and you thought Blair was pulling troops out of war

great news for the bloodthirsty, more trained british killers to occupy Afganistan

uk.news.yahoo.com...

hes not really pulling them out, just transferring them... i knew it sounded too good to be true.

Originally posted by golddragnet
great news for the bloodthirsty, more trained british killers to occupy Afganistan

uk.news.yahoo.com...

Yep, those darned bloodthirsty Brits want to go ruin the bucolic setting that is Afghanistan. It's amazing that anyone would want to go after terrorists, when they can just go home and wait for the terrorists to come to them.

Originally posted by GT100FV
wait for the terrorists to come to them.

HAHAHA, is that some sort of wind up. wait for the killers to come to britain, do you see groups of terrorists from Afganistan applying for visa's to travel to Britain to cause trouble!!! How ridiculous. The war on terror is a sham. The only reason why Afganistan was invaded was because the americans wanted to run an oil pipeline through the country and the taliban were asking for too much money. The war in Afganistan was planned long before 9/11. And Afganistan had nothing to do with 9/11. They even offered to hand over Bin Laden to USA if they showed evidence he was involved, and guess what, USA said they wouldn't show any evidence, Bin Laden was even removed from the FBI wanted list in connection with 9/11 due to lack of evidence (contact the FBI for confirmation yourself). If the government story surrounding 9/11 was even true (which it isn't) then why invade Afganistan when they were mostly Saudi's on the list of hijackers. The War on Terror is a farce. And the Afgansitan people shouldn't have to live with US and British troops invading their country.

That's the absolute truth golddragnet. Everybody seemed to forget about Afghanistan as soon as Iraq hit the fan, but Afghanistan proves the lie of this whole war on "terror". Supposedly the Taliban fled within the first few weeks, so what exactly are we doing there five years later? Not looking for Bin Laden, that's for sure. George said he didn't care about finding him just a couple of months after the invasion.

Imho this is a good move. The US should be dong the same thing, taking the fight to where it should be, somewhere closer to Osama and Co.

And I wholeheartedly dispise people that make statements like "should be wait for the killers to come to brittain/america".

Its blaming the symptom instead of fixing the problem.

The EU, North American Union and Brittain being as open as a convertable is what the problem actualy is and certain elements in these goverments and corporate worlds are pushing for an even more wide open approach.

Most military forces are supposed to exist to protect the homeland, while the goverments leave the borders wide open and the only fighting thats ever done is agression 1000's of miles from home.

So you get to a situation your pissing of people left and right all over the world while you leave your borders wide open for everyone to enter, no matter for what reason they come to you.

posted by golddragnet

posted by GT100FV
“ . . wait for the terrorists to come to them.

HA, is that some sort of wind up? Wait for the killers to come to Britain, do you see groups of terrorists from Afghanistan applying for visa's to travel to Britain to cause trouble! How ridiculous. The war on terror is a sham. The only reason why Afghanistan was invaded was because the Americans wanted to run an oil pipeline through the country and the Taliban were asking for too much money. The war in Afghanistan was planned long before 9/11. And Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11. They even offered to hand over bin Laden to USA if they showed evidence he was involved, and guess what, USA said they wouldn't show any evidence, Bin Laden was even removed from the FBI Most Wanted list in connection with 9/11 due to lack of evidence (contact the FBI for confirmation yourself). [Edited by Don W]

Part 1. While it may appear at first glance that Blair is coming to Bush43's aid by sending UK forces to Afghan because the US does not have the manpower available presently, I do not believe there should be a direct connection made between the drawdown in Iraq and the buildup in Afghan. You can be sure the UK reduction in force in Iraq encourages the anti-B43 forces here. It is taken as a sign that the UK is withdrawing from Iraq. Or to put it more bluntly, abandoning the insoluble mission in Iraq. Something B43 would not have agreed to if Blair had not already been given the boot in the Commons. Talk about hanging on by the skin of your teeth! I attribute the UK reenforcements in Afghan more to the UK’s felt need to demonstrate to its European neighbors its continuing strong support of NATO and the EU. And not as a genuflection to the US.

We anti-B43 types over here believe PM-designate Gordon Brown will complete the withdrawal of UK forces from Iraq by summer of 2008. From Labor’s POV, the issue is how to extricate themselves from the US adventure without the government falling and the anti-Labor voting trend so glaring in the last election, continuing with renewed force in the next election. Ordinary Americans have not grasped the deal made in Hell that B43 promised to the coalition that our soldiers would do the heavy lifting and the remaining coalition forces will get the light duty. A promise made to get the superficial appearance of a unified front done purely for domestic political reasons. Callousness to the nth degree!

If the government story surrounding 9/11 was even true (which it isn't) then why invade Afghanistan when they were mostly Saudi's on the list of hijackers. The War on Terror is a farce. And the Afghanistan people shouldn't have to live with US and British troops invading their country. [Edited by Don W]

Part 2. Go back to the DJIA - the US stock market gage - for 2001. You will see Bush43's immediate reversal of Clinton’s economic policy in early 2001 had begun the slide from 12,000 to the low point of 7,000 over the next 2 years. It was only 6 months ago the market recovered to the Clinton level. The stock market reflects the “confidence” of the R&Fs in the short term future of America. R&Fs being the Rich and Famous who own and rule the US. I am certain as I can be as an outsider, that B41 called B43 in the PM of September 11 and said, “Son, you have just been given the 2004 election! War trumps economy!”

Heady with a vision of imperviousness, B43 began his foray onto the world stage with his disgraceful speech before the United Nations. Black and white, in effect, was his declaration! “You are with us or you are against us!” What a simplistic view of the world, maybe a simpleton’s view? The US own pro-Israel lobby grasped the significance of B43's low-brow POV and his utter lack of preparation for the job at hand. Israel moved quickly to end their Arab problem, permanently! We were about to embark on the world’s biggest rodeo! Government Texas style! Quick draw, Judge Roy Bean’s law west of the Pecos. Shoot first, ask questions later. That is our president G.W. Bush. Sometimes called Dumbya by his friends. As Nancy kept Reagan from making a total ass of himself, so Laura reads to B43 at night.

Our electoral process does not necessarily favor the best informed, or best prepared man or woman to capture the office of president. That is a cultural defect of American society. Until War 2 it did not matter to the world who was the American president. It was pure serendipity that FDR was our president in 1939 and 1941. I do believe the British would have fought Hitler “on the beaches” as Churchill declared, but to be realistic without the Atlantic convoys, the UK would have fallen to Nazism, albeit not as easily as France fell. But I have digressed.

The Bush43 regime has co-opted the Nine Eleven Event. Americans were pee’d off by the brazen (and successful) plot carried out by young men barely out of their teens. The collapse of the WTC twin towers could not have been anticipated by OBL. A son of a contractor, yes, but I do not believe that was ever conceptualized by the leader of al Qaeda. That was serendipity. The US has spent $40 billion on the clean up and the planned reconstruction of the WTC. Myself being a socialist, I want the US to own the WTC, but alas, it is not to be. Instead, the ownership remains in the same R&F hands. Not only were the property insurance companies excused from paying on the losses, they were not required to return the premiums charged! “Your tax dollars at work.” Welfare for the rich. Ah, America the Beautiful! But it’s no place to be poor.

Instead of following the precedent laid down by Bill Clinton in 1993 when the First WTC Bombing took place, B43 declared War on Terror! Under Clinton, the first incident was treated as a criminal act, the FBI was put in charge of the investigation and the perpetrators were finally found out, a trial was held and Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman. the blind sheik, was convicted and is now in prison. But B43 had greater aspirations! First, we went to Afghan to undo the Taliban on the grounds they harbored the al Qaeda. I believe that. The UN and the world backed us in that effort. After muffing it at Tora Tora, support waned.

I must retire presently, to complete this undertaking later today.


[edit on 2/24/2007 by donwhite]

The problem is the Taliban 'spring offensive' is going to be huge, that's why the UK is reinforcing quickly (although Generals on the ground are already saying 1500 isn't near enough - so we can expect the full 3000 coming out of Iraq to be going into Afghanistan - except they won't be coming out fast enough).

There's concern Kandahar will fall...

The problem is (for the UK at least) There's gonna be two understrength forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. That's what all this Prince Harry stuff is about, it's a recruitment drive.

The Coalition forces are finding themselves in the exact same situation as the Russians did. The 'Taliban' / warlords / militia / resistance don't care how many years it takes, they will keep fighting and grind any invader down.

Afghanistan simply cannot be occupied by an invading force, it's never been done successfully.

Imho the same goes for Iraq, Afghanistan and any other country like them.

The only way for them to move forward is to let them stabilize by themselves, but considering the lay of the land, its almost impossible for those nations to get to a level of civilization like Europe, Japan and the US.

There's no room to balance things out, life there will always stay a struggle for natural resources and furtile land, without a stable basis to build on, they will stay stuck in the same mindset.

[edit on 24/2/07 by thematrix]

As usual DonWhite your style and reasoning for the truth of what is happening in American and their plans for the world are impeccable.

Great read. Like lou always refer too, "The elite in power"

B43 had greater aspirations! First, we went to Afghan to undo the Taliban on the grounds they harbored the al Qaeda. I believe that. The UN and the world backed us in that effort. After muffing it at Tora Tora, support waned.

I must retire presently, to complete this undertaking later today.

Resume.
By choosing the military option instead of the police option, B43 has escalated our costs 100X. Instead of using a combination of both civilian and military, as Reagan did in pursuing the culprits responsible for the Pan Am 101 bombing over Lockerbie, Scotland. When the evidence pointed to Libya, we used both the international legal system and the US Navy to “influence” Moramar Q’adafi who finally gave up the 2 accused operatives. B43 OTOH, is using almost exclusively the most costly possible means to fight an enemy that cannot number more than 50,000 around the world. Through miscalculations, poor intelligence and bad decisions, we have unleashed a genie that will take years to put back in the bottle, if the US dos not go bankrupt first.

We must stop fighting dumb and learn how to fight smart. Diplomatic jujitsu. Not sumo wrestling with OBL.

Note: Justin Oldham our resident author, has an entry in the ATS Contest. You may view it at www.abovetopsecret.com...'