If they bomb us--they should be dealt with. If they don't bother us (like Iraq) they should be left alone.

They only pose a threat to the US because the US posed a threat to them first, by attacking and stealing.

Why don't the right-wing/capitalists see beyond the reasons why wars and conflicts start. A lot of it is bigotry and intolerance. I'm not saying you are bigoted and intolerant Bud, but that supremacist attitude that the US are the liberators and are the victims is just bullshit and needs to be highlighted and addressed.

[Che a chara]

If they pose a threat to the US they should be dealt with--and Afghanistan was involved in 9/11. If they bomb us--they should be dealt with. If they don't bother us (like Iraq) they should be left alone.

:eek: Have I read that properly ? I'm sure you meant countries like Palestine, Lebanon, Pakistan ..... oh wait a minute ;) or maybe Iran (watch this space ;))

[Bud Struggle]

Morally, ethically and for the greater good says otherwise :D And you being the great poobah of what is ethical and moral?


But Bud it's the US military that is bombing these towns, cities, rural areas and the entire infrastructure and labelling all civilians buildings, hospitals, schools and land as collateral damage. Who should be accountable and responsible for these acts of terrorism ? They are building hospitals and clinic and building infrastructer in Afghanistan. Are you saying that a local Afphgan hospital is better and an American one? Better spplies, better medicine?


If you didn't want '9/11' to happen then the US shouldn't have been the aggressor and instigator of such acts of retaliation. That blame lies directly at the feet of the government, it's security and the military. Get on their back and don't be blaming the Muslim/Arab poor for rebelling after their natural resources are stolen and their shacks and huts are bombed by million dollar weaponry. Nonsense. where was America in Afghanistan before 9/11? They were moving in somewhere? The Afghans aren't Arabs. The US had nothing to do with them.


They only pose a threat to the US because the US posed a threat to them first, by attacking and stealing. before 9/11 the US was stealing exactly what from that country. Look to China right now minign then for resources.


Why don't the right-wing/capitalists see beyond the reasons why wars and conflicts start. A lot of it is bigotry and intolerance. I'm not saying you are bigoted and intolerant Bud, but that supremacist attitude that the US are the liberators and are the victims is just bullshit and needs to be highlighted and addressed. Comrade Quaterback--where did the US offend Afghanistan before 9/11?

They LET people in their country that hit America and we hit back. It was the choice they took.

[RGacky3]

They LET people in their country that hit America and we hit back. It was the choice they took.

The people were alreadya in that country and they LIKE EVERY COUNTRY WOULD asked for evidence before extraditing.


Nonsense. where was America in Afghanistan before 9/11? They were moving in somewhere?

The Americans Installed the Taliban .... Are you kidding me?

[Bud Struggle]

:eek: Have I read that properly ? I'm sure you meant countries like Palestine, Lebanon, Pakistan ..... oh wait a minute ;) or maybe Iran (watch this space ;))

Yea I'm all for staying out of Pakistan, Lebanon could do what it likes and I'd let the Palestinains duke it out with the Israelis. No money for any of them.

I'm also for leaving Iran alone--now if they threaten our supply of oil--;) :D.

[Bud Struggle]

The people were alreadya in that country and they LIKE EVERY COUNTRY WOULD asked for evidence before extraditing. Maybe--but it was a bad idea for them to ask. You act we there are some sort of rules.




The Americans Installed the Taliban .... Are you kidding me?And the Americans wern't bothering them. The Americans just put them in to get the Russians out. That was Cold War business.

[Ele'ill]

I don't think that was the point being made

[RGacky3]

Maybe--but it was a bad idea for them to ask. You act we there are some sort of rules.


Yeah, there are, its called the UN laws, which the US signed, and treaties that the US signed.

Its also something every country does regardless, if the US arrests someone in its own boarders it needs evidence, and especially if a country is going to extradite.

Yes they should have asked because EVERY COUNTRY WOULD ASK.

What would your responce be if France told the US to hand over charlie sheen for executoin because they thought he was a mass rapist, you think the US would ask for evidence right?


And the Americans wern't bothering them. The Americans just put them in to get the Russians out. That was Cold War business.

Putting them in WAS bothering the afghanis.

[Bud Struggle]

Yeah, there are, its called the UN laws, which the US signed, and treaties that the US signed. I don't know for sure--but I don't believe that Afghanistan was signatory to any of those treaties--so they might not have applied.


Its also something every country does regardless, if the US arrests someone in its own boarders it needs evidence, and especially if a country is going to extradite.

Yes they should have asked because EVERY COUNTRY WOULD ASK. It would have been nicer if they did do all of that--but I think if a pissed off USA is asking for something it's better off just giving them what they want. And it's not like a good number of countries didn't go along with the US.


What would your responce be if France told the US to hand over charlie sheen for executoin because they thought he was a mass rapist, you think the US would ask for evidence right? Again--if it suited US purposes to obey whatever rules there were--then they would have done it. Remember--there really aren't any rules that HAVE to be obeyed.

[RGacky3]

I don't know for sure--but I don't believe that Afghanistan was signatory to any of those treaties--so they might not have applied.


Afghanistan is part of the UN.


It would have been nicer if they did do all of that--but I think if a pissed off USA is asking for something it's better off just giving them what they want. And it's not like a good number of countries didn't go along with the US.


Ok .... So if America wants it, give it to them, or they'll bomb you .... How is that not terrorism?

This is international protocal


Again--if it suited US purposes to obey whatever rules there were--then they would have done it. Remember--there really aren't any rules that HAVE to be obeyed.

So your blatently saying the US is a disonest country, that does'nt honor treaties does'nt respect sovrienty or the liberty of any country and does'nt respect rule of law?

Fine, but don't let me catch you with a double standard Bud, you know I will.

[ComradeMan]

In a cynical sense Bud is right. There are no real rules, the rules are decided by the winners. This is not right, but don't be fooled by all the rhetoric either. I would say all nation-states, all groups and organisations are guilty of violating human rights, crimes against humanity and "interpretations" of the "rules" to suit themselves. Some get in trouble and some don't. It's time to get tough with Serbia but not with Zimbabwe, we must topple evil regimes like Saddam's (and he was pretty nasty) but we allowed Paraguay under Stroessner to go on and actively supported him. We'll support limited sanctions against South Africa during apartheid (not uranium though) but we will have a total embargo against Cuba etc etc etc etc. The Soviet Union didn't have their hands clean either, nor does China- in a fact I would say we are suffering from global "hypocracy" on a dangerous and grand scale.

The fist victim of any war is the truth. All that remains are the lies of the victors and the lies of the vanquished.

[Bud Struggle]

Hey Brother Gack, if you look on this official UN site:

http://www.un.org/News/dh/latest/afghan/un-afghan-history.shtml

you'll see that everything the US did in Afghanistan was legit and above board.

[Ele'ill]

Hey Brother Gack, if you look on this official UN site:

http://www.un.org/News/dh/latest/afghan/un-afghan-history.shtml

you'll see that everything the US did in Afghanistan was legit and above board.

Quote of the year. :lol:

[ComradeMan]

Quote of the year. :lol:

But he's right in a legalistic sense...

That's the problem.

[Scary Monster]

In a cynical sense Bud is right. There are no real rules, the rules are decided by the winners. This is not right, but don't be fooled by all the rhetoric either. I would say all nation-states, all groups and organisations are guilty of violating human rights, crimes against humanity and "interpretations" of the "rules" to suit themselves. Some get in trouble and some don't. It's time to get tough with Serbia but not with Zimbabwe, we must topple evil regimes like Saddam's (and he was pretty nasty) but we allowed Paraguay under Stroessner to go on and actively supported him. We'll support limited sanctions against South Africa during apartheid (not uranium though) but we will have a total embargo against Cuba etc etc etc etc. The Soviet Union didn't have their hands clean either, nor does China- in a fact I would say we are suffering from global "hypocracy" on a dangerous and grand scale.

lolwut? You do know that the US, through Israel, supported south african Apartheid by supplying weapons and funds to the european colonies over there right? China actually sent troops over there to assist them also. Not once have i ever considered China communist anyway.


Hey Brother Gack, if you look on this official UN site:

http://www.un.org/News/dh/latest/afghan/un-afghan-history.shtml

you'll see that everything the US did in Afghanistan was legit and above board.

:lol::laugh:

But yeah, i think Bud, comrademan and others miss the point everytime, or need to read up on Afghan history. Theres absolutely no justification for the US meddling in Afghanistan in the 80s, nor now. The US (as well as China of course) funded, armed and trained the Islamic-fundamentalist Mujahideen (which is made up of foreign muslims. Also, the support for the Mujahideen from the US allowed the Taliban the means to come into power) to bring down the secular, popular (in the cities, at least) government. Women under this communist government had civil rights and were allowed to dress like western women for christ's sake!

Lol I dont see how theres even an argument here.

[Ele'ill]

But he's right in a legalistic sense...

That's the problem.


When have laws created by the ruling class stopped the ruling class from breaking them?

[Bud Struggle]

But yeah, i think Bud, comrademan and others miss the point everytime, or need to read up on Afghan history. Theres absolutely no justification for the US meddling in Afghanistan in the 80s, nor now. The US (as well as China of course) funded, armed and trained the Islamic-fundamentalist Mujahideen (which is made up of foreign muslims. Also, the support for the Mujahideen from the US allowed the Taliban the means to come into power) to bring down the secular, popular (in the cities, at least) government. Women under this communist government had civil rights and were allowed to dress like western women for christ's sake!

Lol I dont see how theres even an argument here.

But that was then. And that was Cold War politics. The US did all that to fight the Soviets and it was a pretty good strategy and it worked--it got the Soviets out of Afghanistan and weakend the SU considerably--and that weakness led to its eventual fall. You many not like it--but that was the game being played at the time. And it was a well played had by America.

Nobody cared anything about Afghanistan after that until 9/11. Then they hemmed and hawed about giving us the culprets and we found new friedships in the "Northern Alliance" (whatever happed to those guys?) And then we had a whole new game.


But he's right in a legalistic sense...

That's the problem.

The theme of all of these threads is exactly the same: 'It's not FAIR! The Capitalists are doing THIS, the Rich are doing THAT, Corporation are doing something else that isn't right, America isn't fighting nicely, commercials don't give both sides of the argument." :crying::crying::crying:

One whine after another.

[Revolution starts with U]

Sometime's I think I like you Bud. But that's only when you're joking. When you actually speak your mind I am disgusted :thumbup1:
As far as your last comment goes.. I don't want to be an internet tough guy, but if we were face to face, the peacefulness of the conversation may have ended.
How can you call it whining to say people shouldn't murder other people. Go intellectually masturbate yourself you deluded tool :mad:

[Bud Struggle]

Sometime's I think I like you Bud. But that's only when you're joking. When you actually speak your mind I am disgusted :thumbup1:
As far as your last comment goes.. I don't want to be an internet tough guy, but if we were face to face, the peacefulness of the conversation may have ended.
How can you call it whining to say people shouldn't murder other people. Go intellectually masturbate yourself you deluded tool :mad:

I agree--people shouldn't murder other people. I'm against all killing--euthenasia, Death row and Abortion, too.

[Scary Monster]

But that was then. And that was Cold War politics. The US did all that to fight the Soviets and it was a pretty good strategy and it worked--it got the Soviets out of Afghanistan and weakend the SU considerably--and that weakness led to its eventual fall. You many not like it--but that was the game being played at the time. And it was a well played had by America.

Well duh, of course it worked for America. Thats why beheadings are still allowed and the US puppet government (which Karzai himself admitted is a puppet government) wont give women basic civil rights and allow them to get their noses cut off.


The theme of all of these threads is exactly the same: 'It's not FAIR! The Capitalists are doing THIS, the Rich are doing THAT, Corporation are doing something else that isn't right, America isn't fighting nicely, commercials don't give both sides of the argument." :crying::crying::crying:

Once again- No shit! lol. Dude, America and western europe (any government really. Thats kinda why Marxists call for a withering away of the State.) blowing people up for wanting to make their lives better is the reason why this site exists.

[Revolution starts with U]

Unless they are backward 3rd world people getting in the way of America's capital expansion.

[ComradeMan]

lolwut? You do know that the US, through Israel, supported south african Apartheid by supplying weapons and funds to the european colonies over there right? China actually sent troops over there to assist them also. Not once have i ever considered China communist anyway.
But yeah, i think Bud, comrademan and others miss the point everytime, or need to read up on Afghan history. Theres absolutely no justification for the US meddling in Afghanistan in the 80s, nor now. The US (as well as China of course) funded, armed and trained the Islamic-fundamentalist Mujahideen (which is made up of foreign muslims. Also, the support for the Mujahideen from the US allowed the Taliban the means to come into power) to bring down the secular, popular (in the cities, at least) government. Women under this communist government had civil rights and were allowed to dress like western women for christ's sake!

Lol I dont see how theres even an argument here.

I think you miss the point and perhaps the nuance. What I was basically saying is that appeals to any kind of rules of war etc are pretty damn futile.

Of course I know the US et al, "quietly" supported apartheid South Africa, the regime in Pretoria was one of the most anti-communist in the world. Like I said, there were sanctions against fruit and sporting contact etc etc, but not uranium, gold and diamonds. The point was about the hypocrisy in singling out some nations and not others- in relation to the previous points. But I think you are wrong on a point. There was an arms embargo on South Africa, but I believe the French found a way of getting round this by selling the parts to make the arms instead of the arms themselves- with the net result that the South Africans were selling arms to others and had no need of buying them. I suppose when you control the "free worlds" gold and uranium during the height of the Cold War, you get to call some shots too.

We live in a world dominated by reactionaries on all sides. Just so happens that the US is a big one with a lot of muscle.

Anyway, you took the point the wrong way. Bud, when he is not provoking, is often right in a very cynical and realpolitik sense, that doesn't say we agree with him, but the facts remain.

[Lt. Ferret]

americans kill people. american puppets kill people. soviets kill people. soviet puppets kill people. third world reactionaries kill people.

its not like theres some faction in all of this discussion that doesn't have blood on its hands. and yes, between the USA and the taliban, i will go with the USA.

stop supporting fascists in the name of anti-imperialism.

[Revolution starts with U]

Nobody is supporting the Taliban. One can condemn both sides, you know?

[Scary Monster]

americans kill people. american puppets kill people. soviets kill people. soviet puppets kill people. third world reactionaries kill people.

its not like theres some faction in all of this discussion that doesn't have blood on its hands. and yes, between the USA and the taliban, i will go with the USA.

stop supporting fascists in the name of anti-imperialism.

I should make where i stand more clear then: Afghanistan should be left the hell alone. Lets see how long the current government and the Taliban lasts if there is no foreign presence instigating conflict, such as the US propping up an unpopular, undemocratic government. Afghanistan was sovereign and doing quite well, overthrowing their king and moving toward a secular, progressive society. I use Afghanistan during the 70s and 80s as a perfect example of what Afghan people can accomplish without a foreign presence.

[Lt. Ferret]

I should make where i stand more clear then: Afghanistan should be left the hell alone. Lets see how long the current government and the Taliban lasts if there is no foreign presence instigating conflict, such as the US propping up an unpopular, undemocratic government. Afghanistan was sovereign and doing quite well, overthrowing their king and moving toward a secular, progressive society. I use Afghanistan during the 70s and 80s as a perfect example of what Afghan people can accomplish without a foreign presence.


Afghanistan has been wracked by internal and external conflict ever since their king was deposed. Rural warlords and Islamic fundamentalists were popping up everywhere, inspired by Iran's revolution (not the Shi'a part, just the idea of Islamic revolution). The communists there were also shit bags and Soviet puppets. They might have had promise but they definitely were in the Soviet camp, as far as I know (i could be wrong). I dont think there was any one democratic faction that was stronger than these other two, more militant ones.

then ten years of proxy cold war, warlordism when it stopped, the Taliban imposed their reactionary rule on most of the country, and blowing up Buddha statues and generally being assholes. They knew they had terrorist camps in their country. They welcomed Osama Bin Laden with opened arms, they didn't try to kick him out after the 1998 terror attacks.

Anyways I'm rambling, if the Americans leave now, Karzai's government will fall, and I figure warlordism and Taliban rule will encompass the land again, and it will not be a pretty picture for the people.

[scarletghoul]

Anyways I'm rambling, if the Americans leave now, Karzai's government will fall, and I figure warlordism and Taliban rule will encompass the land again, and it will not be a pretty picture for the people.
Yes, the puppet government is so much better. Its not like they pass laws allowing men to starve and rape their wives, or increase opium production by like 100 times, force underage boys to dance and then rape them, rig the elections, etc etc

[Lt. Ferret]

Which will occur under the Warlords and Taliban as well, and usually because of them despite Karzai's government.

[scarletghoul]

Which will occur under the Warlords and Taliban as well, and usually because of them despite Karzai's government.
Actually, that's completely untrue. For all the Taliban's faults, they did clamp down on opium production as well as the sexual enslavement of young boys.

[gorillafuck]

Which will occur under the Warlords and Taliban as well, and usually because of them despite Karzai's government.
Karzais government which is overflowing with warlords?

[Lt. Ferret]

Actually, that's completely untrue. For all the Taliban's faults, they did clamp down on opium production as well as the sexual enslavement of young boys.


Though women facial mutilation continued unabated.

[Lt. Ferret]

Karzais government which is overflowing with warlords?


The argument I see seems to revolve around "we should get rid of the American puppet government which consists of former warlords, so that the afghan people can rule themselves through warlords, which are now part of the Karzai government"

I would rather slaughter the warlords and most of the Taliban. I wouldnt mind a bullet in Karzai's head either but its not because of his American puppet strings.

[Scary Monster]

The argument I see seems to revolve around "we should get rid of the American puppet government which consists of former warlords, so that the afghan people can rule themselves through warlords, which are now part of the Karzai government"

I would rather slaughter the warlords and most of the Taliban. I wouldnt mind a bullet in Karzai's head either but its not because of his American puppet strings.

Lol whos saying the Afghans want warlords at all? What makes you think the Afghans would stand to be ruled by them? Sure, if the Americans pulled out and the Afghan government collapses, the warlords would have a monopoly on force, but the Afghans surely would start a civil war against the warlords at least.
That all comes down to speculation. But again, look at what the Afghans did without foreign intervention from the 1960s to the 80s. They are more than capable.

[Lt. Ferret]

Lol whos saying the Afghans want warlords at all? What makes you think the Afghans would stand to be ruled by them? Sure, if the Americans pulled out and the Afghan government collapses, the warlords would have a monopoly on force, but the Afghans surely would start a civil war against the warlords at least.
That all comes down to speculation. But again, look at what the Afghans did without foreign intervention from the 1960s to the 80s. They are more than capable.


more than capable of what? an incredibly weak republic in the 70s that led to an islamic insurrection, and a soviet invasion?


the afghans will "stand" to be ruled by whoever has the best weaponry and despotically rules over them. im still waiting for their workers revolution or war of national revolution. it has not occurred. theyve suffered under a wide range of tyrannical yokes.

[RGacky3]

Hey Brother Gack, if you look on this official UN site:

http://www.un.org/News/dh/latest/afg...-history.shtml (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.un.org/News/dh/latest/afghan/un-afghan-history.shtml)

you'll see that everything the US did in Afghanistan was legit and above board.


THe site is a history of it, not the legality.

But again, the extradition issue is universal. Lets give you an example, there IS evidence for the cuban terrorists that have refuge in the US. According to its own standards Cuba has much much more right to invade the US than teh US did Cuba, they actually have evidence and the US still refuses.

[ComradeMan]

THe site is a history of it, not the legality.

But again, the extradition issue is universal. Lets give you an example, there IS evidence for the cuban terrorists that have refuge in the US. According to its own standards Cuba has much much more right to invade the US than teh US did Cuba, they actually have evidence and the US still refuses.

Power comes from the barrel of a gun... might is right.... vae victis....

Those are the real rules...

It sucks.

[RGacky3]

Power comes from the barrel of a gun... might is right.... vae victis....

Those are the real rules...

It sucks.

Yeah, no shit, obviously, but then don't act like the US is anything different from what it is, an Empire, like the ROman Empire, like the USSR, like the Holy Roman EMpire, Like the british empire, that oppresses people, violates the rights of people and violates the liberty and indepenance of people.

The idea of American exceptionalism, that somehow America is NOT an Empire, and is somehow governed by principles, is rediculous, and guess what, you can't have it both ways, you can't demand that others follow rules that you don't.

That argument/excuse is rediculous, thats like me saying "so and so is a rapist, and thus it should be stoped and he should be treated as such." And your response is "hey man, rape happens."

[Bud Struggle]

, and guess what, you can't have it both ways, you can't demand that others follow rules that you don't.

Please explain to me why you can't have it both ways. :)

I kind of think the US is the "goog guy" so I really don't mind what they do very much (Not of course always the good guy--but by far most of the time.) I can appreciate your opinion in the opposite direction.

And I think you'll find that when the US does something internationally it is legal.

[RGacky3]

Please explain to me why you can't have it both ways. :)


Well you can, but that makes you a hypocrite, so if your perfectly fine being a hypocrite then you can have it both ways. :)


I kind of think the US is the "goog guy" so I really don't mind what they do very much (Not of course always the good guy--but by far most of the time.) I can appreciate your opinion in the opposite direction.


You think of them as the "good guy" because you have your head in the sand.


And I think you'll find that when the US does something internationally it is legal.

I have found that it is not. The Iraq war, overthrowing democratic governments, tourture, illigal detentions, unprovoked invasions. When the US does something internationally its almsot always for imperialistic reasons.

But your thinking from the assumption that the US is the good guy, think about that for a second, how is that honest?

[Bud Struggle]

Well you can, but that makes you a hypocrite, so if your perfectly fine being a hypocrite then you can have it both ways. :) Yea Capitalsits do bad things, The CNT did bad things, I'm sure the EZLN does bad things. Commies are blowing up trains and murdering peopel in India, you think there's DEMIOCRACY in Cuba? Or Tibet? Everyone has their problems.


You think of them as the "good guy" because you have your head in the sand. I don't know what you do for a living (and I don't care: NOMB) but you seen like your eithere a Preacher or a Union Organizer. "D


I have found that it is not. The Iraq war, overthrowing democratic governments, tourture, illigal detentions, unprovoked invasions. When the US does something internationally its almsot always for imperialistic reasons. You might be right about the rest--but DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT???? Saddam was a creep. I'm not saying it was right--but it's not like the US was overthrowing Canada. At best it was a morally neutral act.


But your thinking from the assumption that the US is the good guy, think about that for a second, how is that honest? Listen: There was nothing wrong with Saddam being overthrown--nothing wrong with wiping the Talaban out of Afghanistan. Both bad people. I'm not sure the US should have gotten involved--but they were both rather nasty places.

You have a jones against the US and corporations, but you could take a second and see that there are a lot of actions that are neither good or bad.

[Ele'ill]

Capitalism requires bad things in order for it to function. That's the difference.

[Lt. Ferret]

Thats an incredibly silly blanket statement, I think.

[Ele'ill]

Not even close, I think.

[Lt. Ferret]

Capitalism only requires a need to be fulfilled in which it fulfills it and skims a bit of the labor off the top.

Like when I need toilet paper and buy toilet paper from the store, i get to wipe my butt and the toilet paper people made some $$$. i can go without toilet paper if i wanted to, but i dont.

[Ele'ill]

I don't think you understand what my original statement means.

[Lt. Ferret]

What bad things are you referring to then?

[RGacky3]

Yea Capitalsits do bad things, The CNT did bad things, I'm sure the EZLN does bad things. Commies are blowing up trains and murdering peopel in India, you think there's DEMIOCRACY in Cuba? Or Tibet? Everyone has their problems.


Capitalism is systemically bad, thats the difference.

Tibet is'nt communist, niether is Cuba, and no there is'nt democracy in Cuba, but there is probably just as much in the US as there is in Cuba.


I don't know what you do for a living (and I don't care: NOMB) but you seen like your eithere a Preacher or a Union Organizer. "D


But you really think the US is a "good guy?" As opposed to what? Since when are States moral agents?


You might be right about the rest--but DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT???? Saddam was a creep. I'm not saying it was right--but it's not like the US was overthrowing Canada. At best it was a morally neutral act.


Iraq was'nt a democratic government, I was talking about other incidents, Guatemala, Chile, Iran and so on.

Saddam was a creep, and a creep installed by the US government, and supported by the US and kept in power by the US, untill they did'nt want him any more.

Your right it was an amoral act, but it was an act done within an immoral system, a system of imperialism.


Listen: There was nothing wrong with Saddam being overthrown--nothing wrong with wiping the Talaban out of Afghanistan. Both bad people. I'm not sure the US should have gotten involved--but they were both rather nasty places.


There is plenty of evidence that chances are Saddam would have been overthrown by his own people long before had not the US put sanctions in. Both the Taliban and Saddam were installed by the US.

They were both nasty places, I'm not saying that those 2 groups are not creeps and oppressive.

What I am saying is that imperialism is wrong, the US is not a moral agent, and intervention in the middle east has just made things worse and worse, if you want a better world, if you want to stop terrorism, then stop.


You have a jones against the US and corporations, but you could take a second and see that there are a lot of actions that are neither good or bad.

I don't think the US is ANY more evil than the ancient ROman Empire, the British Empire, or the Babylonian Empire. I think in all cases the rulers, were humans and as such had a conscience. What I am saying is that empires are not justified and are thus immoral powers, be it the US or anyone.

The same with Corporations, replaces the Corporations with the communist party in the USSR (they are basically the same thing), and I"m against that too. I don't think the COmmunist party was filled with evil people, the same with corporations, I think the institutions are unjustified and thus immoral agents of power.

[Revolution starts with U]

I don't think the COmmunist party was filled with evil people, the same with corporations, I think the institutions are unjustified and thus immoral agents of power.

BOOM! Couldn't have said it any better myself.

[Bud Struggle]

BOOM! Couldn't have said it any better myself.

Communist as well as Capitalist?

Now you are becoming a REAL Anarchist. :D

[Revolution starts with U]

becoming? I've been long before this site, or really any internet site existed.