- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Thursday, June 24, 2010

All John Key is saying 'is give war a chance'


Obama sacks General Stanley McChrystal
LATEST: US President Barack Obama has fired top Afghanistan commander General Stanley McChrystal over inflammatory comments that angered the White House and threatened to undermine the war effort.

I'm sorry, what are we doing in Afghanistan again Mr Key? I don't wish to suggest that John is a fool for sending our SAS back into combat fighting for a corrupt regime in Afghanistan and that he has no idea of strategy other than desperately trying to appease his mates in Washington, BUT this new bitch fight between Obama and General Stanley McChystal shows the depth of dysfunction in this pointless war that we are never going to win...

Ten Reasons Why the Afghan Resistance Will Win:
1: The Resistance has deep roots in the population – family community, linguistic and cultural ties which the US does not possess nor can “invent”; nor can these ties be bought, traded or replicated by their Afghan ‘collaborators’ or imposed by propaganda.

2: The Resistance has fluid borders and broad international support especially with Pakistan but also with other anti-imperialist, Islamic groups who provide arms and volunteers and who engage in actively attacking the logistical transport supply lines of US-NATO military in Pakistan. They also pressure overseas US client regimes like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Somalia opening multiple fronts.

3: Widespread infiltration, voluntary, active and passive support of the Resistance among the US recruited and trained Afghan military and police results in crucial intelligence on troop movements. Desertions and absenteeism undermines “military competence”.

4: The scope and breadth of Resistance activity over extends the imperial armies at its current strength and causes it to rely on unreliable Afghan security, who have no stomach for killing their brethren, especially when directed against communities with relatives or ethnic kin.

5: Resistance allies are more loyal, less corrupt and reliable because of deeply shared beliefs. US allies are loyal only because of ephemeral monetary gratification and the temporary presence of US military force.

6: The Resistance appeals to the people in the name of a return to law and order in everyday life, which preceded the disruptive invasion. The US promise of positive outcomes following a successful war, have no popular resonance after a decade long destructive occupation.

7: The US has no belief system that can compete with the religious-nationalist-traditionalist appeal of the Resistance to the vast majority of village, small town and displaced rural population.

8: The Resistance’s support of Iraqi, Palestinian and other anti-imperialist forces has a positive appeal among the Afghan people who have seen the destructive results of US wars in Iraq and proxy wars in Pakistan, Somalia and Yemen. The US backed Israeli assault of Lebanon and the humanitarian ship destined for Palestine and the highly visible presence of Zionist militants in the US government, repels the more politically aware opinion leaders in Afghanistan.

9: Afghans have, by force of circumstances, longer staying power in resisting the US military occupation, than the US people who have other, far more pressing needs and the US military with growing commitments in the Gulf.

10: The Afghan Resistance does not normally kill civilians in combat missions since the US troops and NATO are clearly identified. Whereas, the opposite is not true. The Afghans who are part of the villages in occupied communities are subject to assassinations by “Special Forces” and drone bombings. In these circumstances ordinary people suffer the same military assaults as Resistance fighters.


Oh and who wants to tell the American people that a nuke should be used to plug the Gulf leak?

Nuke that slick
As BP prepares to lower a four-story, 70-ton dome over the oil gusher under the Gulf of Mexico, the Russians — the world’s biggest oil producers — have some advice for their American counterparts: nuke it.

Komsomoloskaya Pravda, the best-selling Russian daily, reports that in Soviet times such leaks were plugged with controlled nuclear blasts underground. The idea is simple, KP writes: “the underground explosion moves the rock, presses on it, and, in essence, squeezes the well’s channel.”

Yes! It’s so simple, in fact, that the Soviet Union, a major oil exporter, used this method five times to deal with petrocalamities. The first happened in Uzbekistan, on September 30, 1966 with a blast 1.5 times the strength of the Hiroshima bomb and at a depth of 1.5 kilometers. KP also notes that subterranean nuclear blasts were used as much as 169 times in the Soviet Union to accomplish fairly mundane tasks like creating underground storage spaces for gas or building canals.

14 Comments:

At 24/6/10 9:59 am, Blogger sanamu said...

You are absolutely right in the ten points -- as to why the war in Afghanistan cannot be won. I can't believe that the US and NATO are completely unaware of the factors militating against success.

In light of Chinese interest and investment in the abundant and varied mineral resources that have just been disclosed, perhaps the US hopes to keep the population permanently subdued by force -- whilst the US claims the resources.

 
At 24/6/10 10:12 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Resistance appeals to the people in the name of a return to law and order in everyday life,

When you say "the resistance" you mean the Taliban, right?
The same men who throw acid in schoolgirls faces because they don't want them to have an education.
The same men who attack women who show their faces.
The same men who don't want their women to vote?

Well, fuck you and fuck your "resistance" you mysoginist piece of shit.

 
At 24/6/10 1:57 pm, Blogger Bomber said...

When you say "the resistance" you mean the Taliban, right?
No.

Does that make all your jumped up accusations past that point including you little hateful comment at the end redundant Anon?

 
At 24/6/10 3:34 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

After several years of a trickle of such arrivals shaping up as one of the hottest election issues both present and past (2007) is the resurgent flow of unauthorised boat arrival asylum seekers from Asia, as numbers have risen sharply (59 boats and 2750 people last year and already more than that this year).
This is electoral dynamite in a copuntry which prides itself on a watertight border (Sea patrol anyone and project protector 7 new ships for the navy).It is in fact an axiom of their politics that no one can be seen to have lost control of this issue which is what the federal opposition always claims.Even when labor had this to deal with they played a dual (afghan and sri lankan both stabilised and able to return home refugees despite travel advisories stating otherwise) card of more fairness even for non australians.

They then closed the pacific solution.

 
At 24/6/10 4:35 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Rudd resigns amid not lurching to the right like Gillard on asylum seekers and refugees now on a frozen asylum visa from Afghanistan for 6 months and Sri Lankan's for 3 months.

50,000 new places at university and 300,000 computers in schools and rolling out broadband as a vital piece of kit for the 21st century are his legacy in education a vital ingredient in any improvement of a nations future.

After several years of a trickle of such arrivals shaping up as one of the hottest election issues both present and past (2007) is the resurgent flow of unauthorised boat arrival asylum seekers from war in south east and central Asia, as numbers have risen sharply (59 boats and 2750 people last year and already more than that this year).


This is electoral dynamite in a country which prides itself on a watertight border (Sea patrol anyone and project protector 7 new ships for the navy).It is in fact an axiom of their politics that no one can be seen to have lost control of this issue which is what the federal opposition always claims.Even when labor had this to deal with they played a dual (afghan and sri lankan conflicts both stabilised and able to return home refugees despite travel advisories stating otherwise) card of more fairness even for Non-Australians.

They then closed the pacific solution.

 
At 24/6/10 5:01 pm, Anonymous AAMC said...

"When you say "the resistance" you mean the Taliban, right?
The same men who throw acid in schoolgirls faces because they don't want them to have an education.
The same men who attack women who show their faces.
The same men who don't want their women to vote?"

And so I have to ask, why are US tax dollars being paid to bribe them?

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-afghan-hearing-20100623,0,7475799.story

'A congressional investigation has even thrown up good evidence that the US itself is indirectly funding the Taliban, insofar as the USG is paying warlords to provide convoy security on roads and they are using the money to bribe Taliban not to attack on their watch.'

As long as they prop up Karzia, a Pashtun like the Taliban, good luck to you. I thought it was about al- Qaeda anyway, to prevent another 9/11? And now that American intelligence - oxymoron I know - has acknowledged there is essentially no al-Qaeda in Afghanistan? Oh, you've bought the line that they're there to save the women, Fox News is it?

The Taliban are an extremely dissagreable fundamentalist form of Islam and I don't for one moment support any of their actions, catch is, the Americans have blustered their support and won't beat them, hence worsening the cause of those you're purporting to support.

 
At 24/6/10 6:03 pm, Anonymous Johnson said...

Hey Bradbury, the Iraqi surge worked. Remember that? The surge that broke the back of the "Iraqi Resistance," the rag-tag ad-hoc alliance of nutcase nationalists, Ba'athists and Islamists.

Unfortunately Afghanistan will take longer due to the country being substantially more backward and BHO's retarded imposition of a deadline, but now we have Petraeus, the man who wrote the rule book, I've gotten my confidence back slightly.

 
At 24/6/10 6:54 pm, Anonymous AAMC said...

'The wave of violence in Iraq on Friday, wherein guerrillas killed at least 27 and wounded dozens, underlined how fragile the country still is'

'By the definition of the University of Michigan’s Correlates of War project headed by the late David Singer, Iraq is still in a civil war, with civilian deaths likely to range between 3000 and 4000 this year. Despite holding parliamentary elections on March 7, Iraq has been unable to form a government and there is not one in sight.'

What exactly worked in Iraq? Please enlighten me, what, because they held an election - with no result - they are now a functioning Democracy?

http://www.juancole.com/2010/06/twin-oil-disasters-bp-and-iraq-bloody-friday-in-iraq-leaves-27-dead-over-80-wounded.html

 
At 25/6/10 9:24 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

When you say "the resistance" you mean the Taliban, right?
No.

So who are the resistance then bomber if it isn't the Taliban?

Oh, you've bought the line that they're there to save the women, Fox News is it?

Nope.
But AAMC, are you trying to tell me that the Taliban are all for womens rights?

What I getting from you and bomber is that women in Afghanistan can just suffer.

Why are you such a mysoginist that you are prepared to disregard the welfare of Afghani women and children?

 
At 25/6/10 10:33 am, Blogger Bomber said...

So who are the resistance then bomber if it isn't the Taliban?
Do you even need me to comment Anon? You've filled in all the conversation yourself, let's recap folks, based on nothing more than a baseless assertion that I supported the Taliban Anon asserted ...

The same men who throw acid in schoolgirls faces because they don't want them to have an education.
The same men who attack women who show their faces.
The same men who don't want their women to vote?

Well, fuck you and fuck your "resistance" you mysoginist piece of shit.


...see Anon, you don't even need me to participate in this discussion do you? You've already made a bunch of basless assertions all on your onw, so why do I need to get invloved now?

Look, I don't want to suggest that an anonymous poster who claims I'm supporting the Taliban isn't as bright as Prof. James Petras who wrote the 10 reasons why we will lose in Afghanistan, but the evidence so far kinda points in the direction that our anonymous poster isn't as onto it as Prof. James Petras.

 
At 25/6/10 11:44 am, Anonymous AAMC said...

'But AAMC, are you trying to tell me that the Taliban are all for womens rights?'

My suggestion is you actually read what I wrote
Anon. I do not support the Taliban or their treatment
of anybody, which I why I don't support the American tactics now or their long and sorded history in Afghanistan.
They are not helping the women and they are not
there to help the women, they're there because of Geo Politics and Imperialism. The Taliban came to power as a result of the
power vacume created by the civil war after the Soviet retreat, the Pashtun were funded by the Americans in this Cold war exploit and once they felt they had defeated their foe the pawns of Afghanistan were left in chaos which the Taliban with the suppot or Pakistan and it's female president took advantage of. And they'll leave again without a thought to the plight of Afghan women or men or children, all of whom i'd like to see have some chance in a more just world. Unfortunately while America tries to cling to it's fading empire at the end of a drone and tries to build on it's 1200 bases around the world trying to cling to it's power militarily as it goes bankrupt more of these situations will be created. I'm no Mysoginist, I'm a Humanitarian.

 
At 25/6/10 11:45 am, Anonymous AAMC said...

'But AAMC, are you trying to tell me that the Taliban are all for womens rights?'

My suggestion is you actually read what I wrote
Anon. I do not support the Taliban or their treatment
of anybody, which I why I don't support the American tactics now or their long and sorded history in Afghanistan.
They are not helping the women and they are not
there to help the women, they're there because of Geo Politics and Imperialism. The Taliban came to power as a result of the
power vacume created by the civil war after the Soviet retreat, the Pashtun were funded by the Americans in this Cold war exploit and once they felt they had defeated their foe the pawns of Afghanistan were left in chaos which the Taliban with the suppot or Pakistan and it's female president took advantage of. And they'll leave again without a thought to the plight of Afghan women or men or children, all of whom i'd like to see have some chance in a more just world. Unfortunately while America tries to cling to it's fading empire at the end of a drone and tries to build on it's 1200 bases around the world trying to cling to it's power militarily as it goes bankrupt more of these situations will be created. I'm no Mysoginist, I'm a Humanitarian.

 
At 25/6/10 12:01 pm, Anonymous AAMC said...

....and let's not overlook the decade the West sat and watched as the Taliban committed it's abuses before we went in to persure al-Qaeda and ended up in a fight with the Taliban. We have no moral high ground. How about our support of Saudi Arabia, they're not that flash to women there, we seem happy to tolerte them in exchange for cheap oil. Or our destruction of democracy and progression in Iran to maintain a cheap supply from there also. The West is not acting on behalf of women, it's acting out of greed.

 
At 25/6/10 12:22 pm, Anonymous AAMC said...

And as for Patraeus and his victory in Iraq Johnson..
http://www.juancole.com/2010/06/lessons-of-petraeus-iraq-for-petraeus-afghanistan.html

 

Post a Comment

<< Home