Wrong Sasan, the biggest threat to the world is Israeli paranoia and the blood lust of American conservatives. America is on the precipice of an economic perfect storm that will make the recessions of the 80s and 90s look like a walk in the park. We have wasted 2.5 trillion fighting the wrong war. No question Islamic fundamentalism is something that needs to be confronted. But you don't confront it by attacking the wrong country, wasting all your capital and resources there, and then not being able to actually get the people responsible for the attacks of 9-11.

I have said on numerous occasions a military response in Afghanistan, and Pakistan (with Musharaf's approval) is and was a valid response to 9-11. However the idea that the American right has that any Muslim nation that frightens us is a valid target after 9-11 is not justified. GEORGE BUSH SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN THE PAKISTAN BORDER REGION IN 2002, INSTEAD OF 2007, AND HE SHOULD NEVER HAVE SENT A SINGLE SOLDIER TO IRAQ. WE WANTED OSAMA DEAD AFTER 9-11, WE DIDN'T WANT HIM TO MAKE HALLIBURTON AND EXXON EXECUTIVES RICH AT OUR EXPENSE. HOW MUCH BETTER OFF ARE YOU, AND HOW MUCH BETTER OF IS THIS COUNTRY SINCE BUSH'S INVASION OF IRAQ? AND GUESS WHAT WE WON'T BE DONE PAYING FOR IT TILL MOST OF US ARE DEAD, IF AT ALL.

THE DOLLAR IS THE PESO NORTH BECAUSE OF THE CONJUNCTION OF THE WAR SPENDING, COUPLED WITH MASSIVE TAX CUTS. NEVER IN HISTORY HAS ANY PRESIDENT FOUGHT A WAR OF THIS MAGNITUDE AND REFUSED TO RAISE TAXES, AND INTEREST RATE CUTS WILL ONLY WORSEN THE PROBLEM. Interest rate cuts, tax cuts, and increased government spending are all inflationary policies, and the government is suggesting such tactics at the time when we have the highest inflation rate in 17 years. HERE IS MY NEXT PREDICTION, THE EURO WILL REACH A VALUE OF 2 DOLLARS FOR EVERY EURO WITHIN THE 18 MONTHS. AND IF A REPUBLICAN IS ELECTED AND HE CONTINUES WITH BUSH'S LOW TAX CUTS AND EXPANDS THE WAR YOU WILL NEED 3 DOLLARS POSSIBLY AS MUCH AS 5 DOLLARS FOR EVERY EURO. AT ONE TIME THE EURO WAS WORTH 80 CENTS.

THEN THE STAGE WILL BE SET FOR FRIGHTENED AMERICANS TO GIVE UP THE SOCIAL SAFETY NET AS REPUBLICANS SO DESPERATELY DESIRE, AS THE RIGHTWING MEDIA DENOUNCES LIBERAL SPENDING PROGRAMS FOR OUR COLLAPSE. And I hate to say it most of your a dumb enough to believe it. These people believe that the country and the people should serve their economic pure capitalist model, not the other way around.

The more immediate question is why haven't the borders been secured and locked down in the areas in question. How are the arms and supplies and people getting to the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afganistan and Iraq ? Put the message out that anyone seen traveling in other than main travel sectors be bombed/destroyed at will.

There is no reason to go on an offensive in Afganistan with this policy. Eventurally, where the supplies are getting in will be confirmed and then appropriate action to the offeding country can procede.

And to you idiots who complain its all for resources, try living the life you have without and then be thankful you have what you have.

Presently, the biggest threat to the worlds safety and properity is the Muslim terrorists to "your way of life". Muslim or not these people are need to be wiped out. I doubt even you Muslim would want to have your women covered and you raising goats and having to walk every where.

I would just like to point out, that every other major country in the world believed, as our Commander-in-chief did, that Hussein had WMD...!

The Rev Replied to an American Soldier

All due respect to An American Solider, but there are gaping holes in his or her's specious argument. Number one, can you provide us with your definition of 'a major country'? Your explanation would likely help us to settle the matter of your conjecture rather quickly.

Your definition would be interesting to read, given that those nations who did not believe that Iraq had WMDS, more than likely did not make your major nations list! And for that and other reasons your specious argument in defense of the President's policies and action, would be essentially DOA!

Besides, most nations of the world are aware that the U.S.A. has actual weapons of mass destruction - weapons which we have used before. And, those nations have not attacked America in spite of the fact that we have used them before, and threatened certain nations of the world (MAD) to use them again for example!

If the nations of the world were to follow the irrational logic of the Bush Administration, they would apparently be within their right to act-in-kind, ignore sobriety and the UN, and attack the USA under a conjured pretext!

On the other hand those nations who 'suspected' that Iraq had WMDs were willing, before having their arms twisted by the USA, to permit the unbiased weapons inspectors to do their jobs. In America we use to refer to that as allowing the process to work!

The 'Commander-in-Chief' of the USA clearly did not want the whole truth to be revealed, therefore he was unwilling - the cowboy from Texas that he is - to permit the organization of nations to handle the matter, or for the IAEA to finish doing its job.

A lot of innocent people died 'on death row' when he was the Governor of Texas, and a lot of other innocent people have died since he became the President of the United States and apparently the world. The vision of Saddam's assassination will forever be associated with the name of George Bush 'the assassin'!

One could argue that he was elected President by some simply to be the the hired assassin that he has proven over and over to be! He certainly was not drafted and made President by some in the Republican Party, because he was smart!

Bush and his administrative gang achieved what they wanted in the final analysis, and pushed the weapons inspectors out of Iraq, taken over Iraq (Babylon) and placed their own convenient spin on the Iraqi armaments and weapons matter.

Criticize as you might, however, the UN and the community of nations would not have made the blunders that our nation has made in the ME and elsewhere. And as a result of our actions, the world is more dangerous as a result of this Administration's capriciousness!

Now every 'tin horn' sheriff, dictator or individual in the world will likely, in reaction to the behavior of the United States Government simply go ahead and embark upon or enforce their own form of prairie justice!

Mr. Bush was going to attack Iraq, and likely Iran if they did not comply during his tenure in office. The 9/11 attackers gave him the cover/pretext that he needed in order to move forward in his preconceived plot.

Tacking on the WMD issue while Americans were crippled with fear, I have to give it him - was brilliant! Your loyalty to the President is to be commended; your assessment of the facts, on the other hand leave much to be desired!

And finally: Mr. Bush and his Administration's woeful policies and tactics of pre-emption, not to mention their disrespect for decency and the law, will not only impact the present - but the remainder of human history.

The question is who will be the beneficiaries (that's ebonics), positive or negative, of these present acts of the U.S. Government?

Peace & Grace ... I hope so!

If one is serious in defeating this borderless foe, then the IMPERATIVES of war are prior to the sovereignty of nations. And unilateral action on the part of the U.S. is one of those imperatives. )
kotzabasis//////////

REALLY, THE ANSWER IS TO ATTACK, BOMB, OR SEND SOLDIERS INTO EVERY COUNTRY THAT MAY HAVE SOME ISLAMIC TERROR CELLS LOCATED THERE. 9-11 WAS AN EXCUSE FOR THE IRAQ INVASION, OUR OWN GOVERNMENT SAYS THAT IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH 9-11. BUSH IS USING HIS WAR ON TERROR TO FURTHER HIS FACTION'S POWER GRAB IN THE MIDDLE EAST.

If he cared about fighting terrorism he would have pressured Musharaf in 2002 to let him put soldiers on the Afghan/Pakistan border and he would have dedicated more than a skeletal force to Afghanistan. Instead he went to Iraq in order to get the guy who tried to kill his daddy and to secure the 10-20 trillion dollars of black gold sitting under the sands of Iraq. If we follow up on the suggestions of people like this we won't win the conflict against terror instead we will become the biggest source of terror and we will probably bankrupt and destroy ourselves. Preemptive, unilateral war against any and all muslim states that happen to have terror cells located in the country is a pretty moronic policy suggestion.

Interestingly, in the 1980s America wholeheartedly supported the Saudi-funded Wahabi clerics of Pakistan as they brainwashed thousands of young Pakistani men into becoming the mindless killer zombies that they are today.

America has thus had a great role to play in the radicalization and indoctrination of Wahabi terrorist clerics.

Pakistan is an interesting country. It has immense mineral and natural gas resources in the western region of Baluchistan. That is where most of the Wahabi terrorists reside. It may also be a strategic launch pad for operations against Iran.

Hence America has a military and economic incentive to occupy Pakistan now.

Because of the religious overtones of this war launched by the Islamists against the U.S. and the West in general, the war against global terror is a borderless war as religion too is borderless. Allied nations, or non-allied ones, to those nations that are in the forefront of fighting global terror, that cannot exercise their sovereignty within their borders effectively to suppress and defeat these holy warriors, are inevitably compelled TEMPORARILY to suspend their sovereignty, by the logic of THIS war, especially in those areas that cannot exercise it, and allow those nations, in this case America, to operate in these areas.

If one is serious in defeating this borderless foe, then the IMPERATIVES of war are prior to the sovereignty of nations. And unilateral action on the part of the U.S. is one of those imperatives.

Those who forget history are bound to repeat it - this time much to the distress of world neo cons. On their way to destroy Kaaba [in Mecca], the Mongols embraced Islam and became its protectors. From their progeny emerged a masterful architectural dynasty in India - The Mughal Dynasty [remember Taj Mahal] and to the West emerged the Great Ottoman Empire which ruled much of Europe for centuries.

NATO Battalions battling the les miserables of Afghanistan and Northwest Pakistan cannot but get influenced by the sheer energy of their divine mission. On the appointed time, the NATO Battalions with all their armaments and military might shall become the defenders of Islam just like the Mongols of yester years. The trigger for such a mammoth shock would the orchestrated rupture of their home countries. The economic distress of America in particular and the West in general is a harbinger to a event that will be an antidote to the evil drama of the neo cons - W is just a pawn.

Militants capture Pakistani military fort

Hundreds of militants in northwest Pakistan attacked and captured a paramilitary fort early on Wednesday and seven soldiers and 40 militants were killed, the military said. The militants attacked the fort in the South Waziristan region on the Afghan border at about midnight on Tuesday and fighting....

http://press.jrc.it/NewsExplorer/clusteredition/en/20080116,ft-9eb20dda22904af5224c28b0a0c35251.html

Here's the latest greatest threat:

US fears 'disastrous' links in Latin America with Islamic militants

WASHINGTON (AFP) - A top US military commander said Wednesday he fears a "disastrous" linkup between drug traffickers and radical Islamists in Latin America, where he said Iran wields growing influence. http://www.enews.ma/fears-disastrous_i81498_1.html

Believe it or not... the insidious influence of Iran over Latin America.

I believe the common drug gang MS13 is already on the list of terror groups along whth Food Not Bombs (feeds the homeless) Reclaim the Streets (flashmob block party! YES!) and many others too numerous to count.

Do you believe in the constitution and aren't afraid to tell the authorities?

You could be a terrorist too!

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2007/05/13/you-are-the-homegrown-terrorist-threat/

American soldier, George Bush is continually to this day lying about threats, he forged audio threats on a tape suggesting that Iranian boats threatened to blow up US naval vessels. In 2005 his administration stated that we had 225,000 Iraqi troops fight along our side. He lied and claimed that Saddam tried to buy 1/6th of the Uranium production of Niger based on a document proven to be a forgery before he made those statement.

I suppose you believe it is a coincidence that Exxon-Mobil recorded three consecutive years in which each year they broke their own record profits. And these record profits we are talking about (40 billion in profit)are the largest recorded profits in the history of world business, and all other oil companies recorded similar profits. Wars have always been fought over economic resources; slavery and tariffs where the cause of the Civil War, Tea and taxes the cause of the Revolutionary war, why is it that you believe anything this man has to tell us. I personally don't, he should have never sent a single soldier to Iraq. Iraq has cost this economy 2.5 trillion in DIRECT AND INDIRECT COSTS. MOST OF ALL HE NEVER COMMITTED TO ACTUALLY GETTING AT THE PEOPLE WHO ATTACKED US.

THOSE OF YOU WHO THINK BUSH'S MOTIVES ARE HONEST AND PURE ANSWER ONE QUESTION FOR ME:
HOW IS THAT WE WHERE ATTACKED BY SAUDI TERRORISTS FUNDED BY A SAUDI RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALIST BASED IN AFGHANISTAN, AND WE END UP INVADING SECULAR OIL RICH IRAQ? If anything Bush has been proven without a shadow of doubt to be a war criminal, torturer, murderer, and liar. He has never stopped lying, and I am sure that the 10 trillion in Iraqi oil under the soil had nothing to do with this war, I don't buy it.

Sending troops into Pakistan is what he should have done in 2002 if he was serious about ending AQ, but he didn't instead he decided to do the bidding of powerful oil and zionist lobbies in America.

Hawk58: To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense.

Sure, if you think committing the SUPREME war crime as defined by our own Justice Jackson @ Nuremberg is just hunky dory.

Join the rest of the goose-steppers and sit down on your stool fool.

In 1950, the Nuremberg Tribunal defined Crimes against Peace (in Principle VI.a, submitted to the United Nations General Assembly) as

(i) Planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances;
(ii) Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the acts mentioned under (i).

"The legal basis for the jurisdiction of the court was that defined by the Instrument of Surrender of Germany, political authority for Germany had been transferred to the Allied Control Council, which having sovereign power over Germany could choose to punish violations of international law and the laws of war. Because the court was limited to violations of the laws of war, it did not have jurisdiction over crimes that took place before the outbreak of war on September 1, 1939"

For committing this crime, the Nuremberg Tribunal sentenced a number of persons responsible for starting World War II. One consequence of this is that nations who are starting an armed conflict must now argue that they are either exercising the right of self-defense, the right of collective defense, or - it seems - the enforcement of the criminal law of jus cogens. It has made formal declaration of war uncommon after 1945.

During the trial, the chief American prosecutor, Robert H. Jackson, stated:

To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_against_peace

even remotely considering unilateral u.s. military action (or any other u.s. military action) in pakistan would result in a disater so ruinous that the economy of the entire world would be endangered. the only countries to benefit from u.s. action would be india, china, and russia. these countries would merely kick back, supply weapons to our numerous enemies and apply the principle of a "thousand cuts". does that sound familiar? that is precisely what happened to the former soviet union in afghanistan. we would simply be bled to death in the same fashion as so many before us. included in that group would be alexander the great, the british, and the russians to name just a few. alexander the great's term for afghnistan was "the land of bones", and that terminology is far from out of date. this is situation for musharraf to deal with. he cut the deals initially and must now struggle to right his own country. and he should do this without either our money or our interference. after all, is not the pakistani isi really in control here? do we really wish to fight with them as well? our troops would be cut to ribbons in pakistan. and the iranians would love nothing more than to see us die and bleed further from their borders. the chinese will not stand idly by, nor will the russians. their intersts in central asia stand to suffer from our delusional presidents nightdreams of "kingdom and grandeur". they will defend their interests vigorously and werar us down. and in the end, can our fractured and broken u.s. economy and military industrial complex bear the burden? i do not wish to share in this 100 years war. really, i don't, and the american people should not be subjected to this insanity either.

Mr. Casey,
You wrote: "If there is no popular support for our being in Pakistan, than we need to back off."

I respectfully disagree.

The National Security Strategy 2002 clearly states the case: "There are few greater threats than a terrorist attack with WMD. To forestall or prevent such hostile acts by our adversaries, the United States will, if necessary, act preemptively in exercising our inherent right of self-defense."

The NSS is in accordance with international law, and opens the case for preventive war.

Pakistan is home of the Islamic bomb. We must not allow terrorists to obtain nuclear materials or finished warheads... regardless of local populace opinion.

Arkin is not being accurate.
The article he cites says: Pakistan is taking a "more welcoming" "view" of U.S. suggestions for using American troops "to train and advise" its own forces.
Title says: Surge "hits".
First line says: The surge is "about to" hit Pakistan.

==where with all to hit the MVT and LVT targets==

How many of what you would call "LVT"s does Pakistan have, you reckon?

It is critical that we encourage, support and, if necessary and politically acceptable, militarily aid allies who recognize the need to aggressively eliminate terrorists and terrorists sanctuaries in their countries. The U.S. is doing a reasonably good job in supporting like minded allies, however, there is one theme that we constantly promote that in many ways inhibits real progress in eliminating terrorists and terrorist sancuaries. We continually push the idea that we, and our allies, need to get the High Value Targets (HVT)s. While it should remain a goal to get UBL, Zawahiri and the next top ten leaders of Al-Qaida (AQ), we are kidding ourselves if we believe that eliminating these leaders will bring an end to AQ. The elimination of the Middle Value Targets (MVT)s and the Low Value Targets (LVT)s can and will do much more to the continued spread of terrorism and terrorist sanctuaries. As anyone who has been in combat knows, losing a buddy on the line has a seriously negative effect on one's morale. Not many GIs shed lose their fighting spirit when - and this is a rare occassion - a general gets killed in combat. There is a lot of effort to find a way to get into the minds of the "terrorist" and try and bring them around through the use of psyops, covert influence etc. Our "new" counter insurgency manual - thanks to Gen. Petraus et al, is not a bad start, however, remember what resulted from hundreds of thousands of American parents protesting the loss of their sons and daughters in a place called Vietnam. It was not the loss of an incredibly small number of colonels or generals that triggered the protests that ultimately forced the U.S. to withdraw from Vietnam - it was mom and dad telling the politicians to get us out of that war or you don't get my vote. Back to snuffy terrorists. Hey, don't they have moms and dads?? Are they not recruited from the poorest of countries - not unlike the GIs who serve this country so well. In sum, we need to ease off a bit on overly pushing our allies - particularly in politically sensitive countries like Pakistan - to focus on the HVT targets. We need to provide our allies with the political encouragement and where with all to hit the MVT and LVT targets. Only then will we see a drop off in recruitment and in the number of zealot terrorists. This will be thanks to the moms and dads in tribal areas as well as impoverished cities who will rise and and say enough.

Posted by: An American Soldier: "I would just like to point out, that every other major country in the world believed, as our Commander-in-chief did, that Hussein had WMD.

Where did you ever hear THAT?

We were told by the American media that they believed it so if even one person in their governments (the cattle inspector perhaps) believed it.

Look up the definition of disingenuity and get back to us.

Oh, and go see Scott Ritter, a former U.S. weapons inspector speak sometimes.

I would just like to point out, that every other major country in the world believed, as our Commander-in-chief did, that Hussein had WMD. So before you go on calling him a lier and bla bla blablabla, please remember that one of Hussein's strategies to keep the world at bay was to keep everyone guessing. And chill on the oil theories... no one believes that anymore.

The 9/11 attackers gave the Bush Administration the pretext they wanted in order to put into operation their terrorist plans that were conceived of before they took over Dodge City USA.

Following the intial and occupation of Iraq, several surges took place
afterward by the Bush Gang:

1. The surge against the Iraqi resistance
2. The surge against American opponents of the illegal Bush invasion and occupation by sycophants of the Bush Administration
3. The surge-threats against the DPRK
3. The surge against Iran, that is taking place behind the scenes in order to cripple Iran's economy and to isolate
the government of Iran
4. And now the surge against Pakistan!

Who will be next? Aristide has been deposed, Milosevic is in prison or dead, Noriega is still in prison, Saddam is dead and Musharref is toast! Well there is Hugo Chavez, Castro and a few others that we can go after if the Republicans manage to hold on to power!

And what is so ironic about all of this, Congress has never declared war against any nation!

This whole thing smells to high heaven!

MUSHARRAF MUST GO!

The political crisis in Pakistan is primarily a creation of military rule. Because the army cannot maintain its dominant position in the face of "normal politics", its agencies work overtime to derail such politics and to undermine any popular leadership. They also encourage local mafias with a view to undermining national parties (since those parties can potentially mobilize the people against the army). The only hope for Pakistan lies in immediately throwing army rule in reverse.
1. Immediate formation of a neutral caretaker regime. This should be a technocratic regime with a very limited and well defined temporary mandate. Justice Wajihuddin should head this government as caretaker president.
2. An immediate application should then be made to the restored Supreme court to provide appropriate legal cover for this exercise, obtaining the necessary time limited legal cover for this purpose.
3. The army, under professional leadership, should publicly and explicitly announce its support for this exercise. General Kiyani can be a transitional chief for this purpose. IF these steps are taken (and they are all possible if the army high command is willing to play its part in saving the country) then the caretaker regime will have instant credibility and habitual conspirators and military agents will be discouraged from launching any adventures.
4. The caretaker regime will form a new election commission (Nawaz Sharif has already suggested Justice Rana Bhagwandas as the CEC, this should be acceptable to all except the habitual conspirators) . The EC will then announce a schedule for fresh elections.
5. These short term steps will immediately and completely change the political atmosphere in the country. The PPP, the PML-N, the ANP, the JUI, the JI and the PTI are all real parties that hope to win significant support in real elections and all these parties can be expected to adjust to the changed atmosphere by moving beyond backroom conspiracies and destabilization and to the extent that the caretaker arrangement is fair and credible, they may all cooperate to stabilize the situation by playing by the rules. The MQM has real support in some pockets, but also has an undemocratic side that may feel threatened by the prospect of rule of law. Their response is harder to predict. The Q league is not a real party and should evaporate the moment their handlers in the military withdraw from the arena. The jihadists who work for the ISI will have to be defanged by the new ISI. The jihadists who are sincerely jihadist and no longer work for the ISI will have to be negotiated with by the new regime. Such negotiation will probably result in ceding some areas in the northwest to local jihadi control with ground rules for cooperation and coexistence being worked out. That will be tough and the negotiations will have to be backed up by willingness to use force to defend the settled areas but not to unnecessarily intervene in the local affairs of the Islamic Emirate. The jihadists will have to figure out how they will deal with the Karzai regime and the US. If they want to fight them, they should expect countermeasures. This is not an easy conundrum, but since the current "government by secret agencies" model is clearly NOT working, we have to give an open negotiation with a democratic govt. a chance. Some confrontation with truly extreme and nihilistic Islamists is inevitable but the current paradigm is the worst possible way of handling that.
The successful operation of a truly neutral caretaker regime, truly free and fair elections and above all, the restoration of a real judiciary under the leadership of the honorable chief justice will itself go very far towards changing the entire atmosphere in Pakistan and the longer constitutional rule is allowed to run, the more stable the arrangement will become.
The people of Pakistan should not be underestimated. Our nation has learned many lessons from decades of military misrule and given half a chance, they can prove the naysayers wrong and may show the world that we can indeed function as a nation of laws. That half a chance can only come if the army high command agrees to pull back from its present disastrous course.

Save Pakistan.
Arrest Musharraf. NOW.

This is insane! We are stretched too thin for this operation, and it may arouses nationalist opposition from other groups beside al-Qaide and the Taliban, who are our principal targets. We do not need another Iraq on our hands, and it has a larger population base. If there is no popular support for our being in Pakistan, than we need to back off.

Sadly and obviously every decision Bush has made has been a WRONG decision. Nothing will be done right ANYWHERE until a new president-ANY new president takes the oath of office in January, 2009. Pakistan, like everything else he has touched, will continue to spiral into the hands of the Evil-doers until then. We still have over a year to wait and to me, each passing minute of this year will feel like an age of missed opportunities.

rare oppurtunity is literally presenting itself to the leader of the free democratic secular countries to rectify the past mistake deliberately committed by the 19th century global power the now defunct 'GREAT BRITTAIN' By bold initiative of arranging the regional powers such as china,india,russia,iran along with us to make a bold transparent unbiased and long lasting solution once and forall for this chronic festering breeding ground for jihadism.this should help afgans in their problem of being cheated by the british when they drew the DURAND LINE and help alleviate the fear in iran for the nuclear sunni pakistan supported by saudis.

Yeah now all of you say that Bush is a traitor because he lied to you about the Iraq waq. The fact of the matter is that you think of Bush differently because American forces are getting good beating my savage militants in Iraq and it has become apparent that America can never succeed in its prior aims in Iraq.
Everyone knew he lied about Iraq war, yet American people voted for him for his second term because Americans thought they were winning the war. His atrocities in Iraq were televised live on CNN, yet Americans loved him and voted for him just because they thought they were winning the war.
All Americans, at that time, cared was their arrogance and whether or not they were winning the war or not. Howeever now, when their soldiers are bearing heavy defeat, they have come to realise how big a liar Bush was and how important it is to not kill innocent people.
Well you should have knows that what goes around, comes around. Americans sowed the seed, they should be ready to enjoy the fruit now.

Farzad, George Bush has NO intention of, or interest in, pursuing osama bin-Laden, and every intention of pursuing securing the border with Afghanistan for a Natural Gas pipeline

Bush should have done this in 2002 and should never have sent a single soldier over the Iraq. As an American the #1 one thing I will never forgive this man for is that he lied to us and said he would do whatever possible to capture the people responsible and to end Al Quaeda. Instead he decided to go on another campaign for Oil, Israel, and defense contractors in Iraq. Bush never committed a significant force to the Afghan theater and he never pressed Musharaf in any significant manner to let our troops in on that border back in 2002.

Bush sent 30,000 troops into Afghanistan and 160,000 into Iraq; so what does he value more, Iraqi oil or the capture and destruction of the group that killed 3,000 Americans in a heinous attack. George Bush stabbed us in the back, he played cheerleader at ground zero and led us to believe he would do whatever possible to get Osama and AQ, and instead he used 9-11 as an excuse to attack Iraq. A country that our own government admits had nothing to do with 9-11.

George Bush and the neocon movement are all traitors to America, they love big business, power, and Israel more than they care about this country. And that is quite apparent with the actions they have taken in the last seven years.

BushWars Inc. - We Finance Weapons For EVERYONE! No Money Down... EZ Payment Plan!

From the USG Open Source Center translation of "an article from an opposition Afghanistan newspaper alleging that Washington it (sic) deploying Pakistani tribal levies against the Taliban and al-Qaeda.":

"When the White House attacked Afghanistan in 2001 and occupied this country, it dispersed the Taleban and Al-Qa'idah in the Indian subcontinent and Central Asia. In the second phase, it maintained direct contacts with the senior leaders of this group. Therefore, America has been using Al-Qa'idah as a tool since the symbolic and self-made event on 11 September 2001."

What part of this doesn't the American public understand? The U.S. Government is backing almost EVERYONE'S insurgencies in the Middle East. Even organizations that have goals diametrically opposed to the stated 'needs & goals' of U.S. foreign policy.

Two examples: Hersh: U.S. Funds Being Secretly Funneled To Violent Al Qaeda-Linked Groups

New Yorker columnist Sy Hersh says the single most explosive element of his latest article involves an effort by the Bush administration to stem the growth of Shiite influence in the Middle East (specifically the Iranian government and Hezbollah in Lebanon) by funding violent Sunni groups.

Hersh says the U.S. has been pumping money, a great deal of money, without congressional authority, without any congressional oversight for covert operations in the Middle East where it wants to stop the Shiite spread or the Shiite influence.

Hersh says these funds have ended up in the hands of three Sunni jihadist groups who are connected to al Qaeda but want to take on Hezbollah.

Historically:

"During his stint as NATO Supreme Commander (1997-2000), Wesley Clark was in permanent liaison with the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). Under Wesley Clark's command, NATO directly sponsored a terrorist paramilitary army, with links to Al Qaeda and the trans-Balkan narcotics trade."

That gem is from Project Censored (there's more about AQ, NATO and the West on their site): CIA Double Deals In Macedonia

Lets not forget the PKK and affiliated Kurdish rebels (BushCo WILL abandon them again too... already have.): Professor Cole on the topic

John Robb @ Global Guerrillas on the topic: How to bait Turkey Into A Regional War...

What we have going on globally are 'Straw' insurgencies. I mean... If we can't make peace with them... sell/give them weapons and money through back channels that destabilize their region, give them enough local social control to allow their group a modicum of western media coverage, and maybe NEXT YEAR (or the year after that...) we can make a boogey-organization out of their actions and cut one of those AC-130 gunships and a DynCorp air crew loose from the Horn of Africa (or the Colombian drug wars) to supress them, an organization we initially allowed to prosper.

Here's a writeup one of the (Weapons/Logistics) movers & shakers... Central Asia, Middle East, Africa.

Victor Bout, the Russian Mobster/Former KGB officer whose Bosnian airline 'vanished' 200,000 AK-47s in Iraq which the Pentagon/CPA contracted for shipment to the Iraqi Security Forces: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victor_Bout

All General Petraus had to say about that was essentially... 'The bookkeeping was bad'.

Petraeus blames bookkeeping for missing weapons
Thursday, August 9, 2007

Bookkeeping problems are to blame for the inability to account for nearly 200,000 weapons issued to Iraqi security forces, the top U.S. commander in Iraq said late Tuesday.

In Full @ Stars & Sripes

http://leighm.net/wp/2007/12/09/bushwars_ezpay/

Balochistan & the New World Order

by Stan Goff
August 29, 2006

On August 27, an artillery round fired by the Pakistani military found its mark on a cave in Pakistan's southwestern province of Balochistan, bordering both Afghanistan and Iran, and killed an 80-year-old man with a magnificent white beard. His name was Nawab Akbar Bugti, and he was the leader of a popular political movement in Pakistan's largest geographical province.

Balochistan has only four percent of Pakistan's population, though it occupies 44% of Pakistan's land mass. Like its neighbor, Afghanistan, it is populated by religiously conservative ethnic Pashtuns living in extremely rugged and mountainous terrain. Like its neighbor, Iran, it possesses a geologic relic in abundance: fossil fuel, in this case the Sui natural gas field that produces 45% of Pakistan's supply. It also contains a warm water port -- Gwadar -- only 70 kilometers from the Iranian border.

The killing of Bugti has resulted in a province-wide rebellion in the very region...

http://www.insurgentamerican.net/analysis/balochistan/

"It is extremely interesting -- like watching one's own destruction is interesting -- to see how these things play out."

http://www.feralscholar.org/blog/index.php/2008/01/17/pakistan/