Hi-
You want basically a permanent UN presence to stabilize Afghanistan. Why? Are we now going to rule countries that aren't really effective nation states with the UN instead of the sorry attempts using US forces stationed all over the world? Is the UN the New World Cop? We better better look out, since the US will be high on their list of lawbreakers and miscreants. Much of the world agrees with Rev. J. Wright
Have you considered leaving these people to their own devices and regional powers? They will have their troubles, but are they really not our problem unless they make it our problem. Rwanda and Burundi conducted their genocides for years without US involvement. Somehow they are managing to resolve some of their problems without us. One wonders how the Middle East would fair if we stopped being Western Israel and let that state work out its troubles with its neighbors on its own.
When problems with the US occur, fit the punishment to the crime and stop acting like we own the world. We don't.

Hi-
You want basically a permanent UN presence to stabilize Afghanistan. Why? Are we now going to rule countries that aren't really effective nation states with the UN instead of the sorry attempts using US forces stationed all over the world? Is the UN the New World Cop? We better better look out, since the US will be high on their list of lawbreakers and miscreants. Much of the world agrees with Rev. J. Wright
Have you considered leaving these people to their own devices and regional powers? They will have their troubles, but are they really not our problem unless they make it our problem. Rwanda and Burundi conducted their genocides for years without US involvement. Somehow they are managing to resolve some of their problems without us. One wonders how the Middle East would fair if we stopped being Western Israel and let that state work out its troubles with its neighbors on its own.
When problems with the US occur, fit the punishment to the crime and stop acting like we own the world. We don't.

Brollens

A man who is surrounded by 'yes men' will never accept no for an answer.

Each of us can recall post-mortems of Generals who had the audacity to be candid with Rumsfeld or Bush with regard to their methods and strategies.

The Bushtanistas weren't very kind to Senator John McCain when he ran against Bush; General Colin Powell (who was a maverick), when he differed on tactics and strategies, or Senator John Kerry, a decorated war veteran.

Anyone who differed with them was considered to be an affront, and a non-patriot; not just generals. Even American citizens experienced the storm-trooper mentality of the Bustanistas. They simply steam-rolled anyone who got in their way.

Patriot Act? Americans are going to have to come up with new definitions for what it means to be an American patriot, particularly, when we have regimes in power in America like the Bushtanista regime. May it never happen again!

One retired or removed U.S.commander after another has been coming forward and admitting that Bush,Cheney and the civilian leadership in fact, did not listen to generals about what was needed to ensure a succesful outcome in Iraq.
Instead our President did what would look best politically and took advantage of his war to expand his power and in turn, the power of the neocon leadership . Just think what can be done to political opposition when you can spy and sabatage at will without worrying about checks or oversight or ever being caught.
These men have taken us for complete fools and will be snickering and joking about our apparent lack of judgement for their remaining years. At our expense, of coarse.

Thank you for telling. In Europe we anticipate any new American president trying to hand us over more of the war burden. Even our politcians are quite at unease regarding this paticular outlook.

Thank you for telling. In Europe we anticipate any new American president trying to hand us over more of the war burden. Even our politcians are quite at unease regarding this paticular outlook.

plainfacto,

Just home from church and catching up on the news - The Rev was smart and cooked the night before !

With respect to those Republicans who disagree with the war or the Bush/McCain doctrine, what is the source of their dissatisfaction/animus? Bill Kristol, Anne Coulter, Russ Limbo, The American Spectator, The New Republic..., seem to be all over the map!

And, can't non-Republicans have a justified reason for not believing in the Bush/McCain doctrine for other reasons other than being influenced by a so-called liberal press! It is not just so-called liberals who disagree with the Bush/McCain doctrine.

Dialectical materialism? Synthesize for me!

//Come on Plainfacto, you cannot fall back on the customary excuses\\ -The Rev

Hey Rev
Nah, I am calling it as I see it; I must be true to what I am aware of. Anything else would be disingenuous if I didn't see/say it the way I did.

I hope you had a nice holiday and shared it with friends and family. I did - but it was my turn to be the cook - I did all right.

The US pseudo-lib media has become the tool of moderate Muslim propaganda via oil lobbyists.

nada plainfacto:

You are being disengenious, which is a departure from your customary and cogent style of analysis! We don't always agree, however, this sweeping generalization is beneath you sir!

Did the late William F. Buckley, George Will, Republican Senator Chuck Hagel and others formulate their positions and condemnation of the war based upon what they learned in the so-called liberal press?

Come on Plainfacto, you cannot fall back on the customary excuses, of a time when everyone blamed the resistance to the war on liberals. Republicans are just as vocal with respect to their condemnation of America's aggressive policies around the world!

As far as our NATO allies in Afghanistan, with exception of Brits, Canadians and Aussies, all other declared that they were interested in primarily non-combat roles. And now want to pull out, given the deteriorating situation.

Posted by: Ski | March 21, 2008 02:03 PM

Correction Ski The Brits, The Canucks, The Dutch do the heavy fighting and often the Aussies join in.---Don't forget the Dutch Ski! The brave Dutch are spilling a lot of blood in Afghanistan too buddy.

Canadians as far as I know are the only nation on this planet that has never lost a war in all our history; and from what Canuck soldiers I have the odd beer with tell me; no matter what happens in that damned crazy hell hole this isn't going to be the first lost war for us Canucks either. --Salute Brave Soldiers

As far as our NATO allies in Afghanistan, with exception of Brits, Canadians and Aussies, all other declared that they were interested in primarily non-combat roles. And now want to pull out, given the deteriorating situation.

Posted by: Ski | March 21, 2008 02:03 PM

Correction Ski The Brits, The Canucks, The Dutch do the heavy fighting and often the Aussies join in.---Don't forget the Dutch Ski! The brave Dutch are spilling a lot of blood in Afghanistan too buddy.

Canadians as far as I know are the only nation on this planet that has never lost a war in all our history; and from what Canuck soldiers I have the odd beer with tell me; no matter what happens in that damned crazy hell hole this isn't going to be the first lost war for us Canucks either. --Salute Brave Soldiers

The only bases that will endure wil be Halliburton, Kellog, Brown, Root, etc.

WE don't want to stay there...

There's no oil in Afghanistan. But there is in Iraq.

That may make the difference.

Can you establish and keep control over Iraq's vast oil reserves without keeping in check the country? - That may require a Big Victory, and a puppet regime well orchestrated by the "embassy" in Baghdad, and that may require the huge "enduring bases" ... and all that may be the cause of the difference in strategy, Mr. Arkin.

That bloody Iraq oil has already cost the USA a lot of Dollars! And will go on surging the bill.
Now maybe McCain will continue the ruinous course 2009-12.
You get what you deserve.

jeez, what a bunch of long-winded posts!

==What is happening is not a one-sided war - contrary to popular beliefs.==

What is Iran doing, exactly that threatens American natinal interests? The only thing that I can really think of is their plans to open an oil bourse that trades in Euro. But one can hardly complain about this kind of hard-headed economic decisions. I surely dismiss the mostly bogus "shape charge" stuff - I am in the business and the accusations are mostly technical nonsense. Training Sadr's boys? That's very normal stuff when the country that threatens you occupied both of your neighbors, and any danger to our forces ends with their exit from the occupied nation of Iraq.

==I suppose if we use contemporary reasoning, we should have given up and let the Nazis take it all long ago.==

The "nazi stuff" is always envoked by the neocons and their shills, as some kind of weird justifications to back aggression against anyone they have in their chickenhawk gun sights that day. I guess it is supposed to make an impression on the unwashed masses. I wash.

==BTW: What is Barak's ideas about Iran - is it a matter of record in the press yet? You know some things about him - right?==

I don't really know for sure. I don't really think it is very important. Once a threat of American initiated war is removed, the US/Iran relationship will stablize and normalize over a few years.

==There has been much speculation in the interpretation of the Scriptures (both Old and New Testament) that speak of a time when men will not turn to God - despite the many plagues, catastrophies, and woes that will be present when the end of man's history comes to a horrible conclusion. The Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelations speak and warn that this time is unavoidable and approaches. There will be no doubt that it will be the last of days...

Is this the scenario that you are referring to?==

I don't really know. All's I know is these folks are gunning for WWIV (III already happened - Cold War, according to them) with some relish and obvious personal excitement. What I know of their philosophy (Leo Strauss) is that they are scrupulously anti-religious (maybe anti is the wrong word, they are "above" religion), but are taught to use religion to ensure support of the higher castes (political/business/military leaders) and to use patriotism/greed/spectacle to ensure support of the lower castes (middle-class and the proletariat).

//One wonders of these people are really some form of end of the world cult - the policies they pursue seem tailor made to create a world-wide conflagration.\\ -Dimitry

Interesting observation.
IF one would wonder upon this possibillity; what would they conclude?

One may speculate that it would be necessary for two sides to be involved in such a conspiracy to make it work. Such a plan would have been set in motion already, so that it could not be detected as to how it was being carried out. It would involve many people that has this foreknowledge and are willing participants - that would also know how to keep a secret.

What two sides would be doing this - would be the next logical question. Certainly a small and weak cult could not do this, they would have to be in power presently and would need to control the world's purse strings. They would need to control perceptions through the msdia. They would have to have absolute political power to follow through.

There has been much speculation in the interpretation of the Scriptures (both Old and New Testament) that speak of a time when men will not turn to God - despite the many plagues, catastrophies, and woes that will be present when the end of man's history comes to a horrible conclusion. The Book of Daniel and the Book of Revelations speak and warn that this time is unavoidable and approaches. There will be no doubt that it will be the last of days...

Is this the scenario that you are referring to?

plainfacto says:"In like fashion, there are many Americans that do not trust a word that comes out of the mouth of Iranian figureheads."

Iran is infinitely more trustworthy than the Current President. Their nuclear programs can be monitored. We have more access to their programs, and their skies, than we ever had when we were monitoring the Soviet Union or Communist China as they developed Nuclear technology and Nuclear Weapons. Currently the Iranian Goverment's words and the Iranian Government's actions appear to be consistent.

The U. S. Government's words and the U. S. Government's actions, on the other hand, are demonstratably in contradiction with each other. George is consistently found to be lying about his chosen enemies. When George learns to tell the truth American Diplomacy will become incrementally more effective.

//If policy of relentless aggression has failied so far, then it is clear to them one must increase aggression further. The clear result that new and more intractable enemies are not coming around to support America, only seems to justify their policy of racheting up of aggression - a veritable self-fulfilling prophecy\\ -Dimitry

Hey D:
What is happening is not a one-sided war - contrary to popular beliefs. I suppose if we use contemporary reasoning, we should have given up and let the Nazis take it all long ago. There were poeple in this country that were taking the sides of Hitler - that's a fact - saying that we have misjudged him and we were acting like musguided children in Europe. Sounds similar to what is being passed for logic by the pseudo-lib press.

Our buddy Truman got in trouble for being quoted for saying "If we see that Germany is winning we ought to help Russia and if Russia is winning we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible, although I don't want to see Hitler victorious under any circumstances. Neither of them thinks anything of their pledged word."

In like fashion, there are many Americans that do not trust a word that comes out of the mouth of Iranian figureheads. Yes, we are in a clandestine war with the Iranian leadership, and have been for some time.

Of course, the situation that war implies is that either side must become smarter, more aggressive, and even sacrificial to outweigh their opponent. Yes, there well may be a ratcheting up of aggression by boths sides; it certainly is not just us fighting ourselves - although one might gather that from reading about the Dem candidates and their wonderland fantasies of our enemies.

BTW: What is Barak's ideas about Iran - is it a matter of record in the press yet? You know some things about him - right?

Who are you kidding, Mr. Arkin?

America followed Cheny into this mess, and now you expect us to believe that we should follow him out of it?

If you want to internationalize this disgusting foreign adventure - fine: pull all US troops out, and we'll see Syria and Iran step up to bat in their own self interests.

We can pay reparations at a later date.

http://www.shockedandawful.com

==If Barak Obama thinks he is going to shmooz the Iranians - he is a stupid as he is foolish. I hope that isn't his plan - for his sake!==

Well, I don't know what potential President Obama may do vis a vis Iran.

However, the currently practiced and right-wing advocated policy of relentless aggression is sure to be an utter failure to secure American interests in the Middle East, as it has been up to this point.

Neocons and their shills seem incapable of learning any lessons from their continuous failure. If policy of relentless aggression has failied so far, then it is clear to them one must increase aggression further. The clear result that new and more intractable enemies are not coming around to support America, only seems to justify their policy of racheting up of aggression - a veritable self-fulfilling prophecy. One wonders of these people are really some form of end of the world cult - the policies they pursue seem tailor made to create a world-wide conflagration.

Well Jonathan - you are a ditz for putting that Iranian propaganda link and selling it to the rest of us. Shame on you.

Growing up is always optional - but growing older is manditory. Are you also so gullable as to believe blatant Iranian propaganda? If this is what Obama is all about - he will never get my vote.

If Barak Obama thinks he is going to shmooz the Iranians - he is a stupid as he is foolish. I hope that isn't his plan - for his sake!

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad received a red-carpet welcome in Iraq, but his visit was barely covered in US media. Who guaranteed his security in Iraq? And why is he smiling? See video below to see:

http://irannegah.com/Video.aspx?id=506

WAKE UP PEOPLE! VOTE OBAMA to get us out of this mess. Hillary and McCain share same goals (just differ a bit on means!)

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad received a red-carpet welcome in Iraq, but his visit was barely covered in US media. Who guaranteed his security in Iraq? And why is he smiling? See video below to see:

http://irannegah.com/Video.aspx?id=506

WAKE UP PEOPLE! VOTE OBAMA to get us out of this mess. Hillary and McCain share same goals (just differ a bit on means!)

//What a big change since 9/11, they were mostly on America's side then! What happened Plainfacto?\\ -The Rev

A lot has happened. The US unilaterally took up the fight in Iraq after the Baathist regime of Hussein was crushed. We now deal with Iran's proxy - al Sadr.

But that was not the point of my argument - in regards to the real danger we face. The US pseudo-lib media has become the tool of moderate Muslim propaganda via oil lobbyists. Someone told them that if they could overwhelm the press with their side of the GWOT, that we Americans are gullable enough to believe it.

The Israeli rhetoric has been most eloquent and precise - and have stated the facts and their point of view without redundancy or error. Believe what you want, but I must say there is an unequal and incessant barrage of propaganda being emphasized by the anti-war dems and pseudo-libs. That doesn't make them right; it does make them tools.

Iran is really a bigger player than AQ is - in truth. The proof of this will be seen if/when the US makes a sudden pullout from Iraq. Al Sadr is needing the pseudo-lib press to continue the plan to obfuscate their real intentions of dominating southern Iraq and their oil fields. These are the facts, and they stand despite whatever blind-sided pseudo-lib Americans may think, wish, or dream.

Cheney believes that international organizations, just like other international states should take their orders from George Bush, Dick Cheney or Republican Conservatives (the Republican Reich).

It is under those condtions, that he believes that the international community should play a role!

Wasn't he one of those who said that the U.S. military would never serve under any other nation's command? Other nations do not want to serve under a U.S. Command either, and they have made that abundantly clear. Those nations do not believe in American foreign policy.

They believe that our policy is as skewed, and that we are not any more innocent than the nations that we are attacking!

What a big change since 9/11, they were mostly on America's side then! What happened Plainfacto?

Given all of the above, Cheney and Bush have created their own conundrum. America is seen as a piranah, and is being isolated by the international community - even its own allies!

Why? The dominate culture in America believes in the rule-of-law, up and until it is applied to it, the dominant culture that has always believed that it is above the law!

Posted by: The Rev | March

Yea, and then a new and worse nightmare will begin....

Plainfacto,

I believe that You are correct in this regard.

1. If the American people do not use more disgression in terms of who they place in offices (they should not repeat the mistakes that were made in the last two elections). Wm F. Buckley, George Will, Anne Coulter and other arch-conservatives finally admitted that Bush had lost his mind!

2. If the American people take as long to assert themseles, no matter who has been elected, as they did during the past two Presidential terms (when clearly the wheels had come off).

3. If American foreign policy does not receive a 'fork-lift upgrade'. We need to get in the real world!

4. If the next group of leaders have as much disdain for international law, the sovereignity of nations and for sanctioned international organizations who have the authority to manage and intervene in geopolitcal problems.

With regard to the latter, the USA may question the UN for being lax by American standards, however, most nations of the world believe that America's domestic enforcement of its own laws - is the most lax in the world. And most Americans knows its true!

Ergo, the USA should stop manipulating, and at the same time critizing the UN.

Why the dominate culture in America believes in the rule-of-law, up and until it is applied to it, the dominant culture that has always believe that it is above the law!

Cheney is still sacrificing Afghanistan for Iraq. There are real terrorists operating in close proximity to real nuclear weapons in Pakistan. There are no nuclear weapons in Iraq, and there are doubts about nuclear weapons in Iran. Whatever one's opinion abut Iran, it does have, at the present time, a stable government that can protect any nuclear weapons if it ever acquires them. Since there is no guess work involved in Afghanistan, it is more important than Iraq or Iran.
I think some unity of command is needed in Afghanistan, so I favor a mostly American force for that theater. I like the idea of working with people, but we should be working with local people who know the ground. NATO is fine for Europe, but we need local people for local problems. Cheney needs to be ignored! He will soon be gone!

Cheney is still sacrificing Afghanistan for Iraq. There are real terrorists operating in close proximity to real nuclear weapons in Pakistan. There are no nuclear weapons in Iraq, and there are doubts about nuclear weapons in Iran. Whatever one's opinion abut Iran, it does have, at the present time, a stable government that can protect any nuclear weapons if it ever acquires them. Since there is no guess work involved in Afghanistan, it is more important than Iraq or Iran.
I think some unity of command is needed in Afghanistan, so I favor a mostly American force for that theater. I like the idea of working with people, but we should be working with local people who know the ground. NATO is fine for Europe, but we need local people for local problems. Cheney needs to be ignored! He will soon be gone!

//Do you even LISTEN to yourself? GEESH...\\ -Karen

Yes I do lsten to myself. Go figure out why I said it and then get back to me when it makes sense to you...

"Worst part - you were convinced - read 'fooled' - into believing this gruel the dems have been trowelling out".

Do you even LISTEN to yourself? GEESH...

"You guys gotta remember, that Afghanistan is all about 'smack'. It is what puts them on the map, and it is what pays for their guns".

Excuse me? We went into Afganistan because of their drugs? How silly...and not so silly, there are now almost 4000 Americans no longer on this earth? Bite me, and join the DEA, mmmk?

You guys gotta remember, that Afghanistan is all about 'smack'. It is what puts them on the map, and it is what pays for their guns.

Many nations have been affected by the smack that comes from Afghanistan. In the same way that one gets Malaria and needs to do something about those afflicted and the need to drain the swamp and stop the infestation. You all know how I feel about Afghanistan, but that is a brief reminder...

Why doesn't Cheney feel that policy he wants pursued in Iraq, where it can't work, pursued in Afghanistan, where it probably would work? Because if it did work, and it put al Quaeda out of business, who would Cheney have to use to frighten Republicans? (He doesn't much frighten anybody who has the slightest ability to think for himself, but the loyal 27% still needs a good scare now and then.)

Catching bin Laden at Tora Bora would have been interpreted as ending al Quaeda, more or less, especially by Bush et al, and interpreting al Quaeda as being out of business would have meant that when he conflated Iraqi opposition, al Quaeda in Iraq, and al Quaeda the way he likes to, would have lead to his constantly being told, "Mr. President, we wiped out al Quaeda in Afghanistan, remember?"

We couldn't have that, now, could we?

Besides we gave our word to Karzai, and keeping our word would mean that for once we told the truth. Can't have that, either, could we?

Plainfacto: "correction: I'm sure you all want to belive that all of the troubles in the world are caused by the US; but they are not"

At this juncture in the world history of civilization?

As Jimmy Stewart might have said:

"Purrty much so..."

Posted by:

correction: I'm sure you all want to belive that all of the troubles in the world are caused by the US; but they are not

//There are still over 200 days left for this American Nightmare to be over. Alot more damage can still be done and the two disgraces we call our President and VP will do everything they can to get it done.\\ -brollens

Yea, and then a new and worse nightmare will begin with the dems. And if you thought there was no damage control with Bush's administration - man - are you in for a big surprise whrn you realize the dems will do far more damage.

Worst part - you were convinced - read 'fooled' - into believing this gruel the dems have been trowelling out.

I cannot laugh at this foolishness, because the down side to this is so tragic. I'm sure you don't want to belive that all of the troubles in the world are caused by the US; but they are not. What will you do then; when you find out. Dream yet another dream? It will be too late then...

There are still over 200 days left for this American Nightmare to be over. Alot more damage can still be done and the two disgraces we call our President and VP will do everything they can to get it done.

It will be up to the American people...
to make sure that no future American administration behave in the manner that our current administration in Washington DC has behaved - like outlaws!

We must insist that unless the USA has been verifiably threatened by another nation, that other extraneous international and geolpolitcal issues, must be resolved by a legitimate international organization!

We have broken more laws than the Taliban, Iraq and even Iran combined!

Rev, no president in US History was impeached so far, Nixon resigned before he could be,...

SKI,

With regard to impeachment, I was referring to the office of Vice PResident!

And right on Da Buffalo!

Speaking of Juan Cole (citing the WaPo) AND Iran AND GW, the war president:

"Friday, March 21, 2008

Bush Lies about Iran on Now-Ruz

On Thursday, Bush lied about Iran again: "President Bush said the Iranian government has "declared they want to have a nuclear weapon to destroy people . . ." The Iranian leaders have consistently condemned nuclear weapons as inhumane and denounced them and said that they don't want them and it would be illegal in Islamic law to use them. Bush is welcome to disbelieve them, but he is not welcome to lie about what they said. He again hinted around that they might have a nuclear weapons program, for which there is no evidence and which flies in the face of the findings of his own intelligence analysts, in the National Intelligence Estimate.

It is all the more insulting that these were Bush's remarks on the occasion of the Persian New Year, which should have been a moment for diplomacy and reaching out."

In full: http://www.juancole.com/2008/03/bush-lies-about-iran-on-now-ruz.html

Our fearlessly destructive leader...

Sell someone else that story... I'm not buying:

"The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is,

"The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time,"

or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word "map" used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at."
.
.

I agree... Zionism is a particulary nasty socio-cultural graft on to the Jewish religion... MY RELIGION.

It's an an illegitimate regime, and it needs to vanish down the same sh*t hole the neocon crew slithers down on their way to their own personal hells.

The "Wipe Israel Off The Map" Hoax
What Ahmadinejad really said and why this broken record is just another ad slogan for war

Paul Joseph Watson
Friday, January 26, 2007

Barely a day goes by that one can avoid reading or hearing yet another Israeli, American or British warhawk regurgitate the broken record that Iran's President Ahmadinejad threatened to "wipe Israel off the map," framed in the ridiculous context that Israelis are being targeted for a second holocaust. This baseless rallying call for conflict holds about as much credibility as Dick Cheney's assertion that Saddam Hussein was planning to light up American skies with mushroom clouds.

Today it's the turn of would-be future British Prime Minister David Cameron, leader of the Conservative Party, who repeated the "wipe Israel off he map" fraud in a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos, using it to qualify his refusal to rule out a military strike on Iran under a Tory government.

Did Ahmadinejad really threaten to "wipe Israel off the map" or is this phrase just another jingoistic brand slogan for selling the next war in the Middle East?

The devil is in the detail, wiping Israel off the map suggests a physical genocidal assault, a literal population relocation or elimination akin to what the Nazis did.

According to numerous different translations, Ahmadinejad never used the word "map," instead his statement was in the context of time and applied to the Zionist regime occupying Jerusalem.

Ahmadinejad was expressing his future hope that the Zionist regime in Israel would fall, not that Iran was going to physically annex the country and its population.

To claim Ahmadinejad has issued a rallying cry to ethnically cleanse Israel is akin to saying that Churchill wanted to murder all Germans when he stated his desire to crush the Nazis. This is about the demise of a corrupt occupying power, not the deaths of millions of innocent people.

The Guardian's Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used.

The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word "map" used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.

The acceptance of the word "map" seemingly originated with the New York Times, who later had to back away from this false translation. The BBC also wrongly used the word and, in comments to Steele, later accepted their mistake but refused to issue a retraction.

Source: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/january2007/260107offthemap.htm

(I could have used Juan Cole's Informed Comment (Persian history professor) for sourcing, but Prison Planet turned up on top of the dogpile)

"Afghanistan doesn't have Iraq's sectarian problems, nor does it have the problem of Iranian meddling... Iraq has deep-seeded ethnic, cultural, and religious divisions that serve as major causal factors for conflicts past and present."

Seriously, do you really know about Afghanistan? Do learn about countries before commenting on (or even better, invading) them!

"The narrative about Israel's destruction isn't new in the ME. Whether it is driving them into the sea, ..., Muslim and Arab leaders have been calling for Israel's destruction for decades."

Including the ones we call our friends! You are right here.

BushButt? Seriously? Is this third grade comments day?

On a more relevant note, while Arkin continues his love of internationalist action, there is no evidence that the method being used in Afghanistan would work in Iraq. Afghanistan doesn't have Iraq's sectarian problems, nor does it have the problem of Iranian meddling. Iraq, unlike Afghanistan, has now become a proxy 'fight' between the US and Iran for influence in the ME. As Arkin himself seems to enjoy pointing out, Iraq has deep-seeded ethnic, cultural, and religious divisions that serve as major causal factors for conflicts past and present.

Oh, and Ahmadinejad has, in fact, said he would like to wipe Israel off the map. Anti-Semitic rhetoric from Iranian leaders happens nearly every Friday. The narrative about Israel's destruction isn't new in the ME. Whether it is driving them into the sea, killing them in battle, destroying them by destroying America, or wiping them off the map, Muslim and Arab leaders have been calling for Israel's destruction for decades.

...and the WHite House Spokesman repeats ANOTHER LIE in the process of covering BushButt

Asked about the president's comment, Gordon Johndroe, a White House spokesman, said Bush had "shorthanded" Iran's desire "to wipe Israel off the map," its refusal to heed U.N. Security Council demands to suspend its enrichment work and Iran's continued development of ballistic missiles.

Asked if Iran could exploit Bush's inaccurate comment for political purposes, Johndroe replied: "I'm not concerned about that. If they want to spin it a certain way, they can do it any way they want.

They have still called for Israel to be wiped off the map..."

Untrue, proven untrue, and re-iterated by the White House and the American media over and over and over and over again STRICTLY as part of a disinformation campaign.

Black Propagandizing the American public.

But the WHOLE WORLD is watching... and they are not fooled.

Meanwhile, at the White House, the President of the United States lies to the world again:

Bush erroneously says Iran announced desire for nuclear weapons
By Jonathan S. Landay | McClatchy Newspapers

WASHINGTON -- President Bush contended that Iran has "declared they want a nuclear weapon to destroy people" and that the Islamic Republic could be hiding a secret program.

Iran, however, has never publicly proclaimed a desire for nuclear weapons and has repeatedly insisted that the uranium enrichment program it's operating in defiance of U.N. Security Council resolutions is for civilian power plants, not warheads.

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/31114.html

ski: "...ever heard of Taliban and AQ, 9/11? That's the reason we are in Afghanistan is to try to nail them."

Really?

You need to do more research outside the atmosphere of FoxNewsWorld

From the The USG Open Source Center, courtesy of Informed Comment Global Affairs:

Iranian President Ahmadinezhad Says 'Age of Nuclear Weapons Is Over'

Interview with Iranian President Mahmud Ahmadinezhad by Angeles Espinosa and Javier Moreno in Tehran on 1 March

"Espinosa) Some of the missiles Iran has tested are only intended to carry nuclear warheads. This, without doubt, has fuelled the international preoccupation...

(Ahmadinezhad) Throughout its history, Iran has always been a peaceful country. We have not attacked anybody. Everything we are doing is aimed at defending the country. We think that the age of nuclear weapons is over. If they were useful, the United States would not have the troubles it currently has and the Soviet Union would not have disappeared. The Zionists have atomic bombs, but they are failing against HAMAS. We not only think that the age of nuclear weapons is over, but we are also not interested in building them, because we consider that they are against human rights and dignity. Our security doctrine is a defensive doctrine. This missile that we have launched is an investigation missile, which is intended to carry a satellite. It is our right and we need to have a presence in space for communications. We announced it before launching it. We are working transparently, unlike other countries that work clandestinely and, even so, condemn us."

Source: http://icga.blogspot.com/2008/03/ahmadinejad-age-of-nuclear-weapons-is.html

My My... Wouldn't know it by listening to big DICK prattle on about Iran's nuclear threat and mythical weapons systems which we intend to base MISSILES SYSTEMS IN THE BALTIC (with Russia's tentative, but not the citizens of Poland or Czechoslovakia's approval)to 'defend' ourselves against.

Guys come on. JJ, ever heard of Taliban and AQ, 9/11? That's the reason we are in Afghanistan is to try to nail them. If US wanted to handle China, both Japan and Taiwan are much more optimal option, as with exception of a strengthening submarine fleet. As far as on land goes, do read up on the Korean war, especially the Nov 1950 on.

Rev, no president in US History was impeached so far, Nixon resigned before he could be, a few president were censured. Legally, if you impeach Bush for Iraq, you'd have had to impeach Clinton for Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo; JFK for Vietnam; Truman for Korea...

As a background note, Soviets went into Afghanistan at the time of Iranian revolution and were hoping to probably eventually turn it into a communist one. The reason they did it, was because land on Iran-Afghanistan border is much more accessible to tanks than the Turkmenistan-Iran border or mountaneous Azerbaijan-Iran border.

As far as soldier stuff goes, ghostcommander, read up on Soviet Afghan war, and how both sides 'recruited' and continue to 'recruit' soldiers/fighters... May be that will explain quiet a bit...

Trusting Dick Cheney is like trusting Osama Been Hidin'...

More proof that Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda STILL works for NATO and the Pentagon (If the fact that Iraq's 'Awakening Council' consisted of AQ fighters wasn't proof enough).

The US WILL supply weapons to Kosovo's "Liberation Army", the KLA:
http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=24496&cid=58&p=20.03.2008

"While the CIA admits that Osama bin Laden was an "intelligence asset" during the Cold War, the relationship is said to go way back.

The fact that Al Qaeda continues to support KLA terrorist operations in Macedonia, with the full support of NATO and the US government, has been carefully overlooked. With the complicity of NATO and the US State Department. Mujahideen mercenaries from the Middle East and Central Asia were first recruited to fight in the ranks of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) in 1998-99, largely supporting NATO's war effort.

Bin Laden had visited Albania himself. His was one of several fundamentalist groups that had sent units to fight in Kosovo. He is believed to have established an operation in Albania in 1994. Albanian sources say Sali Berisha, who was then president, had links with some groups that later proved to be extreme fundamentalists. (Sunday Times, London, 29 November 1998.)

Among the foreign mercenaries now fighting in Macedonia (October 2001), in the ranks of self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA), are Mujahideen from the Middle East and the Central Asian republics of the former Soviet Union. Also within the KLA's proxy force in Macedonia are senior US military advisers from a private mercenary outfit on contract to the Pentagon. (Scotland on Sunday, Glasgow, 15 June 2001)

Extensively documented by the Macedonian press and statements of the Macedonian authorities, the US government and the "Islamic Militant Network" are working hand in glove in supporting and financing the self-proclaimed National Liberation Army (NLA), involved in the terrorist attacks in Macedonia. The NLA is a proxy of the Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA). In turn the KLA and the UN sponsored Kosovo Protection Corps (KPC) are identical institutions with the same commanders and military personnel. KPC Commanders on UN salaries are fighting in the NLA together with the Mujahideen. In a bitter twist, while supported and financed by Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, the KLA-NLA is also supported by NATO and the United Nations mission to Kosovo (UNMIK).

The KLA-NLA terrorists are funded by US military aid, the United Nations peace-keeping budget, as well as by several Islamic organisations including Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda. Meanwhile, drug money is being used to finance the terrorists with the complicity of the US government. US military advisers mingle with Mujahideen within the same paramilitary force, Western mercenaries from NATO countries fight alongside Mujahideen recruited in the Middle East and Central Asia."

Source: http://www.projectcensored.org/Publications/2003/10.html

The biggest destabilization factor is occopition forces. The only best option for both Iraq and Afghanistan is that occupation forces leave the countries ASAP. There will be peace as soon as occopation forces leave.

Who are you kidding, Mr. Arkin?

America followed Cheny into this mess, and now you expect us to believe that we should follow him out of it?

If you want to internationalize this disgusting foreign adventure - fine: pull all US troops out, and we'll see Syria and Iran step up to bat in their own self interests.

We can pay reparations at a later date.

http://www.shockedandawful.com

Criminals, Murderers, and Thieves. These conservatives set the US back 30 years. Please don't touch anything else on your way out!

Listen people... No one will want to go into Iraq into the middle of another possible flare up between Shia and Sunni. if US pulls out and that flare up occurs, Saudis and Iran are bound to get pulled into it, each on the behalf of their co-believers. That could get real nasty real fast, including attacks on each others oil fields.

As for international community, all coalition countries that could do so already pulled out of Iraq, or will finish pulling their forces out shortly.

As far as our NATO allies in Afghanistan, with exception of Brits, Canadians and Aussies, all other declared that they were interested in primarily non-combat roles. And now want to pull out, given the deteriorating situation.

I agree with several points made. However, even if the peace keeping force is multinational, would not also need to be predominantly made up of Arab nations to be ultimately successful? Sharing the burden with NATO nations would certainly help us economically but I don't see how it would diffuse the emotional aspects of this situation in the Arab world that allow politically motivated groups to build support for their guerrilla resistance to what has been characterized as a western invasion. Some people might argue that replacing US forces with Arab forces is surrender, because it might lead to happiness among Arabs. Some people might argue it is surrender because we would not be getting what we were after in in the first place, which was not people laying road side bombs and evidently was not really WMD's. So if that is surrender what is victory and what is honor? If a man rapes a woman is it the honorable thing to marry her? Of course not. If one country humbles another by entering it by force why is it more honorable to set up camp and stay until their presence becomes more tolerable?

So, the answer to our invasion of Iraq - which so few other nations were willing to condone, let alone join - is to have those same anti-invasion nations take on the responsibility of cleaning-up the mess we've made?

Why?

So we can invade a 3rd country, with the US forces freed from their current commitment to Afghanistan and/or Iraq?

Is any country seriously expected to consider making any deals with the US before the next President takes office, in less than a year???

... internationalizing the burden and reducing the U.S. military presence is an absolute domestic priority and a key element of building security...,

Mr. Arkin,

If that is what needs to be happen, it should be done by a legally sanctioned international organization!

The reason it hasn't worked, is because the USA does not have the legal or moral authority to do what it has been trying to do!

Ergo, the USA continues to meet resistance from the nation that it is trying to vanquish, and from the rest of the world!

Only a fool, or a crony, would listen to Dick Cheney about ANYTHING.

How long does it take to train a soldier? How many Afghans could have been trained since we began our involvement there? Is the Pakistan ISI really on our side? Who created the Taleban? What happened to the billions of dollars given to Musharraf? Does the Pakistan military really want the war to end? Does Karzai want the war to end? Do the drug traffickers/weeapons suppliers want the war to end? Corruption is preventing the conclusion of the war in both Afghanistan and Iraq!

Cheney may or may not have stumbled into the truth for once, however, we know that truth is not something that he makes a habit of pursuing.

With regards to his comments, "all free nations have an interest in a secure, democratic Afghanistan."

I suspect that all free nations of the world would have more of a stake and be more willing to participate, if the United States would stop treating free nations of the world in the same manner that it treats the nations that it physically abuses and violates.

Cheney will likely have the distinction of being America's most hated vice president (that was not impeached) in history, by American citizens and citizens of most free nations of the world alike!

Sounds like the writer should move to the mid east. Possibly from the grammer he already has. The commentary sounds like it comes from the more radical side of the Islamic "unity" groups.

Afghanistan would be main military base for NATO in the future. NATO planned to be the world police and army force.

US and EU know what is going to be happen in the next middle of this century. They are here to build the main part of a globally distributed empire infrastructure that will lead and push local countries to do what they decide.

It is a big project that worth to U.S. and EU more than anybody can realize now. Its main goal is to create what once Hitler wanna to do. This time there would nothing be able to stop this movement. Everything seems to me planned already and countries like Iran and Syria are the last uncontrolled areas that they are planning to invade soon or later.

Short-term goal of this is to control growing economy of China. But at the long-term this is a plan that would enable U.S.E.U to resist against China's possible Military Confrontation. There is also some plans to divide this country to smaller nations as they do with Russia. And to do that, they need to push it in a multi-lateral ways: economically through unstablizing oil-rich countries, Politically through human-right activists and separatists, and military through extending military bases around it.