Jump to content
The Education Forum

We fight to help them


Recommended Posts

The USSR was asked by the legitimately elected givernment to help them agains the war lords, they did not invade.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really think this info on mineral wealth was recent ?? Really ??

see

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/world/asia/14minerals.html

888888888888888888888888888888

If this is the effect in India from our Afghan war (of help :devil3 ) ,we shall have no worries. The Afghan people will be too dumbed down to resist. sg see

http://uruknet.com/?p=m67039&hd=&size=1&l=e

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Afghanistan: War lost, but killing continues

Sunday, June 27, 2010 By Tony Iltis

afghan-war-afghanistan-008_0.jpg

The contradictions in a doctrine based on using ultra-violence to ‘win hearts and minds’ are self-evident. On June 25, ABC News Radio reported 79 occupation soldiers had been killed so far that month, the highest number in any month since the October 2001 US-led invasion.

On June 23, US President Barack Obama sacked the commander of US-led occupation forces in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal — but not for the rising body count.

The sacking was in response to a July Rolling Stone article in which McChrystal and his aides regularly refer to civilian leaders of the occupying powers (including Obama) using terms such as “clown” and “xxxxing gay”.

Obama has pledged no change in military strategy, but has hinted his previous pledge to withdraw troops by mid-2011 may be abandoned.

The US has the highest casualty rate among the occupying powers, with more than 1100 killed. In June, British military casualties reached 300.

Australia, which has 1500 soldiers deployed, has suffered fewer casualties. However, the death of five soldiers between June 7 and June 21 increased the toll to 16: a rise of almost 50% in a fortnight.

Amid the platitudes about noble and patriotic sacrifice, the Australian government has said the troops will stay.

Defence minister John Faulkner told the June 24 Australian: “Defence now estimates that within two to four years we will be able to transition the main security responsibility to the Afghan National Army in Oruzgan province.”

Not only does this leave the timeframe elastic, it makes withdrawal contingent on having created an Afghan puppet force capable of ruling in Oruzgan province in the occupiers’ absence.

The occupation forces have been trying to create such a puppet state throughout Afghanistan since 2001 without success.

The Rolling Stone article paints a disturbing picture of McChrystal and his entourage. Their contempt towards their civilian “superiors” is just part of it.

“The general’s staff is a handpicked collection of killers, spies, geniuses, patriots, political operators and outright maniacs”, the article said.

Seemingly modelling himself on action movie cliches, McChrystal displayed a narcissistic belief in his own military abilities, and in the military’s ability to “fix” Afghanistan.

A Special Forces veteran himself, McChrystal increased the number of Special Forces units in Afghanistan from four to 19. The Special Forces operate with less accountability than other troops and have been responsible for many atrocities against civilians.

In essence, McChrystal’s grievances amounted to the government not being sufficiently committed to the military adventure. Despite Obama doubling the number of occupation soldiers in 2009 to 68,000, and the announcement in December of a further increase of 30,000, McChrystal wanted more.

However, the much-heralded February offensive in Helmand province only achieved a surge in occupation force casualties and, the United Nations said, a 76% surge in Afghan civilian casualties.

Rawa.org said the occupiers are responsible for most civilian deaths (mostly through air strikes and night raids). The Taliban’s use of improvised explosive devices and suicide bombers also takes a high civilian toll.

Far from weakening the Taliban, the civilian deaths and large-scale displacement in Helmand increased the insurgents’ support.

The sacking of McChrystal also revealed a lack of coherence in the occupation’s leadership. Various political, diplomatic leaders of the occupying powers, as well as Afghan puppet president, Hamid Karzai, blaming each other for the failure to achieve the occupation’s stated goals.

In the Rolling Stone article, McChrystal continually spouted the jargon of “counterinsurgency doctrine”. The contradictions in a doctrine based on using ultra-violence to “win hearts and minds” are self-evident.

US politicians have condemned Afghan puppet President Hamid Karzai’s blatantly fraudulent 2009 re-election, as well as the corruption of his administration and the security forces.

These are factors in Karzai’s unpopularity with Afghans. However, it is his association with the occupation forces that put him in office that he is most hated for.

Yet the occupiers military strategy is based on the assumption that the Karzai regime can become a stable state power accepted by the population.

Since the 2001 invasion, the two main justifications for the war have been chasing terrorists and bringing liberal democracy, especially women’s rights. However, the warlord armies and drug gangs who form the basis of the Karzai regime have the same attitudes to democracy and women’s rights as the Taliban — differing only in their higher level of corruption.

Explaining an increase in female suicides in the north-western Herat province, lawyer Mohammad Dawud Monir told IWPR on June 10: “Large numbers of people left Herat for Iran over the past 30 years and enjoyed a comparatively better life there ... The women saw the prosperity and rights enjoyed by Iranian women.

“When they returned, they faced unemployment, poverty and traditional societal restrictions.”

The justification of hunting terrorists is also losing credibility. This justification always ignored the fact that none of the terrorists responsible for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the US were Afghan, that the Taliban offered to hand over al-Qaeda leaders to the US before the invasion and that the al-Qaeda leadership left Afghanistan when the US attacked.

In the absence of al-Qaeda, the Taliban became the terrorists to hunt. However, the US-approved “peace jirga” (tribal council) in May, at which the Karzai government offered to bring the Taliban into his government, showed that eliminating the Taliban is a negotiable war aim.

The Taliban responded to the offer by firing rockets at the gathering.

The invasion of Afghanistan was always about projecting Western military power in the oil and mineral rich regions of the Middle East and Central Asia. However, the military adventures in Afghanistan and Iraq failed to remake these regions along US-dictated lines.

Obama may not have wished to inherit this situation, but is unwilling to end the war because of the political cost to the US of a perceived defeat.

The result is McChrystal’s musings that the occupation forces need to stay in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future and a war that is looking for a justification.

Such is the desperation of the Western establishment to justify the occupation that they are even raising Afghanistan’s mineral wealth: a reason cited by the anti-war movement but previously hotly denied by the war’s supporters.

On June 14 the New York Times “revealed” that Afghanistan had mineral resources worth US$1 trillion. However, this was not new information and exploiting these resources is unlikely to be cost effective while the chaos and violence of the occupation persists.

One mineral-related factor raised by some as a possible reason for the war was the US ambition to build a pipeline to Turkmenistan, the world’s fourth largest natural gas producer. At the time, Turkmenistan’s natural gas was piped through Russia, a strategic rival of the US.

If this was a war aim it has failed. The May 1 CCPA Monitor revealed that pipelines were opened linking Turkmenistan with China in December and Iran in January. This means all of Turkmenistan’s natural gas reserves are contracted for sale to Russia, China and Iran.

The US-led coalition has lost the war in Afghanistan. However, the Obama administration and its allies, including Australia, are prolonging the brutal occupation because the alternative is a visible military defeat.

The occupiers have been unable to create a viable puppet state, but the military opposition, led by the unpopular, backward-looking Taliban, have not been able to drive the foreign troops out of the country.

In the case of the Vietnam War, the US had largely failed in its military objectives by 1968. However, the generals kept asking for more troops and the politicians remained fearful of admitting defeat by withdrawing — dragging the conflict out until 1975. The US’s hand was eventually forced by the social explosion created by the anti-war movement.

In all the occupying nations, a majority oppose the Afghan war, but this opposition is mainly passive. Until it transforms into a mass-based, militant anti-war movement, Afghanistan’s nightmare will continue.

  • sharethis.png

From GLW issue 842

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The war lost. NO. The Peace pipeline of Iran to sell its gas to Pakistan/India has been stopped cold.Pakistan has become more and more a USA client state where USA assassins roam in secret. India looks at this with favor. If we can bribe enough Indian politicians with also the cover of the USA controlling enemy Pakistan. - India can be swayed away from its partial neutral state and into the USA camp. THIS WOULD HAVE VAST WORLD GEOPOLITICAL implications !!!!!!!

The USA HQD in Afghanistan has requested microwave pain ray machines. Much of the economy of Afghanistan has a increasing dependancy on opium money. From the cold war grab bag of technology we can selectively destroy opium crops. The key word is "selectively". We can pit one against another opium group. The change of military leadership signals that the POTUS peace prize winner will have a an increase in Afghan slaughter. The Press in the war area will thus be put under more control. The new Afghan USA commander may also be more inclined for an Iran attack. + This is our (USA) longest war -I just dont see the DOD not doing whatever it takes to stop a retreat from Afghanistan....sg

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.granma.cu/ingles/international-i/24junio-25tesoro.html

''War and booty

ISN’T it strange that the Pentagon should have assumed releasing information of the discovery of large mineral deposits in Afghanistan? As soon as the news began to circulate doubts were expressed as to the motive for announcing that fact at what is not such a good time for the occupiers, given the casualty figures and the poor correlation of high-profile operations like the one in Helmand province, with so much publicity and such a bad result. The very invasion of the that Central Asian country is now questionable, above all if it can be confirmed that the United States has been aware of the existence of these seams since the 1980s.

The presence of U.S. geologists working in the country in the middle of a full-blown war would lead one to suppose that something was going on or, at least, that there were suspicions of the existence of such wealth, according to a preliminary investigation, sufficient to change the characteristics and economic level of Afghanistan within a few years.

There is gold in large proportions. The same can be said for iron and copper, not to mention lithium and niobium, these last two rare and scarce substances. Lithium alone is an essential component of modern and future technology, given that it is used to manufacture batteries for cell phones, or those projected, for their light weight, in electric automobiles.

The discovery is currently valued at around one trillion dollars, but could be greater. It is no simple accident that the working group advising the Afghani government on ways of organizing the exploitation of these minerals, along with the indispensable U.S. companies or a predomination of them among the multinationals, should belong to the Pentagon.

Almost all reports circulating on the subject allude to the fact that the rarity or value of these resources could increase violence and instability in Afghanistan, taking into account precedents such as the Congo. This nation, which also possesses valuable minerals (for its coltan alone it is the victim of shameless thieving chicanery), is paying a huge human cost for having them. Moreover, it is suffering an economic stagnation disproportionate to its development, given its status as a nation with a rich natural heritage. Will the same thing or something similar happen to the Afghans?

According to the news, U.S. specialists have been working on mining this wealth for two years. Prospecting is usually undertaken when there are reasonable indications to suppose that what is being sought exists, especially in a period of revealing space satellites.

For that reason, it is an inevitable supposition that this was one of the bases for the original invasion in 2001, and that Obama’s decision to increase the U.S. force to 100,000, when previously all talk was to the contrary and pointed toward a rapid end to the Afghanistan affair, is related to the recently disclosed event. There was never any altruism. Thinking of material interests looks more realistic, and demands by deputies and senators to maintain the troops in that distant land, would seem to confirm that. (Elsa Claro)''

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

The war lost. NO. The Peace pipeline of Iran to sell its gas to Pakistan/India has been stopped cold.Pakistan has become more and more a USA client state where USA assassins roam in secret. India looks at this with favor. If we can bribe enough Indian politicians with also the cover of the USA controlling enemy Pakistan. - India can be swayed away from its partial neutral state and into the USA camp. THIS WOULD HAVE VAST WORLD GEOPOLITICAL implications !!!!!!!

The USA HQD in Afghanistan has requested microwave pain ray machines. Much of the economy of Afghanistan has a increasing dependancy on opium money. From the cold war grab bag of technology we can selectively destroy opium crops. The key word is "selectively". We can pit one against another opium group. The change of military leadership signals that the POTUS peace prize winner will have a an increase in Afghan slaughter. The Press in the war area will thus be put under more control. The new Afghan USA commander may also be more inclined for an Iran attack. + This is our (USA) longest war -I just dont see the DOD not doing whatever it takes to stop a retreat from Afghanistan....sg

Slowly the India shift begins. see below

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20116

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20251

NATO is in South and Central Asia to stay. In Afghanistan, in Pakistan and in the former Soviet republics of Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan following suit and India next in line. (The chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Michael Mullen, began a two-day visit to India on July 23, and pledged a continued "commitment" to South and Central Asia.)

Edited by Steven Gaal
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

The USSR was asked by the legitimately elected givernment to help them agains the war lords, they did not invade.

Half right, the government that "invited" the Soviets was neither elected nor considered "legitimate" by those outside the Warsaw Pact and perhaps a few other Soviet clients. It was installed by a Soviet backed coup. Doubts about his “re-election” aside Hamid Karzai was the first and thus far the only democratically elected leader of the country. They had an elected National Assembly in the 60’s but real power was held by the King. The last king was deposed in a bloodless 1973 coup and replaced by Mohammad Daud Khan who not elected but was backed by a 1977 loya jirga. Khan seems to have been fairly progressive but became increasingly hostile to the Soviets until they engineered his ouster. He and 17 relatives were executed. The Communists called in the Soviets because they probably would have been overthrown otherwise.

http://www.economist.com/node/3468814?story_id=3468814

http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=12432&Cr=afghan&Cr1=

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7764852.stm

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really need to look at a map.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/432232.html not torpedo

Len , guess Russian military needs to learn to read map too... :rolleyes:

China will strengthen strategic nuclear offensive capability to counter the United States in the global deployment of missile defense systems. Chinese military experts DAI Xu-25 In an interview with "Global Times" interview, said that while China faces the U.S. anti-missile of the C-shaped encirclement, but the Chinese did not need to fully mimic Russia to strengthen nuclear weapons "to attack on defense."

************* see encirclement used 7 times below,just as I used term.......

http://wuxinghongqi.blogspot.com/2010/03/russia-hinted-that-china-will.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You really need to look at a map.

&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&&

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/432232.html not torpedo

Len , guess Russian military needs to learn to read map too... :rolleyes:

What caused the ship to sink is completely irrelevant to the question at hand. In any case it is one group of experts supposedly disagreeing with another. I think it highly unlikely a sailor about 12 miles offshore from North Korea could have used a cell phone.

China will strengthen strategic nuclear offensive capability to counter the United States in the global deployment of missile defense systems. Chinese military experts DAI Xu-25 In an interview with "Global Times" interview, said that while China faces the U.S. anti-missile of the C-shaped encirclement, but the Chinese did not need to fully mimic Russia to strengthen nuclear weapons "to attack on defense."

************* see encirclement used 7 times below,just as I used term.......

http://wuxinghongqi.blogspot.com/2010/03/russia-hinted-that-china-will.html

1) This has nothing to do with your previous post which was about David Cameron’s trade/cultural mission to India. The only military aspect mentioned was deal between BAE and an Indian company to make 57 trainer jets*, which presumably would not be much of a threat the PLA whose air force and navy have an estimated 1543 fighters** plus and unknown (to me) numbers of bombers, trainers and other types of planes. My guess is India’s air force is more of a concern for Pakistan.

* http://online.wsj.com/article/BT-CO-20100728-705499.html

** http://china.usc.edu/App_Images/military%20conflict%202008.pdf PDF pg 45

2) The article in the Telegraph said nothing about missiles or China

3) Your new source is a Chinese blogger, presumably the girl (?) in the military style uniform, of unknown reliability.

4) She said nothing about planes

5) the only mention of India was to a news agency from there.

6) the idea that ABN’s in Eastern Europe (largely scrapped) or even Taiwan would “encircle” China makes no sense. The nifty page linked below allows you plot the shortest route between two points. Since the world is a globe this not the same as a straight line on a map. The easiest way (for me at least) to do this is to enter airport codes, missile sites and targets will be in slightly different locations but are close enough for our purposes. Go ahead enter some Chinese airports Beijing – PEK, Shaghai PVG Kashgar (a city in western China) KHS etc and some American ones NYC – JFK, Miami MIA, Boston – BOS, Omaha OMH etc see if you can get any of those lines to go anywhere remotely close to Taiwan (short range), Poland (scraped), Czech Republic (scraped), Romania/Black Sea (short – med. range). The PAC-3 which the blogger and news accounts said is in Taiwan has a max. Range of 15 – 30 kilometers, about 9 – 18 miles. The Standard Missile 3 (SM-3) which will be based on ships in the Black Sea off the coast or Romania has a range of 500 – 600 KM (310 – 370 miles)The I was able to get a few lines to go somewhat close to Taiwan but this would easily be circumvented by switching to cities further north in China.

Plotter - http://www.gpsvisualizer.com/calculators#airport

PAC-3 range

15 KM - http://www.fas.org/spp/starwars/program/patriot.htm

20 KM - www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/app4/pac-3.html

10 -30 KM - www.globalsecurity.org/space/systems/patriot-ac-3.htm

SM-3 range

500 KM - http://www.designation-systems.net/dusrm/m-161.html

600 KM - http://www.deagel.com/Anti-Ballistic-Missiles/Standard-SM-3-Block-IA_a001148009.aspx

7) The auto translation is often incomprehensible

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...