L
lo yeeOn
Guest
>[Afghan Defense Minister] said the establishment of an effective
>Afghan air force was a top priority because air support would enable
>the army to conduct independent operations without having to rely so
>heavily on the international forces.
>It currently operates a handful of Czech-built L-39 jet trainers,
>together with some old Soviet Mi-17 helicopters and Antonov An-26
>twin-engine transports.
It would be interesting to see if either Afghanistan or Iraq will ever
get any genuine effort from the US military to get an effective air
force established in either country. Once a country you occupy get to
use its own airspace, you'll lose a great deal of control of that
country yourself. If you have bases and giant buildings in there, you
can't afford to worry about suicide bombers coming down from the skies.
So, the Bush administration's action in Afghanistan and Iraq is simply
incompatible with its rhetoric of helping those countries. Its motive
is entirely hegemonic in nature.
Furthermore, the hegemonic mindset isn't limited to the officials in
this administration. The leading democrats all subscribe to this same
idea, even as they pay lip service to the subject of troop withdrawal
from Iraq. This fact is now established when Ted Koppel deliberately
raised the issue recently. (See article attached below.)
In fact, according to the article's author David Swanson, Koppel
raised the issue deliberately to let other major (those deemed to have
a chance to win by the mainstream media) presidential candidates for
2008 know that leaving a substantial number of troops in Iraq and of
course Afghanistan must be an understanding on the person who will
succeed Bush.
So, the American people might be very tired of the war. And the war
is clearly very wrong and immoral. But don't expect our government to
change its foreign policy. Don't expect that we'll leave Iraq, Iran,
or Afghanistan alone. In Iran's case, even though we have yet to gain
control of Iran, we won't stop until we take it, just as we have taken
its two adjacent neighbors.
It seems clearer and clear that the policymakers in Washington are
committed to a future of US hegemony of the entire world just as the
blueprint of the Project of the New American Century (PNAC) dictates.
These policymakers will send their servants, currently G W Bush, Dick
Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Nicholas Burns, Robert Gates, and others, to
invent all kinds of lies like this one about Iran's alleged connection
to the Taliban to make their next violent move.
The IAEA chief El Baradei has recently referred to them as crazies:
"...You do not want to give additional argument to some of the
'new crazies' who want to say let us go and bomb Iran"
His remarks are likely to be interpreted as a swipe at those who
advocate a military strike against Iran. [Wikipedia]
These policymakers are the Mephistopheles of our times with whom our
ambitious politicians have struck a deal to make the world ever more
miserable for most of us, Americans and non-Americans alike.
lo yeeOn
========
Sen. Clinton Wants Troops in Iraq for at Least 10 Years
Via NY Transfer News Collective All the News that Doesn't Fit
After Downing Street - Jun 12, 2007
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/23557
Sen. Clinton Wants Troops in Iraq for at Least 10 Years
By David Swanson
On Monday, Ted Koppel offered a report / commentary on National
Public Radio's "All Things Considered" which can be found online
( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10947954 )
with this headline: "A Duty to Mislead: Politics and the Iraq War," and
this introductory text: "Democrats are telling voters that if they are
elected, all U.S. troops will be pulled out of Iraq. But as Sen.
Hillary Clinton privately told a senior military adviser, she knows
there will be some troops there for decades. It's an example of how in
some cases, politics can force dishonesty."
Well, someone is trying to force dishonesty. I'm not sure it's
politics.
In the audio report, Koppel points out that in a recent debate
Senator Hillary Clinton said that her first priority if elected would
be to "bring our troops home." She did not say ALL our troops, Koppel
points out, and she does not mean ALL our troops. She told the New
York Times three months ago that some forces would have to remain. And
Koppel adds that he spoke with someone from the Pentagon who briefs
Clinton, and that she had told this person that if she is elected and
reelected, she expects to have troops in Iraq at the end of her second
term. Koppel notes that that's 10 years away. He adds that he thinks
she's "right" and that the other Democratic candidates agree with her.
When, oh when, he laments, will we get the truth instead of applause
lines.
But let's back up a minute here. The question of how long U.S.
troops remain in Iraq is not an immutable fact for Clinton and Koppel
to get right, as scientists observing the natural world. It's a
question to be determined by either the U.S. Congress or the U.S.
President or both. Koppel, in fact, has no say in the matter, and I
for one am profoundly uninterested in his opinion. Clinton's opinion,
on the other hand, is of the highest importance. Koppel is to be
applauded for exposing it to the light of day.
Koppel, it appears, however, did not learn his lesson in 2003 at that
New Hampshire debate where Congressman Dennis Kucinich received such
thunderous applause for taking Koppel to task. Koppel does not have
the right to determine which candidates are "real" candidates or to put
words in their mouths. Neither Kucinich nor former Senator Mike Gravel
intends, if elected, to keep troops in Iraq for a year, much less a
decade. In fact, these candidates are trying their hardest to fully
end the occupation of Iraq prior to 2008. My distinct impression is
that Republican candidate Ron Paul shares this position.
Some of the other Democratic candidates, as well, may not share the
Clinton-Koppel position in favor of a decade or more of occupation. In
fact, that may be exactly why Koppel has exposed Clinton's position and
described it not as a position at all, but as an observation of facts
that any serious candidate would recognize. Koppel may be concerned
that some of the other Democrats the corporate media consider viable do
not share Clinton's position. He is instructing them on what position
to take if they want to be in the center of the stage and treated
respectfully by the media.
Something is, indeed, trying to force dishonesty.
Each candidate needs to be asked, and the answer reported: Will they
work now for the complete withdrawal of all troops, mercenaries, and
contractors?
In fact, there are a lot of questions they should be asked:
http://davidswanson.org/node/816
In article <jTgci.14492$RX.6793@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
Bruce Olin <bruce_olin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Afghan Minister Dismisses U.S. Claims
>Thursday June 14, 2007 10:46 AM
>By SLOBODAN LEKIC
>Associated Press Writer
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6708509,00.html
>
>BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Afghanistan's defense minister on Thursday
>dismissed claims by a top U.S. State Department official that there was
>``irrefutable evidence'' that the Iranian government was providing arms to
>Taliban rebels.
>
>``Actually, throughout, we have had good relations with Iran and we believe
>that the security and stability of Afghanistan are also in the interests of
>Iran,'' Abdul Rahim Wardak told The Associated Press.
>
>On Wednesday, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said in Paris that
>Tehran was directly supplying weapons to the Taliban. He told CNN there was
>``irrefutable evidence'' that arms shipments were coming from Iran's
>government.
>
>The State Department later appeared to step back from Burns' assertion, but
>stressed that the United States has proof that weapons from Iran were
>reaching Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.
>
>Tehran has denied the accusations. Wardak, who is attending a NATO defense
>ministers' meeting in Brussels, also played down suggestions that Iranian
>authorities were sending arms shipments to the Taliban.
>
>``There has been evidence of weapons, but it is difficult to link it to
>Iran,'' Wardak said. ``It is possible that (they) might be from al-Qaida,
>from the drug mafia or from other sources.''
>
>Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who is attending the Brussels meeting, also
>mentioned the alleged weapons transfers from Iran.
>
>``The irony is the Afghan government and the Iranian government have pretty
>good relationships,'' Gates told reporters. Gates, who was in Afghanistan
>last week, said Afghan President Hamid Karzai talked to him about the good
>relationship the two countries have.
>
>Gates speculated that Tehran may be ``trying to play both sides of the
>street, hedge their bets, or what their motives are other than causing
>trouble for us.''
>
>In a wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press, Wardak said he would
>appeal to the defense ministers of NATO and allied countries to provide
>greater assistance in the training of Afghan security forces.
>
>He said the establishment of an effective Afghan air force was a top
>priority because air support would enable the army to conduct independent
>operations without having to rely so heavily on the international forces.
>
>It currently operates a handful of Czech-built L-39 jet trainers, together
>with some old Soviet Mi-17 helicopters and Antonov An-26 twin-engine
>transports.
>
>``We have all agreed that the only sustainable way to secure Afghanistan is
>to enable the Afghans themselves to defend the country as they have done for
>thousands of years. Based on that I would like to have further acceleration
>of the Afghan national security forces both in numbers and capabilities,''
>Wardak said.
>
>--
>"The first casualty of war is not truth, but perspective.
>Once that's gone, truth, like compassion, reason,
>and all the other virtues, wanders around like a wounded orphan."
>
>Ente Grillenhaft
>
>
>Afghan air force was a top priority because air support would enable
>the army to conduct independent operations without having to rely so
>heavily on the international forces.
>It currently operates a handful of Czech-built L-39 jet trainers,
>together with some old Soviet Mi-17 helicopters and Antonov An-26
>twin-engine transports.
It would be interesting to see if either Afghanistan or Iraq will ever
get any genuine effort from the US military to get an effective air
force established in either country. Once a country you occupy get to
use its own airspace, you'll lose a great deal of control of that
country yourself. If you have bases and giant buildings in there, you
can't afford to worry about suicide bombers coming down from the skies.
So, the Bush administration's action in Afghanistan and Iraq is simply
incompatible with its rhetoric of helping those countries. Its motive
is entirely hegemonic in nature.
Furthermore, the hegemonic mindset isn't limited to the officials in
this administration. The leading democrats all subscribe to this same
idea, even as they pay lip service to the subject of troop withdrawal
from Iraq. This fact is now established when Ted Koppel deliberately
raised the issue recently. (See article attached below.)
In fact, according to the article's author David Swanson, Koppel
raised the issue deliberately to let other major (those deemed to have
a chance to win by the mainstream media) presidential candidates for
2008 know that leaving a substantial number of troops in Iraq and of
course Afghanistan must be an understanding on the person who will
succeed Bush.
So, the American people might be very tired of the war. And the war
is clearly very wrong and immoral. But don't expect our government to
change its foreign policy. Don't expect that we'll leave Iraq, Iran,
or Afghanistan alone. In Iran's case, even though we have yet to gain
control of Iran, we won't stop until we take it, just as we have taken
its two adjacent neighbors.
It seems clearer and clear that the policymakers in Washington are
committed to a future of US hegemony of the entire world just as the
blueprint of the Project of the New American Century (PNAC) dictates.
These policymakers will send their servants, currently G W Bush, Dick
Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Nicholas Burns, Robert Gates, and others, to
invent all kinds of lies like this one about Iran's alleged connection
to the Taliban to make their next violent move.
The IAEA chief El Baradei has recently referred to them as crazies:
"...You do not want to give additional argument to some of the
'new crazies' who want to say let us go and bomb Iran"
His remarks are likely to be interpreted as a swipe at those who
advocate a military strike against Iran. [Wikipedia]
These policymakers are the Mephistopheles of our times with whom our
ambitious politicians have struck a deal to make the world ever more
miserable for most of us, Americans and non-Americans alike.
lo yeeOn
========
Sen. Clinton Wants Troops in Iraq for at Least 10 Years
Via NY Transfer News Collective All the News that Doesn't Fit
After Downing Street - Jun 12, 2007
http://afterdowningstreet.org/node/23557
Sen. Clinton Wants Troops in Iraq for at Least 10 Years
By David Swanson
On Monday, Ted Koppel offered a report / commentary on National
Public Radio's "All Things Considered" which can be found online
( http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=10947954 )
with this headline: "A Duty to Mislead: Politics and the Iraq War," and
this introductory text: "Democrats are telling voters that if they are
elected, all U.S. troops will be pulled out of Iraq. But as Sen.
Hillary Clinton privately told a senior military adviser, she knows
there will be some troops there for decades. It's an example of how in
some cases, politics can force dishonesty."
Well, someone is trying to force dishonesty. I'm not sure it's
politics.
In the audio report, Koppel points out that in a recent debate
Senator Hillary Clinton said that her first priority if elected would
be to "bring our troops home." She did not say ALL our troops, Koppel
points out, and she does not mean ALL our troops. She told the New
York Times three months ago that some forces would have to remain. And
Koppel adds that he spoke with someone from the Pentagon who briefs
Clinton, and that she had told this person that if she is elected and
reelected, she expects to have troops in Iraq at the end of her second
term. Koppel notes that that's 10 years away. He adds that he thinks
she's "right" and that the other Democratic candidates agree with her.
When, oh when, he laments, will we get the truth instead of applause
lines.
But let's back up a minute here. The question of how long U.S.
troops remain in Iraq is not an immutable fact for Clinton and Koppel
to get right, as scientists observing the natural world. It's a
question to be determined by either the U.S. Congress or the U.S.
President or both. Koppel, in fact, has no say in the matter, and I
for one am profoundly uninterested in his opinion. Clinton's opinion,
on the other hand, is of the highest importance. Koppel is to be
applauded for exposing it to the light of day.
Koppel, it appears, however, did not learn his lesson in 2003 at that
New Hampshire debate where Congressman Dennis Kucinich received such
thunderous applause for taking Koppel to task. Koppel does not have
the right to determine which candidates are "real" candidates or to put
words in their mouths. Neither Kucinich nor former Senator Mike Gravel
intends, if elected, to keep troops in Iraq for a year, much less a
decade. In fact, these candidates are trying their hardest to fully
end the occupation of Iraq prior to 2008. My distinct impression is
that Republican candidate Ron Paul shares this position.
Some of the other Democratic candidates, as well, may not share the
Clinton-Koppel position in favor of a decade or more of occupation. In
fact, that may be exactly why Koppel has exposed Clinton's position and
described it not as a position at all, but as an observation of facts
that any serious candidate would recognize. Koppel may be concerned
that some of the other Democrats the corporate media consider viable do
not share Clinton's position. He is instructing them on what position
to take if they want to be in the center of the stage and treated
respectfully by the media.
Something is, indeed, trying to force dishonesty.
Each candidate needs to be asked, and the answer reported: Will they
work now for the complete withdrawal of all troops, mercenaries, and
contractors?
In fact, there are a lot of questions they should be asked:
http://davidswanson.org/node/816
In article <jTgci.14492$RX.6793@newssvr11.news.prodigy.net>,
Bruce Olin <bruce_olin@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Afghan Minister Dismisses U.S. Claims
>Thursday June 14, 2007 10:46 AM
>By SLOBODAN LEKIC
>Associated Press Writer
>http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6708509,00.html
>
>BRUSSELS, Belgium (AP) - Afghanistan's defense minister on Thursday
>dismissed claims by a top U.S. State Department official that there was
>``irrefutable evidence'' that the Iranian government was providing arms to
>Taliban rebels.
>
>``Actually, throughout, we have had good relations with Iran and we believe
>that the security and stability of Afghanistan are also in the interests of
>Iran,'' Abdul Rahim Wardak told The Associated Press.
>
>On Wednesday, U.S. Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns said in Paris that
>Tehran was directly supplying weapons to the Taliban. He told CNN there was
>``irrefutable evidence'' that arms shipments were coming from Iran's
>government.
>
>The State Department later appeared to step back from Burns' assertion, but
>stressed that the United States has proof that weapons from Iran were
>reaching Taliban fighters in Afghanistan.
>
>Tehran has denied the accusations. Wardak, who is attending a NATO defense
>ministers' meeting in Brussels, also played down suggestions that Iranian
>authorities were sending arms shipments to the Taliban.
>
>``There has been evidence of weapons, but it is difficult to link it to
>Iran,'' Wardak said. ``It is possible that (they) might be from al-Qaida,
>from the drug mafia or from other sources.''
>
>Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who is attending the Brussels meeting, also
>mentioned the alleged weapons transfers from Iran.
>
>``The irony is the Afghan government and the Iranian government have pretty
>good relationships,'' Gates told reporters. Gates, who was in Afghanistan
>last week, said Afghan President Hamid Karzai talked to him about the good
>relationship the two countries have.
>
>Gates speculated that Tehran may be ``trying to play both sides of the
>street, hedge their bets, or what their motives are other than causing
>trouble for us.''
>
>In a wide-ranging interview with The Associated Press, Wardak said he would
>appeal to the defense ministers of NATO and allied countries to provide
>greater assistance in the training of Afghan security forces.
>
>He said the establishment of an effective Afghan air force was a top
>priority because air support would enable the army to conduct independent
>operations without having to rely so heavily on the international forces.
>
>It currently operates a handful of Czech-built L-39 jet trainers, together
>with some old Soviet Mi-17 helicopters and Antonov An-26 twin-engine
>transports.
>
>``We have all agreed that the only sustainable way to secure Afghanistan is
>to enable the Afghans themselves to defend the country as they have done for
>thousands of years. Based on that I would like to have further acceleration
>of the Afghan national security forces both in numbers and capabilities,''
>Wardak said.
>
>--
>"The first casualty of war is not truth, but perspective.
>Once that's gone, truth, like compassion, reason,
>and all the other virtues, wanders around like a wounded orphan."
>
>Ente Grillenhaft
>
>
