Monday, July 14, 2008

Obama calls Iraq Enormous Opportunity, Bush"contemplates" necessity of increased withdrawal! Afghanistan increasingly fails,something Dawned on me!

While I have said for years countless times that Bush has to stay in Iraq until he finds the excuse to get war with Iran going and that was only one of the reasons 9/11 and the Patriot act happened. However knowing this Bush instigated middle east breakdown is well underway and will not be quelled I started rethinking events in the area! We know the war hierarchy has been changed to facilitate Bush being able to instigate war with Iran. We know last week a carrier was moved from the Gulf to the Afghanistan area so the fighters could supposedly be used in Afghanistan but of course they could just as easily be used against Iran if need be! We also know Bush has been given by Congress $400 million to be used in Iran to topple the Government. That has always backfired and this will be no exception! Of course when questioned American Authorities said they are not conducting cross border operations from Iraq to Iran to topple the Government but the dinks didn't lie they just didn't tell the truth!

They are going into Iran from Afghanistan! We keep hearing the Iraqi's saying they have destroyed terrorism there and want us out ASAP. However Bush says no! That tells me they are not a sovereign Nation. They are a Bush Satellite to future war and hopeful monetary gain with their oil! There are still 2 million permanent refugees in Iraq and the Government still cannot supply anywhere near the utilities and societal infrastructure and security Saddam did! However it is time to go before we are humiliated and forced to leave as we did in Vietnam! I was in at the time and it really hurt seeing me humiliated that way! That said it is way past the time for Iraq and the world to see what they do with this so called opportunity to have a Democracy and put our focus back on Afghanistan where it should be!

As Bush used Saddam as the excuse to attack Iraq he used unseating the Taliban as the excuse to go after Afghanistan. Destroying Afghanistan's ability to house and fund so called terrorists and Al Qaeda could have been done without a full scale war here but like Iraq that was not the goal but only a step to go after the original goal Iran and get this new (dis)order war going full scale. As a result as in Iraq we may not have liked the way things were done but it worked and kept their version of order. The Taliban had opium essentially eradicated. Thanks to Bush the country now makes more than the world can use and he has single handedly given Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or whatever you call them a steady income! As you know while Bush and McSame brag about the surge working and how successful Iraq is they keep forgetting to mention America is failing and so too is Afghanistan. Let's look at the latest in that end!

not just what we discussed and the increased killings along with the Prison break freeing 400 hundred Taliban but The Nato-led effort to subdue the Taliban suffered one of its heaviest blows since the 2001 invasion yesterday when nine US soldiers were killed and 15 other Nato troops injured in a day-long battle in a region close to the Pakistan border. The US troops died as their base came under attack in Kunar province, eastern Afghanistan. The news puts further pressure on Pakistan, where coalition forces believe many Taliban militants are based. It was among the biggest losses for the coalition since the start of the war. The fighting was set off after a multi-pronged militant assault on a small, remote US base. Militants fired machine guns, rocket-propelled grenades and mortars from homes and a mosque in the village of Wanat, in Kunar, a mountainous region that borders Pakistan, Nato's International Security Assistance Force (Isaf) said.

The attack began at 4.30am and lasted throughout the day, claiming the lives of nine Americans and dozens of Taliban. It was the deadliest incident for US troops in Afghanistan since June 2005, when 16 troops were killed when their helicopter was shot down by a rocket-propelled grenade. A spokesman for Isaf in Kabul said last night: "We defended this base. There are still some operations on-going. The insurgents were repulsed and there is no fighting now but they might pop up again." There were "heavy casualties" among the Taliban, according to the coalition. With 28 soldiers killed, June was the deadliest month for coalition forces since 2001. July is looking to be costly in military and civilian terms. Earlier this month, the bombing of the Indian embassy in Kabul killed 41. The Afghan authorities accused Pakistan's ISI intelligence agency of orchestrating the bombing. Earlier yesterday, a suicide bomber on a motorcycle killed 24 people, many of them children, in the southern province of Uruzgan. A gun battle in Helmand province, also in the south, killed more than 40 militants, the coalition said. Another attack in Helmand left an Isaf soldier dead - the nationality was not disclosed.

* Elsewhere, Taliban militants killed two women in central Afghanistan after accusing them of working as prostitutes on a US base. The women, dressed in burkas, were shot and killed on Saturday just outside Ghazni city in central Afghanistan.Taliban suicide bombs have killed more than 230 civilians and wounded nearly 500 this year. There are signs that Washington is losing patience with Pakistan for not stopping the use of its tribal area as a safe haven for Taliban and al-Qaida. Worse, parts of Pakistan's security apparatus are suspected of secretly supporting the Taliban. There are fears in Pakistan that the US could attack militants based on Pakistan's side of the border, concern that will be heightened by the scale of the US casualties yesterday. On Saturday, the head of the US military, Admiral Mike Mullen, made a surprise visit to Islamabad with a blunt message: cooperate in the "war on terror" or face unilateral US intervention. Britain has already signaled that Afghanistan has become a higher priority than Iraq, as it draws down troops from Basra and steps up its involvement in Helmand. There were signs at the weekend that Washington may be considering a similar switch, as it emerged that George Bush is deliberating faster troop withdrawals from Iraq during his final months in the White House. The New York Times reported yesterday that as many as three of the 15 combat brigades in Iraq could be withdrawn by the time he leaves office. Afghanistan getting worse and will get a lot worse

Britain is right afghanistan has one again become the front in the so called war on terror!
* Obama is also right! In an op-ed piece in Monday's New York Times, embraced Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki's recent call for a timetable for American troops to leave Iraq as "an enormous opportunity." The presumptive Democratic presidential nominee's column, titled "My Plan for Iraq," repeated his pledge that "on my first day in office, I would give the military a new mission: ending this war." Obama wrote that U.S. troops would be redeployed from Iraq to "focus on the broader security challenges that we face" and that "unlike Senator McCain, I would make it absolutely clear that we seek no presence in Iraq similar to our permanent bases in South Korea."

Ending the Iraq war is necessary so that the United States can focus on Afghanistan and Pakistan, "where the Taliban is resurgent and Al Qaeda has a safe haven," he wrote. "Iraq is not the central front in the war on terrorism, and it never has been," he wrote. "As Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, recently pointed out, we won't have sufficient resources to finish the job in Afghanistan until we reduce our commitment to Iraq," Obama wrote. Redirect troops to Afghanistan

* With up to 10,000 additional troops asked for in Afghanistan and 100 more MRAP's those idiots better get off their duffs and start refocusing on Afghanistan and leave Iraq to the demise Bush created for them. I think even Bush is getting it as war with Iran is getting closer thanks to him! Citing administration and military officials, The New York Times reported Sunday that although no final decision has been made, additional troops could begin departing in September, and at least one and as many as 3 of the 15 combat brigades in Iraq could either be withdrawn or scheduled for withdrawal by the time President Bush leaves office.

The report references the need for additional troops in Afghanistan, where efforts by the Taliban have increased, as a cause for the consideration to withdraw troops. Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen have both said they want to begin shifting focus from Iraq to Afghanistan, and to withdrawal forces from Iraq based on conditions on the ground. If Iraq remains on the positive trends through September, removing additional troops would be the logical next step. Speaking on CBS' "Face the Nation," Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking Republican Dick Lugar said it may not be so easy to leave Iraq because Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki has several political problems, including provincial elections, a fragile security in Anbar that could delay a Status of Forces Agreement and individual provincial leaders attempting to make independent oil deals that ignore how the revenues are to be distributed.

"As far as our troops are concerned, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, has indicated we need troops in Afghanistan. But he has no troops to send to Afghanistan," Lugar, R-Ind., said. "So it is logical in the military sequence that we are going to move troops out of Iraq, not immediately perhaps to Afghanistan, but at least to relieve the strain, which is intense right now upon our armed forces. And that is why it may make sense." Bush Weighs Stepped Up Pace of Iraq Withdrawal

* The pace shoud be stepped up but nothing is going to prevent the total middle east and world breakdown Bush Guaranteed day one! It dawned on me that I keep saying Bush wants to stay in Iraq until he can go to war with Iran but knowing Bush is sending troops clandestinely from Afghanistan into Iran and believing that it is do or die for Iraq and they have to step up and deal with Iran if she attacks because of Bush. we shoud there for consolidate in Afghanistan and the war monger Bush can instigate Iran from there. We need Obama!

James Joiner
Gardner Ma


Brother Tim said...

We need to withdraw from both Iraq and Afghanistan. Few seem to realize the root of the terrorist problem: OUR troops on THEIR sovereign soil; our constant and incessant meddling in their affairs. We are bullies. We pick on countries much smaller and weaker than ourselves. You don't see us poking the stick at China, Russia, or India. As Chairman Mao said many years ago, "We can afford to lose a couple million people, can you?" THAT'S why we don't mess with them.

You don't see the terrorists staging attacks on Switzerland or Mexico. Why not? Because they don't have troops over there killing their citizens and destroying their countries.

For every insurgent or terrorist we kill, we create 10 or 12 new ones. These people are tribal and family oriented. The situation is steadily growing worse. We are totally oblivious to the history of the region. WE CANNOT WIN. We can bomb the snot out of them, we can occupy them till hell freezes over; but we CANNOT defeat them.

We are only pissing in the wind, and it's blowing back on our shoes. Beating your head against a brick wall will only result in a bloody headache. We've made a mistake and it's time to own up to it and make the necessary corrections. Staying the course on our hegemonious foreign policy will only lead to our demise.

You may well be right about Bush pushing for a new world order. The problem is: It won't be Bush and his minions at the helm; it will likely be China or Russia, or a combination of the two. While we war ourselves into bankruptcy, China and Russia are filling their war chests. Nobody talks about the massive amounts of oil it takes to execute war. We don't domesticly produce enough to fulfil the task.

History shows that Imperialism and Empires are not sustainable, they implode and collapse under their own weight. Our Founding Fathers realized that when they included a non-interventionist clause in the Constitution. Our military was designed to be used for protecting our borders, not intervention on foreign sovereign land.

If we continue with these arrogant and greedy policies, the world will soon ban together and take the bully out. Even with our 10,000+ nuclear arsenal, we can still be brought to our knees. Are we so pig-headed that we will destoy the planet and all mankind with it, rather than own up to our mistakes and change our ways?

Arrogance and pride are the two cardinal sins, and we are guilty of both. It's time to bring home all troops, not just in Iraq and Afghanistan, but in all other foreign lands as well. We have closed, and continue to close, hundreds of military bases and installations in the U.S., while building more in foreign lands. Our military strength is being stretched so much, it is bordering on plasticity.

We are living in a state of denial, thinking that no one is capable of attacking the American mainland. We may soon be rudely awakened.

You can have all the high-tech weaponry, military hardware, and systems like HAARP, but to win a war, you need boots on the ground, period.

Were we to have a large scale invasion by, say, the Chinese (there are already millions here, with the restaurants to feed them), could we get our profesional fighting forces home in enough time to repel them? We are told daily by our government, that we can't have a speedy and precipitous withdrawal because of the logistics. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

an average patriot said...

you are always right on. I wish we mattered. I have said a million times that the Muslims want us off all their lands so what does the idiot do he attacks them. WTF! Purposeful blatant instigation to war period.
I remember growing up I always feared the Chinese would just walk in and overwhelm us but we are doing it ourselves and it is being done by our own President!
We are pissing the world off on purpose that is why I keep saying Bush practices the politics if instigation. The whole goal is war and far into the future. The world is rallying to take Bush on and the new world order will be total (dis)order. From stem to stern this entire mess is just beginning. Hold on, take care, and stay with me. By the way did it ever work with your boat trip!

Brother Tim said...

Great Blue Angels Show Sunday! A lot of civilian aircraft and a couple of fly-overs by Fat Albert, a C-130. The weather was great for the show, but by the time we got back to the marina, all hell broke loose. Mooring and tying up a 45 footer in a severe thunderstorm is NOT an enjoyable experience. We were about 15 minutes too late.

C'est la vie..... We had a good time.

an average patriot said...

just a question but what would make a 130 special? Paint job or something? Glad you had a great time. You must have gotten caught in one of those daily storms I heard about or it was pretty severe and the harbor unprotected. Glad you had a good time and no problems! Take care1 A little somber today for some reason but I wil be by!

Brother Tim said...

What makes Fat Albert, the C-130, so popular down here is it's painted like a Blue Angel and the pilot puts it through some terrific maneuvers; like a 45 degree dive, which is pretty impressive for a craft of that size.

an average patriot said...

Okay I see! I have only seen 130's take off and land during operations. Never heard of one being used for acrobatics. Joe said some day he will take me up on his c17 that I am looking forward to. Take care!

Larry said...

Must be hell to be sitting ducks in two countries and know there is no end in sight.

Karen said...

"We need Obama!"

Yes we do!!

Minnesotablue said...


an average patriot said...

That is putting it lightly. As you know, this Forever War is just beginning. Just watch all this upcoming war Bush set the foundation for will not be avoided regardless of who is President!
My son in Iraq right now and just reenlisted says he is a physical basket case. he is a very tough strong ex wrestler but the multiple deployments are taking a physical if not mental toll! He said humping the mountains in Afghanistan was the worst. He is EOD so beside the standard 70 pound pack he is the leader so carries an additional 50 pounds of explosives plus. Right now he said it it 113 but will be 130 in a month. What is next for these abused Patriots?

an average patriot said...

Hey Karen
Long time no hear! We have to have Obama. It will make no difference to our future wars but he is our best bet right now. That New Yorker picture really pissed me off and is by design very destructive to getting Obama elected!

an average patriot said...

Hi Minnesota! Missed you and same applies to you! Long time no hear! We have to have Obama. It will make no difference to our future wars but he is our best bet right now. That New Yorker picture really pissed me off and is by design very destructive to getting Obama elected! Hope all is well with you and yours!

John Maszka said...

In the 1950s, in the wake of Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” plan, Pakistan obtained a 125 megawatt heavy-water reactor from Canada. After India’s first atomic test in May 1974, Pakistan immediately sought to catch up by attempting to purchase a reprocessing plant from France. After France declined due to U.S. resistance, Pakistan began to assemble a uranium enrichment plant via materials from the black market and technology smuggled through A.Q. Khan. In 1976 and 1977, two amendments to the Foreign Assistance Act were passed, prohibiting American aid to countries pursuing either reprocessing or enrichment capabilities for nuclear weapons programs.

These two, the Symington and Glenn Amendments, were passed in response to Pakistan’s efforts to achieve nuclear weapons capability; but to little avail. Washington’s cool relations with Islamabad soon improved. During the Reagan administration, the US turned a blind eye to Pakistan’s nuclear weapon’s program. In return for Pakistan’s cooperation and assistance in the mujahideen’s war against Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, the Reagan administration awarded Pakistan with the third largest economic and military aid package after Israel and Egypt. Despite the Pressler Amendment, which made US aid contingent upon the Reagan administration’s annual confirmation that Pakistan was not pursuing nuclear weapons capability, Reagan’s “laissez-faire” approach to Pakistan’s nuclear program seriously aided the proliferation issues that we face today.

Not only did Pakistan continue to develop its own nuclear weapons program, but A.Q. Khan was instrumental in proliferating nuclear technology to other countries as well. Further, Pakistan’s progress toward nuclear capability led to India’s return to its own pursuit of nuclear weapons, an endeavor it had given up after its initial test in 1974. In 1998, both countries had tested nuclear weapons. A uranium-based nuclear device in Pakistan; and a plutonium-based device in India
Over the years of America's on again off again support of Pakistan, Musharraf continues to be skeptical of his American allies. In 2002 he is reported to have told a British official that his “great concern is that one day the United States is going to desert me. They always desert their friends.” Musharraf was referring to Viet Nam, Lebanon, Somalia ... etc., etc., etc.,

Taking the war to Pakistan is perhaps the most foolish thing America can do. Obama is not the first to suggest it, and we already have sufficient evidence of the potentially negative repercussions of such an action. On January 13, 2006, the United States launched a missile strike on the village of Damadola, Pakistan. Rather than kill the targeted Ayman al-Zawahiri, al-Qaeda’s deputy leader, the strike instead slaughtered 17 locals. This only served to further weaken the Musharraf government and further destabilize the entire area. In a nuclear state like Pakistan, this was not only unfortunate, it was outright stupid. Pakistan has 160 million Arabs (better than half of the population of the entire Arab world). Pakistan also has the support of China and a nuclear arsenal.

I predict that America’s military action in the Middle East will enter the canons of history alongside Hiroshima, Nagasaki and the Holocaust, in kind if not in degree. The Bush administration’s war on terror marks the age in which America has again crossed a line that many argue should never be crossed. Call it preemption, preventive war, the war on terror, or whatever you like; there is a sense that we have again unleashed a force that, like a boom-a-rang, at some point has to come back to us. The Bush administration argues that American military intervention in the Middle East is purely in self-defense. Others argue that it is pure aggression. The consensus is equally as torn over its impact on international terrorism. Is America truly deterring future terrorists with its actions? Or is it, in fact, aiding the recruitment of more terrorists?

The last thing the United States should do at this point and time is to violate yet another state’s sovereignty.

an average patriot said...

Welcome! You are entirely right! Once again it will backfire on us and lead to more war. That may have been an accidental repercussion in the past but it appears to be the goal today!
Because of the war mongering chief scum you now have to question our entire past as to why we really went to war as we are always at it!