So there's your "change"

Go ahead. Talk about it.
User avatar
mnaz
Posts: 7019
Joined: August 15th, 2004, 10:02 pm
Location: north of south

So there's your "change"

Post by mnaz » December 2nd, 2009, 3:44 pm

Nice one, Barack. Nice speech. Apparently, "change" means the same fucking thing over and over, the continual sellout to the Complex. Send your offspring off to far-flung hell holes to clear the radical riffraff and "rebuild" and "stabilize" the places, make them fit for the projects and acquisitions of giant energy corporations. Nice. Ten years ago I would be utterly ashamed of myself to express such views, but I'm telling you, the more I read and hear about what has gone on and is still going on behind the official "news," the more utterly suspicious and disgusted I become. I caught part of Thom Hartmann's show today, in which he connected a few more of the dots-- Cheney, Enron, Iraq, Exxon, the massive natural gas fields in Turkmenistan, the proposed TAPI pipeline ("A" is for Afghanistan)... etc. etc. etc. Maybe I'll do some follow up research. Maybe. And maybe I'm over-stating things a bit, but I'm fairly pissed right now. When I calm down a bit I'll probably temper my language somewhat. Maybe. Certainly from the standpoint of troops going into harm's way, their commitment and sacrifice should be considered above angry reproach or "cynicism," but that's not what I'm getting at. That's not what I'm getting at. And just in time for Christmas.

User avatar
mnaz
Posts: 7019
Joined: August 15th, 2004, 10:02 pm
Location: north of south

Post by mnaz » December 2nd, 2009, 4:34 pm

I don't know. Am I looking at this all wrong? Is this a worthy fight? I have this ugly feeling that this war, like the last (especially the last), is ultimately about "securing" critical strategic global resources for mega-capitalism-- as the primary, if not sole motivation. General McChrystal may also have his own personal motivations as well, and we should all be familiar by now how perpetual large scale military missions benefit Big Defense. Is this a worthy campaign? Despite the sometimes utter fabrications of self-defense, noble ideology and intent disseminated by major media to drive the whole thing forward? Is there anything of real substance to the "human rights" slant, and "spreading freedom and democracy" blah blah blah with our military forces occupying these places for years and trying to stamp out "insurgents?" Am I seeing the world situation from a perspective somewhat skewed?

User avatar
Arcadia
Posts: 7814
Joined: August 22nd, 2004, 6:20 pm
Location: Rosario

Post by Arcadia » December 2nd, 2009, 5:47 pm

mmm... well, surprisily I had Obama´s speech as sonido de fondo yesterday while surfing the studio and at the same time I was pondering what to cook with the last víveres...!. In fact I was expecting to listen CNN version about Honduras after reading the newspapers at midday: yeah, I´m still masoquist from time to time.
I wrote some of the words he was saying and ..., guess what? the word security is in the list! (and at point 2 more or less I was already bored so I changed the channel :roll: ).

Here´s the list just in case it helps some of you! : (no brain or too much will at the moment for research or analysis from my side...)
Last edited by Arcadia on December 2nd, 2009, 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Arcadia
Posts: 7814
Joined: August 22nd, 2004, 6:20 pm
Location: Rosario

Post by Arcadia » December 2nd, 2009, 5:54 pm

innocents
base
sanctuary
movement
bloody
friends
another place
shelter
nowadays
members
atlantic counseling
the world
domestic
months
agents
power
runaway
hope
peace
war
second
debate
resources
end
common
cause
control
debt
interest
risk
friends
avoid
goal
1,2,3
responsability
compromise
friends
limited
security
aditional
acceleration
transportation? (wow! I don´t understand my own letra, I doubt it says transpiration :lol: )
transition
conditions
help
success
clear

mtmynd
Posts: 7415
Joined: August 15th, 2004, 8:54 pm
Location: El Paso

Post by mtmynd » December 2nd, 2009, 8:54 pm

mnaz: "Is there anything of real substance to the "human rights" slant, and "spreading freedom and democracy" blah blah blah with our military forces occupying these places for years and trying to stamp out "insurgents?" Am I seeing the world situation from a perspective somewhat skewed?"

From a Democratic Debate 2.21.08, Austin, TX, Obama with Hillary Clinton:
Barrack Obama: "I heard from a Army captain, who was the head of a rifle platoon, supposed to have 39 men in a rifle platoon. Ended up being sent to Afghanistan with 24, because 15 of those soldiers had been sent to Iraq. And as a consequence, they didn't have enough ammunition; they didn't have enough humvees.

"They were actually capturing Taliban weapons because it was easier to get Taliban weapons than it was for them to get properly equipped by our current commander in chief. Now that's a consequence of bad judgment, and you know, the question is on the critical issues that we face right now who's going to show the judgment to lead.
"
I'm not sure your opinion is askewed, Mark. But I do know how much you dislike war and what it does to mankind. You're not alone with that opinion, as you are well aware.
The United States signed weapons agreements valued at $37.8 billion in 2008, or 68.4 percent of all business in the global arms bazaar, up significantly from American sales of $25.4 billion the year before.
source: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/07/world ... les&st=cse
I'm not convinced that the power of the U.S. military hampers the success of many countries around the world. Amazingly, given the power the country's military has, it's used as well and beneficently as any country quite possibly has in history.
As of February 28, 2009 1,454,515 people are on active duty in the military with an additional 848,000 people in the seven reserve components. It is an all volunteer military, however, conscription can be enacted by the request of the President and the approval of Congress. The United States military is the second largest in the world, after the People's Liberation Army of China, and has troops deployed around the globe.

As of March 31, 2008, U.S. armed forces were stationed at more than 820 installations in at least 39 countries

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_armed_forces
How many of these 39 countries desperately want the U.S. military to exit their lands? How many of these 39 countries are better off that they were prior to the U.S. Military presence? And how many of these countries do not benefit at all from the U.S. military being in their country?

As you know, Mark, I am not a war-monger in any sense of the word. I abhor war as much as any pacifist and would love to live in a world free of war, violence, stupidity and greed... but those negative qualities in our species are as real as the good and decent qualities we share with them. The best we can hope for, at least in our lifetimes, is as close a balance we can achieve in making sure that war does not turn the earth into a battlefield for warriors at the expense of the vast majority of people who simply want to love, learn and live in relative security and safety to promote their own peace which is man's threshold to freedom.

Ask yourself if Obama does the right thing in the end, despite the public outrage, what will the results bring? Just ask yourself...
_________________________________
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Allow not destiny to intrude upon Now

User avatar
Barry
Posts: 679
Joined: August 14th, 2008, 9:12 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Post by Barry » December 2nd, 2009, 9:20 pm

mnaz, all you write has merit. Your emotions as well are justified. It is frustrating, all this war and conflict of one kind or another, and for what? Profit? Monetary gain for a chosen few? Is that really what it's all about?

I watched part of the speech, too. I caught it on The News Hour on PBS. The impact on myself was not so negative as it seems to have been for you, Doreen and Arcadia. I heard much that was positive and hopeful.

This war in Afghanistan was not started by Obama, but I expect he will finish it. To bail out now and just pretend it never happened would be more than irresponsible; it would be...foolish? negligent? I don't know the right word. Begun by a narrow-visioned short-sighted president, this war now must be ended by a broad-minded foresighted one. To my ear, the speech made this clear without saying actually how. Saying how gives too much away to prying ears. Wars are no longer fought the way they once were, with massive force of personell and huge commitment of ordinance and resources. Wars are fought piece-meal, small-scale, with highly mobile units that swoop in and back out hopefully before anyone but the targets have noticed. And as ugly as the concept is, there will always be war in varying degrees. I read a book once, a collection of sci-fi short stories about war in the future. The introduction stated that in the 6000 years or so of recorded human history there have been something like less than 200 in which there was not a war going on somewhere on Earth during the year. A dismal statistic, is it not? But it's a reality we must live with. Even if in the future Earth becomes truly united politcally and spiritually as one people there will be groups like Al Queda and the Taliban, and others unnamed now operating around the globe, who will promote and enact violence to suit whatever agenda they have. It's a fallacy to think this will all someday just go away, that we'll all evolve somewhow, grow up, and not want to be this way anymore. Such thinking is religious in nature. Reason dictates that change will take place, but much will stay the same. In that future united world security forces will be necessary, albeit in a much reduced capacity from the present post-nationalist worldview mindset. This is why I found Obama's use of the term "Afghan security forces" as opposed to "Afghan Army" interesting. It sounded very globalist to me. It said to me that the mindset is shifting perceptibly if slowly away a from militaristic, nationalist Cold War us-against-them perspective to a globally united one. And in the future global society security forces will unfortunately still ne needed. There will always be those seeking to thwart or overturn the power-structure. And there will always be those who use violence and terror to meet that end. In short, there will always be those who claim the right but work in the wrong. Rather than operate as an aid to the people, they seek to breed fear in the people. Fear works faster than aid, but it is short-term. Obama knows this. I heard no fear-engendering language in his speech. Unlike the last president, Obama seeks not to cast fear into the hearts of his "enemies" but seeks to put hope back into the hearts of the people. All the people. Not just here in America but in Afghanistan, too. I don't see how I can not support that endeavor.

I have not lost hope in Barack Obama. I believe he knows what he's doing. I believe the things he said make sense. Not just about Afghanistan but about Pakistan, too. I shudder to think of any of these groups who would threaten the security of their region or the world, now or in the future, getting ahold of nuclear weapons. The global thermonuclear annihilation I so feared as a child, fear which seems now to be fading into mere memory, could yet come to pass should that happen.

All soldiers know peace is preferable to war. Producers of military hardware are not soldiers. The military industrial complex does not want a globally unified society, because even though they'll still be in business, for the above-stated reasons, it will be in a significantly reduced capacity and their profit-margin will suffer. The only solution is a cliche...Think globally; act locally. Meaning, "Write, Mark. Write about it."

Peace,
Barry

User avatar
mnaz
Posts: 7019
Joined: August 15th, 2004, 10:02 pm
Location: north of south

Post by mnaz » December 2nd, 2009, 10:29 pm

Thanks for the thoughtful comments. After Thom's show, I was fired up this morning! Furious. But I've calmed down a bit, and I will "mull this over for a while." I agree, war has always been "one of the real qualities in our species," and I accept that. I also accept the quality within myself to protest it, or at least not blindly accept its "inevitability."

User avatar
Barry
Posts: 679
Joined: August 14th, 2008, 9:12 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Post by Barry » December 3rd, 2009, 1:31 pm

After Thom's show, I was fired up this morning! Furious.
If you'll forgive my being so frank...exactly as Thom, or his producers, (or advertisers) intended.

Peace,
Barry

User avatar
mnaz
Posts: 7019
Joined: August 15th, 2004, 10:02 pm
Location: north of south

Post by mnaz » December 3rd, 2009, 8:57 pm

I know. However, unlike the Rush Limbaugh blowhard mouthpieces of the world, this guy has at least a reputation for reseaching things fairly well.

Here's a disturbing theory I ran across today (as I posted over on AC):

--- Of course no thread about Western military deployments in Afghanistan would be complete without some mention of the proposed Unocal (TAPI) natural gas pipeline from vast natural gas reserves in Turkmenistan to India (passing through Afghanistan and Pakistan—the “A” and the “P”), which would obviously require a “stabilized” government in Afghanistan. I found some interesting information and conjecture while researching this pipeline, best summarized by this (Republican) blogger named “Sebeq” (in 2006): http://greensboring.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=725 Sebeq researched the background of this pipeline and recent related events in the region after learning that a few soldiers in Afghanistan apparently told Henry Rollins they were protecting the pipeline’s interests more than anything else, when Rollins went there on a USO tour.

First, Sebeq provides background related to Iraq—I was surprised to read that apparently Saddam did in fact maintain a WMD program from 1991-2003, essentially “outsourcing” it to Libya, in concert with Qaddhafi. Link: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1219953/posts US intelligence apparently knew this to be true from the early ‘90s on, but the Bush Administration either never got the word (yeah, right) or kept this information from the public (likely).

Next, Sebeq outlines a “chain of events” (and cause-effect) as follows:

1) On 9-7-01 Libya warns US oil companies, giving them one year to resume business or lose their operating licenses—in order to pressure Washington to suspend or lift unilateral sanctions, or failing this, lay the groundwork for the resale of U.S. concessions to Asian, European and Russian oil companies.

2) Wash. DC knew about a possible terrorist attack but allowed it to happen (9-11 attacks)—perhaps Bush & Co. didn’t foresee such devastating, horrific damage resulting from such an attack. Why would Wash. DC do this? We already knew Saddam and Libya were in bed together. Halliburton needed Afghanistan to have a stable and recognized government-- http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/oil.html -- in order to go forth with the Unocal pipeline. They also needed stable/western friendly governments in Iraq, Iran and Pakistan to traffic oil without a hitch from the newly found reserves in the Caspian Sea. So when terror attacks actually materialized, the US had a strategic new enemy, the Taliban.

3) The US/UK and “NATO” moved quickly to take out the Taliban and then Saddam, which effectively opened up access to twice the oil since Libya’s hand was forced. They must surrender the goods/weapons or face likely reprisal.

4) Libya ditched its WMD program-- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3777561.stm , finally made a payoff for the Lockerbie incident and suddenly sanctions were lifted and all was forgiven. Now broke, Libya needed cash, cash that would be generated from the operating licenses and oil reserves untapped for years due to the sanctions.

Crazy theory, huh? Just thought I would throw it out there to chew on.

As for human rights concerns along the path of the proposed Unocal pipeline (Turkmenistan- Afghanistan- Pakistan- India), the Taliban may indeed be among the worst offenders, but they are hardly alone in that regard. Freedomhouse.org ranks Turkmenistan in the top 17 of the “worst of the worst” human rights offenders in the world-- http://www.freedomhouse.org/template...=383&report=81, and to my knowledge, while overall human rights progress has been made in Pakistan since the early ‘90s, plenty of political dissenters remain imprisoned or “disappeared” by Musharraf’s government.

And note that Karzai’s government lately has proven itself sketchy regarding women's rights: http://www.hrw.org/en/news/2009/08/1...hts-again-risk

Just some more ideas and observations. I believe we should at least be aware of possible ulterior economic/corporate motives any time troops are sent around the planet to fight wars that are sometimes marginally understood at best.

mtmynd
Posts: 7415
Joined: August 15th, 2004, 8:54 pm
Location: El Paso

Post by mtmynd » December 4th, 2009, 12:46 am

A nation's power is derived from energy which is produced from primarily oil which fuels far more that most realize. This oil is in demand worldwide and at any cost, so precious a commodity it is. What does the most powerful country in the world reliant on oil for most of it's energy do? We know the answer. What the U.S. must do to assure a continuation of oil, preferably at a affordable cost, is use it's military power to defend it's sources. Any nation in the world would do the same if they had the power the U.S. has.

As the financial power of China continues growing as it has... making damn near everything for everyone worldwide, their financial power continues to be the world bank lending even to the U.S. to prop up it's weaknesses by investing in America's businesses and properties and assuring we will be able to pay back our loans (with interest). Who wouldn't if they lent billions of dollars to a country? Business is business. As long as the U.S. keeps the oil supplies relatively secure worldwide, that insures a certain amount of needed stability in the world to continue having China build, sew, construct and fish for the world market and insures the suppliers to China a source of energy to grow, mine and build for China.

Crazy ass economical world we're living in... nothing is for sure any more for even the U.S.. Everybody is in debt to everyone else to some degree or another... that is economic globalization.

I see Obama as a man who knows this worldwide reliance on oil is fragile and will become more and more expensive to sustain that which we use the oil for. As a world leader he has the foresight to know that we, the collective we of the world, must begin developing these alternative sources of energy for the future generations now. This fragile world we're living in using our resources as quickly and rapidly as we do is leaving our natural world less and less abundant.

We're simply too many people needing food and resources to sustain ourselves. What's a world leader to do when they know how truly difficult this problem is..?

[enough]
_________________________________
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Allow not destiny to intrude upon Now

User avatar
stilltrucking
Posts: 19793
Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
Location: Oz or somepace like Kansas

Post by stilltrucking » December 4th, 2009, 5:07 am

Well said well written. Thanks Cecil
By definition, a government has no conscience. Sometimes it has a policy, but nothing more.
Camus

User avatar
Barry
Posts: 679
Joined: August 14th, 2008, 9:12 pm
Location: Portland, Oregon

Post by Barry » December 4th, 2009, 11:45 am

Indeed, very well written, Cecil.

In my view, it's just that fragility you illustrate within the larger collective "we" that infinitesimally small collectives like Al Qaida, supported by political collectives like the Taliban, given safe haven in countries like Afghanistan and Pakistan, seek to exploit. What I heard in Obama's speech to cadets at West Point was a will to deny these small collectives safe haven from which to operate effectively.

On 9/11, I thought, "Oh, this is the end of terrorism." Meaning, an end to terrorism as an effective tool for meeting political ends, thinking mainly of the west, the IRA in particular, that no longer would any American of Irish descent be able to openly support a terrorist group such as the IRA. In one sense I was right. The IRA is no more. But in another I was totally wrong. In the non-western world, terrorist groups appear to enjoy wide popular support. I've never been able to figure out why, considering far more civilians are killed or injured in terrorist attacks in Iraq and Afghanistan than American soldiers.

Al Qaida is nothing like the IRA was.
What do they fight for?
Where is their oppressed country they seek to liberate?
Who do they fight for?

Al Qaida fights for hatred, envy, the simple joy of messing with the BMOC. And even in the future unified world there will be simple-minded petty little men like Osama bin Laden who want to mess with the BMOC, whatever larger power-structure is in place within the collective community of humanity.

So, the west, not just America, wants a pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to India.
Al Qaida wants them not to have one.

What should the west do?

Peace,
Barry

User avatar
mnaz
Posts: 7019
Joined: August 15th, 2004, 10:02 pm
Location: north of south

Post by mnaz » December 4th, 2009, 2:50 pm

Well, as long as we're all aware of what might really be going on. Even probably what is going on.

In my research I've run across several bloggers, including former marine captain Matthew Hoh, the top civilian official in Afghanistan until two weeks ago, who testify that a massive troop buildup in Afghanistan's maze of valleys (many of them fiercely independent) would invite a high degree of "home-grown resistance" allied with various warlord factions and/or Taliban forces (which would all likely be labeled "the Taliban," or "the insurgency" by our media). The dependency of al Qaeda on "safe haven" under the Taliban is called to question also-- a growing consensus seems to be al Qaeda has morphed into a more widely-dispersed, internet-dependent global network, so in my mind even the global "security" aspect of the mission is suspect, even if invading Afghanistan made sense 8+ years ago.

So, like I say, if we're aware of the primary, underlying economic/corporate reasons driving these wars, even if they may bring some perceived "side benefits," we may still perhaps choose to support their necessity. For me the jury is definitely still out. It's going to be awfully hard to get me to buy into that type of thinking and world view.

Here's an editorial that asks some pertinent questions:
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/opinion/ ... stake.html

User avatar
stilltrucking
Posts: 19793
Joined: October 24th, 2004, 12:29 pm
Location: Oz or somepace like Kansas

Post by stilltrucking » December 6th, 2009, 1:22 am

Nazz thanks for the information about Libya. I wondered about his change of heart. Bush touted it as the success of his foreign policy. What you said makes a lot of sense to me. A real aha moment.

User avatar
Dave The Dov
Posts: 2257
Joined: September 3rd, 2004, 7:22 pm
Location: Madison Wisconsin which is right here
Contact:

Post by Dave The Dov » December 6th, 2009, 5:56 am

I think it's the present following what the past has accomplished. Afghanistan has only known occupation and conflict. Hopefully there will come a day when that will all end. As for the countries that surround Afghanistan. They will be looked at as a source of plunder by the west.

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest