The US isn't in the oil business. It doesn't want or need oil outside of that which it requires to operate and service state assets (public utilities, hospitals etc.). However, it does want to CONTROL Iraq's oil - like it controls pretty much all Middle Eastern reserves (Saudi Arabia might affect independence, but without US aid it would now be an outright Islamic theocracy). In Iraq Bush wanted the power to say which corporations (mainly US - but also foreign when expedient - which is why, in exchange for agreeing to UN Resolution 1441, the French were granted oil rights) get which oil fields.

That said, it was still theft. Iraqis didn't ASK the US to invade. When Saddam was toppled they weren't ASKED whether it would be ok to take their oil. The only reason they have less than 1% oil investment is because hundreds of thousands of people were prepared to risk being blown to pieces by suicide bombers defying the US and protesting illegally (thank you Paul Bremer) in the streets.

In truth Saddam was just a sideshow. The big fear in the US (and other nations) was the threat of Iraqi nationalism. Iraqis overthrowing Saddam (don't forget that Iran was mobilising guerilla actions against the regime at the time) exerting rights over their own oil and - heaven forbid! - spending the profits on themselves (like Chavez in Venezuela) rather than already fabulously wealthy Western oil execs.

So the US put its foot down and here we are.

Don't forget, all this is nothing new. Part of the reason Bush I stopped short of overthrowing Saddam was this very same fear - Iraqis controlling their own oil. And let's recall what was done to Iran when it had the temerity to nationalise its own oil reserves back in the 50s. One of the most reprehensible acts ever perpetrated in the name of "Freedom".

Let me say that I don't believe that Bush, Cheney or any of the others did this purely to cause injury to Iraqis. Like Nixon, Reagan, Wilson, Kennedy (who is a lot closer to Bush than most think) these guys are pathologically schizophrenic (a)moral relativists who REALLY DO think that what's in the West's interests benefits the world and sometimes "tough" choices need to be made - a bit like when Madeline Albright said the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children was "acceptable" if it brought an end to Saddam (which they didn't).

However, outside the Olympian heights of "Men of Best Quality" I think most people would consider such abominable.

This is pretty much on the money.

I never could understand how people who outwardly seemed so concerned with the rise of Islamic fundamentalism, failed time and time again to realize that for now the Baathists were the major and most effective force in dealing with them and keeping them in check. And not only that but they actively worked against them and in favor of every bullshit extremist mullah in the region. Well, all the shit we stirred for all these decades was bound to stink sometime.

And if Mossadegh hadn't been overthrown so shortsightedly in '53 so that the west could have that puppet running Iran, we'd be looking at a completely different situation in the Middle East. One with a secular, Muslim democratic major power in the region, exporting the 'values' all these retarded nation builders are so fond to speak of, organically, via example and not from the barrel of a gun. Have fun never learning from past mistakes, you great statesmen. You might try giving your white man's burden a rest though.

The problem with Iran is that most people in the West haven't the faintest idea about its history, culture or politics. All they see is some firebrand like Ahmadinejad (who is NOT the centre of power) venting his spleen at the US, Israel etc. and take him as being representative of a nutball hardline theocracy (like the Taliban - who, in reality are the sworn enemies of Shia Iran) in which all women wear burkas and everyone lives in an adobe hut.

I won't condone some of Iranian government's actions - but you cannot intelligently discuss Iranian politics without viewing them within the context of history. The Shah - the US & UK's puppet ruler - was one of the most brutal and depraved leaders in modern times. His notorious Savak detention centre was the chamber of horrors into which hundreds of thousands of Iranians were tortured and murdered by butchers WE trained.

And then the war with Iraq. A battle for survival against another tyrant who WE trained and supported. Over a million Iranian dead in a senseless war which achieved nothing.

I'm sure if people were aware of the cruelties inflicted upon Iran there would be far greater sympathy and understanding. There certainly would be no appetite for the sabre rattling that's currently taking place over the nuclear issue (for heaven's sake - the only reason they want a nuke is because it's the only protection they have against the US' naked aggression) . But Iranian history is NEVER discussed in the media. Which leaves only the dubbed or subtitled firebrand making the public feel uneasy.

Iran's complicated, but referring to it as a hardline theocracy is not exactly off the mark.

This is precisely what I mean, tho. Yes, Iran is a theocracy (albeit a highly unusual one) and yes it is repressive. But far too often this label functions as a barrier to any further debate.

They're barbarous religious lunatics so there's little point in thinking any further etc.

What I'm saying is you cannot discuss Iran and its leaders without viewing them against the backdrop of history. Bush (and Obama) seem to think societies can emerge from nearly forty years of violent repression, torture, murder and wholesale slaughter (including the loss of an entire generation fighting a senseless war against a US/Saudi military proxy) and everything will be sweetness and light. Politics just doesn't work that way.

When the Shah was overthrown there was a power vacuum in which a number of very dangerous parties were manoeuvring. Many Iranians were hell-bent on revenge against those who had been involved with the Shah's regime and the atmosphere was thick with violence (the situation wasn't helped by the US' flat-out refusal to hand back the Shah - which led to the hostage crisis and Iran-Contra). With this in mind it is simply inconceivable to think that some kind of harmonious Western democracy was likely to emerge.

I'm certainly not going to condone some of Khomeni's actions - but I think it's reasonable to argue that he stabilised the country when it was threatening to spiral into violent anarchy. Without him Iran would almost certainly be Iraq (which would suit the US).

And let's not forget that it wasn't Iran that used chemical and biological weapons during the war against Iraq. Iran had the capabilities to produce such but Khomeni strictly forbade their use labelling them "barbaric".

Iran is not Afghanistan. It is one of the founding civilisations (then Persia) with more history than most European countries put together. The Iranian people want the same things that we want - a peaceful life.

Yes, we should hold Iran's leaders accountable for their actions (some of which have been morally degenerate). But we must also recognise the despicable role OUR LEADERS have played in bringing Iran to this position as well as the untold suffering they have caused.

Unfortunately the media (taken as a whole) is either unwilling or unable to discuss Iran in any kind of intelligent fashion and seems fixed on a course of de-humanising the nation (highlighting only the fruitcakes whilst totally ignoring the huge number of moderates) as a prelude to some kind of military intervention.

Given that Iran is somewhere down the nuclear line I think this is a serious lapse of ethical practice which could have terrifying implications for us all. Bombs and nuclear material don't mix.

Geoff, Have you read Mark Bowden's Iran book: Guests of the Ayatollah ? It's on my list, looks fascinating.

Back to Afghanistan. No quick fix. We should have a clearer picture of the campaign’s progress by the end of the year. The Taliban have to be convinced that not fighting is more in their interests than fighting. I guess that means bringing some unsavoury characters into the political process.

I think Obama made a big mistake when he announced that the US would start to leave by July 2011. It may have been made for political reasons but now the Taliban think they can just sit it out.


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/...n6995325.shtml


U.S. officials said they have seen isolated indications of slumping morale among some Taliban units, including a reluctance among some mid-level commanders to replace superiors who were captured or killed, apparently out of fear that they might meet the same fate.

But those examples have been offset by other instances in which Taliban succession is almost seamless. In northwestern Bagdhis province, for example, U.S. special operations forces thought they had delivered devastating blows to Taliban guerrillas, killing the group's local leader, Mullah Ismail, as well as his apparent heir, only to watch yet another "shadow governor" take the job.

No. I've read a couple of his articles both of which were on Iraq and I agreed with much of what he said. Other than that I don't know a lot about him. I'll stick the book on my Amazon list. Thanks.

Afghanistan is such a complex conundrum. I think we could have troops there for another two decades and still be no further toward a solution. The other question is what does Obama mean when he says "leave"? We have to remember that the Pentagon is increasingly farming tasks out to private sector corporations such as Blackwater/Xe. To me there seems little point in pulling out say 10,000 men if the same number of mercs go the other way. In many ways the situation is worse as contractors aren't required to meet the army's rules of engagement. And merc deaths aren't recorded.

Private contractors are vital for providing security for aid and reconstruction agencies. If Karzai - who appears to have morphed into a power crazed paranoid loon - follows through on his threat to expel ALL of them it will have disastrous effects on reconstruction:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-11634618

I don't think that Karzai "morphed into" anything. I think he was a bad egg from the start. The US has a lousy track record of getting in bed with bastards and then acting all shocked when they do bastardly things.

Well at the time there wasn't much of an option. They wanted a quick fix and didn't think about the long term.

That's the problem with US interventions. The government always has one eye on the next election and so even if they are needed longer they won't because of the political implications. That's not to say the US intervention is always needed, but another example of why the UN needs a proper well-equipped army.

Karzai was, to anyone who knew, rotten from the get go.

But WHO could have POSSIBLY forseen that Saddam would gas the Kurds? He seemed like such a nice guy when he was hanging with Rumsfeld!

...and that Noriega guy - he seemed such a good bloke to begin with!

...and don't get me started on those freedom-loving, upstanding Mujahideen fellas.

How could US intelligence ever have the notion Karzai was rotten?

Don't misunderstand what I'm saying. Of course the intelligence services knew Karzai was a corrupt scumbag. It probably was the biggest plus on his resume for them.

Mercenaries make me feel very uneasy. Their loyalty is solely to the dollar. They are not bound by the moral or ethical codes woven into the military.

It would be nice to think the pursuit of profit and the pursuit of safety for the men extend in infinite parallel. But US law suggests that the interests of employees are superseded by the money motive. There have been a number of civil actions taken out recently by the families of deceased mercs who they believe were sent on missions they were not trained for, given the wrong (or sub-standard) equipment, instructed to perform tasks outside of their contractual obligations etc.

The extermination of the adult male population of Fallujah was at least partially brought about by mercs either operating in a highly aggressive fashion or completely outside their training.

IMO, the increasing reliance on private armies is a Pandora's box just waiting to bestow its horrors upon us.

As for Karzai. Whilst he is undeniably dirty, I have to stress again that it was only AFTER he started publicly criticising the US (over its bombing campaign, meddling in Kabul etc.) that the US administration and the media painted a bright bullseye on his back.

It's worth mentioning that the US tolerated Hugo Chavez in much the same way until he successfully lobbied OPEC to pump less oil (thus driving up prices and benefiting the poorest citizens of Venezuela) - at which point he suddenly became the Devil Incarnate and Pat Robertson called for his assassination.

Well high oil prices may help the poor in Venezuela - and considering the state controlled media, who's to know exactly happens down there? - but they hurt a lot of other people.

Anyway, Chavez didn't really improve his country's lot by nationalising everything in sight.

In Afghanistan it appears Karzai has back pedalled:

Petraeus and other NATO military leaders have repeatedly enlisted Karzai's support for night raids to help keep the Taliban off balance as NATO tries to establish security and governance across Afghanistan. Western officials believe that the raids are politically difficult for Karzai to endorse publicly because they are an affront to Afghan culture, the official said.

Special operations raids have tripled over the past year. U.S. officials say they have begun to weaken some elements of the Taliban and other militant networks in Afghanistan, frustrating Taliban leaders' ability to receive orders and weapons from their leadership in neighboring Pakistan. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss matters of intelligence.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...111704436.html

There may well be short term military successes but in the long term I can't see a bright future for this long suffering country. Maybe 'less bad' but that's it.

According to whom? The US administration? The media? The incredibly wealthy top 5% of Venezuelan society whose lavish lifestyle is threatened by Chavez? Such sources can hardly be labelled unbiased.

Chavez is no saint. That's for sure. But he has done more to help the poorest people in Venezuela than any other leader in generations. I mean, this isn't even open for debate.

To be honest, I've never had a problem with state-controlled television - provided it is part of the democratic process. Many European democracies (including Britain) for decades got along just fine with state-run TV (often delivering high-quality programming). Whilst I have several issues with the BBC (the most serious being it is only partially democratic) I'd find it impossible to describe it as the tool of dictatorship. Indeed, I'd gladly sweep away ALL commercial TV over here in an eyeblink as I feel it has done far more harm than good.

When Chavez came to power there were something like five commercial channels with only one under state control. The former were run by the richest Venezuelans who were vehemently anti-Chavez. Very soon it became clear that they were working in cahoots with elements of the military and foreign powers angry at Chavez's policy of nationalisation in an attempted coup.

There's an excellent Irish-Finnish documentary called The Revolution Will Not Be Televised (which Harry Knowles gave a good plug for years ago) that details the events leading up to the attempted coup and the despicable actions of commercial Venezuelan TV which I think EVERYONE should watch. It certainly casts a fresh and honest perspective on Chavez and the titanic forces (national and international) pitched against him for control of Venezuela's wealth.

Interesting debate on Afghanistan. Is the country a lost cause:

http://www.npr.org/2010/11/12/131281...n-a-lost-cause

Meanwhile, while the rest of the middle east is waking up to the fact that their people have the power to seize freedom for themselves, the mission to ram freedom down the throats of Afghans by western allied forces at the point of a gun continues on it's successful merry way...

 

bomb attack 'kills 65 civilians'

 

 

I like how the US general seems to measure success by the number of bombs dropped and rounds fired.

The civilian deaths may be exagerated though. Karzai is turning against the US.

Just read that. What the fuck, America.

Here's a link, btw:

 

http://www.rollingstone.com/kill-team

 

 

I could go on a huge rant about why stuff like that are mostly caused by having a fully volunteer, professional army and how democracies should depend on their citizens for their defense. About how the people are so lazy and selfish that they prefer leaving such an important task on any random guy rather than "waste" a couple of years of their lives. About how having an army manned by conscripted citizens would cut down on "adventurous" foreign policy decisions. About how an army that cuts its recruiting pool mostly to those without another recourse sends an open invitation to psychopaths and mouthbreathers such as the above.

 

I'd probably be called a fascist, though. Or an elitist asshole.

The most disturbing part of that article is just how easily they were able to get away with it. Higher ups who just shrug and go "Hey, it happens." I know they won't be held accountable, but what the fuck? What is it with certain organizations where allowing/ignoring this behavior is the preferred way to go?

Maybe because since the essential job of being in the military is to be prepared to kill and be killed, that psycopaths, sociopaths and monstrous fascists are its bread and butter?

 

NOTE: please understand I'm not saying everyone in the military are one of the three options mentioned above. I completely understand many good, mentally and ideologically healthy people join the military for many admirable and honorable reasons - I'm just saying let's not pretend that crazies and fascists aren't attracted to a military life as well and that they can't thrive there in certain capacities.

Being truthful shouldn't make you a fascist or asshole.

 

In the words of George Washington " No foreign entanglements! "

 

I have been called a fascist for advocating mandatory military service before. Not here, but I have been. 

Mandatory military service has some problems with it, but I'm generally in favour of the draft when it's needed. People aren't as likely to vote for warmongers if they know they're likely to be plunked on the front lines.

I don't know where else to put this but my friend wrote an incredible piece for the LA Times book review about teaching Tim O'Brien's The Things They Carried to veterans of these wars, about the role (if any) of art and literature in changing the world or, at least, giving words to these horrible experiences veterans come back with.  It's long but powerful.  Recommend!

 

 

 

The rest is here:  http://lareviewofbooks.org/post/12967278985/the-things-we-carry

http://www.naturalnews.com/034289_Afghanistan_opium_trade.html

 

War on drugs revealed as total hoax - US military admits to guarding, assisting lucrative opium trade in Afghanistan

Wednesday, November 16, 2011 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

 

(NaturalNews) Afghanistan is, by far, the largest grower and exporter of opium in the world today, cultivating a 92 percent market share of the global opium trade. But what may shock many is the fact that the US military has been specifically tasked with guarding Afghan poppy fields, from which opium is derived, in order to protect this multibillion dollar industry that enriches Wall Street, the CIA, MI6, and various other groups that profit big time from this illicit drug trade scheme.

Prior to the tragic events of September 11, 2001, Afghanistan was hardly even a world player in growing poppy, which is used to produce both illegal heroin and pharmaceutical-grade morphine. In fact, the Taliban had been actively destroying poppy fields as part of an effort to rid the country of this harmful plant, as was reported by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette on February 16, 2001, in a piece entitled Nation's opium production virtually wiped out (http://news.google.com/newspapers?n...).

 

But after 9/11, the US military-industrial complex quickly invaded Afghanistan and began facilitating the reinstatement of the country's poppy industry. According to the United Nations Drug Control Program (UNDCP), opium cultivation increased by 657 percent in 2002 after the US military invaded the country under the direction of then-President George W. Bush (http://www.infowars.com/fox-news-ma...).
 

CIA responsible for reinstating opium industry in Afghanistan after 9/11

More recently, The New York Times (NYT) reported that the brother of current Afghan President Hamid Karzai had actually been on the payroll of the CIA for at least eight years prior to this information going public in 2009. Ahmed Wali Karzai was a crucial player in reinstating the country's opium drug trade, known as Golden Crescent, and the CIA had been financing the endeavor behind the scenes (http://www.infowars.com/ny-times-af...).

"The Golden Crescent drug trade, launched by the CIA in the early 1980s, continues to be protected by US intelligence, in liaison with NATO occupation forces and the British military," wrote Prof. Michel Chossudovsky in a 2007 report, before it was revealed that Ahmed Wali Karzai was on the CIA payroll. "The proceeds of this lucrative multibillion dollar contraband are deposited in Western banks. Almost the totality of revenues accrue to corporate interests and criminal syndicates outside Afghanistan" (http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/A...).

 

But the mainstream media has been peddling a different story to the American public. FOX News, for instance, aired a propaganda piece back in 2010 claiming that military personnel are having to protect the Afghan poppy fields, rather than destroy them, in order to keep the locals happy and to avoid a potential "security risk" -- and FOX News reporter Geraldo Rivera can be heard blatantly lying about poppy farmers being financially supported by the Taliban, rather than the CIA and other foreign interests.

You can watch that clip here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aj-b...

So while tens of thousands of Americans continue to be harmed or killed every year by overdoses from drugs originating from this illicit opium trade, and while cultivation of innocuous crops like marijuana and hemp remains illegal in the US, the American military is actively guarding the very poppy fields in Afghanistan that fuel the global drug trade. Something is terribly wrong with this picture.

I'm skeptical of these claims from people who clearly have it in for the US and Britain and think everything they do is a grand conspiracy.

The funny thing is, there is worldwide shortage of morphine, which can be made from opium. So they SHOULD be protecting and cultivating it! Then less might be mafe into Heroin.

Well that begs another question of which I don't know the answer. Is Morphine harder to extract than heroin?

 

As far as grand conspiracies go what are your thoughts on drug running that was going on during the Vietnam War?

 

That video they linked to clearly shows the US Troops protecting warlord poppy fields.

 

Conspiracy or not its not good.

That's funny, I'm skeptical of people who claim any criticism of the US is from people who "clearly have it in" for them, regardless of the evidence.

 

The US is the biggest world superpower. They have a massive effect on everything that happens in the geopolitical and societal sphere. That's not conspiracy thinking, it's common sense.

Approaching this story as an Afghanistan veteran, the shitbag responsible for this absolutely should be turned over to the Afghan government for trial. To fail to do so will be to tell every man, woman and child in the country, "your government doesn't get to decide whether or not you should be murdered in your home. We get to decide that."

Discuss.

Wouldn't that more accurately be, "Your government doesn't get to punish someone who murders you in your home, we do"?

 

I agree, but the Right is already foaming at the mouth that Obama issued an apology for this horrible act. If we even breath a word about turning this guy over, they'll go even more Bugfuck than they already are.

The only viable solution in this whole debacle is to withdraw. There's no 'peace with honor' to be gained, and only the loss of more blood and treasure. At this point, I am not concerned about terrorists coming there to set up camp.  Once we withdraw, we can use our long range might to stop on the anthills as they appear. Sure, we can't get them all, but we're doing such a bang up job now. At least we can avoid further one man massacres like this. As for handing him over, sure. There's no saving a man that's done something like this. We need to get out before we create more men like him.

 

Should that really factor into what 'should' happen tho? What probably will and why, yeah - but does American foreign politicy now hinge on the opinions of a group of people that ethics, honour, morality and a higher nobler purpose are as alien to as their mexican housemaids?

That's really the rage factor for me. The imbeciles that got us into this shit just got to wipe their hands and walk away while dutiful Americans and foreign combatants and civilians were still dying by the truckload. And they're the first to complain when a decent human being tries to fix it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Interesting, in a depressing sort of way, that Afghanistan was supposed to be the slam dunk and Iraq was going to end up as Vietnam 2. 

Here's hoping we dodge the next war on the horizon.  From a military standpoint,  it's hopeless for Israel to take out enough of the Iranian nuclear installations to stop them for good.  The North Koreans have caved under the restriction, maybe the Iranians will as well. It's in everyone's best interest, geopolitically, to keep the area relatively stable and non-radioactive. If the Israeli's do have all those nukes in subs in the Med, willing to launch should any nukes hit Israel...well, it's not a comforting thought at all.

Part of me wishes WW2 had been a lot murkier morally than it was. We've been suffering under the deluded myth of the "good war" for a fucking long time now and it only keeps getting us into trouble.

Turn him over. Yeah, I'm sure he saw some horrible shit during his 4 tours in Iraq but he still committed a crime in their country. But with the election looming there's no way Obama will break the agreement to conduct Afgharn military trials in the US.

Reasor, in your experience did Afghans want us to stay or are they sick of us? (Before this massacre).

I was there from April '04 to May '05; it was a completely different county.

Feelings were pretty high, back then. The seven year drought broke, which was amazing. The people elected Hamid Karzai their President, which was this bizarre made-for-American-TV affirmation of the authority he already held as the chieftain of the tribe that had dominated the Kabul area before the Taliban had chased their leadership out. Local holidays that had been banned by the Taliban were being celebrated again, schools were being built for the children, and it still felt like some good had been done.

Things were pretty awesome for some people, and those few were glad to have us around. The interpreters who worked at the base in Kabul were local nationals who had to wear scarves to hide their identities and take back routes to get home. As the detachment that was to replace us arrived and we packed up to transition back home through Bagram, the first incident of a Koran being thrown into a toilet at Guantanamo and the resulting civil unrest in Kabul was all just getting started. I dodged a bullet, not having to deal with all that. I went the hell home. The folks back home had reelected George Bush, my term of service had already expired, and I was just hanging around because the "stop loss" backdoor draft required me to stay until the unit as a whole had completed its assignment.

Funniest thing about the country is that there's no real sense of national identity, at all, at all. These are tribes, some of them nomadic, that the British just drew a line around a few generations ago. Until, of course, somebody unites them by murdering piles of civilians, as we've been doing in one hell of a lot of isolated instances.
Edited by Reasor - 3/13/12 at 9:10am

My brother in law was in Kabul about that time. Maybe a bit later. It was pretty uneventful besides from a few shelling alarms. Even the convoys outside of the main camp were pretty chill. But that may be because Greeks, army included, are looked upon quite favorably in the Middle East for some reason.

Seems like something is wrong at Joint Base Lewis Mcchord (close to home for me).

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/blogpost/post/afghanistan-shooting-suspect-came-from-lewis-mcchord-most-troubled-base-in-the-military/2012/03/12/gIQApIdJ7R_blog.html

 

 

 

It's also where the 'Kill-team' murderers came from.

even more problematic....

 

 

 

 

I was also reminded of this other story I recently heard about, which has seriously bad guys left in place and command apparently ignoring a few warning signs.

 

I saw someone ask this on another forum, and it's a little rude but, why is it always Americans who do this kind of thing?  So I got to thinking, is it?  It's true you don't often hear about members of other Western and developed nations' forces going off the deep end like this (I can't think of any off hand).  Is it just 'cause there's usually less of them?  You do hear that sort of "We're fighting the worst people imaginable" kind of backhanded justification for extremes of discipline and ruthlessness.