Obama administration warns of rise in US casualties in the Middle East

I would probably agree with you if I hadn't just worked 20 hours... my head just hurts from trying to read everything... oi...

What a profoundly evil thought...

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight! And where do you think all that radiation is going to go??

The enhanced neutron bomb with a proper air burst leaves little fallout (long term substances) behind. Yes, clean enough to send troops in only hours later.

Not a comment on the morality, only on the technology

Of course you despise my comments, that's because I speak the truth. I have been in Waziristan, actually, a wild and beautiful country and a wild, proud and beautiful people. I have not had the occasion of going to Gaza, to my regret.

I live in reality, not in your delusional nightmare of a box, and I never gloss over the brutality of terrorists - that is why I am so vehemently outspoken and against the Zionists in Israel and their psychopathic military minions. I am glad to hear that truth makes you sick, it might help you rid yourself of your pathological delusions. The Palestinian people are indeed the victims of Zionism, as you would know if you had the first iota of a smattering of knowledge of history.

I am neither ignorant nor racist, those are attributes best ascribed to yourself.

Al Qaeda In Iraq, the organization, was not in Iraq until 2004. -The Iraq Study Group

Al Qaeda was involved in 9/11 only inasmuch as it was the CIA and the Mossad who perpetrated that false-flag attack and Al Qaeda being a CIA organization.

"The locals" are -opium dealers- and -warlords-. Criminals by anyone's definition.

They're really not much better than Al-Qaeda or the Taliban.

I agree that just sending more troops is not the way to win in Afghanistan (if it can be won) but "staying the course" DEFINITELY isn't the way to win.

Thank you for providing some ground truth!

You mean Bush's strategy of bribing local warlords and sending a bare bones special forces unit is a more effective way of occupying a country than sending troops to actually occupy it yourself?

You're such a fucking tool dabne.

Saladin.

Don't make me laugh. Your knowledge of the conflict is about as bare bones as your statement.

And your knowledge, dabne, is boneless, at best. Al Qaeda is a CIA organization, and the only purpose of our militaries fighting in Afghanistan is to make the building of the Unocal pipeline possible, after which they will remain for decades in order to protect it.

lol, "we occupied a country for profit." -- the statement doesn't speak as to whether or not profit was realized, only that profit of some sort was a motivation.

Next time montesooma, you might want to understand what you write.

I will direct you to two documentary films.
Iraq For Sale
Iraq's Decent into Chaos: No End In Sight

Booth detail the BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars leveraged against debt that were awarded to Corpoations via "no-bid" contracts. Some of those companies are, Haliburton, KBR, CACI and Blackwater. Look at their earnings over the passed 8 years and then kiss my ass. If you want to discuss the profit and residuals from Pipelines, Natural Gas from Russia, and elephant oil fields in Iraq then I think you may have some homework to do first. Good day.

I didn't know there were any casualties among those who perpetrated 9/11, i.e. the Neocons.

An endless war is just a waste.

There is no such thing as killing people for the right reasons. It is always wrong to kill people, whatever the reasons.

It's an ENDLESS no-win. Don't fool yourself.

I see that you simply cannot handle truth and facts.

Of course! Tried and true tactic. Attack the messenger rather than provide credible well sourced info to back up your assertions. I have read links you provided in the past and some have been quite informative. Some fall under the heading of propagandistic tripe--but I enjoy reading them anyway. Dialogue! Expose the simulacra.

The only bs and simulacra are the official stories and zany conspiracy theories pushed by the Bush administration, and only the kool-aid drinkers were taken in by them.

The Neocons promised the Taliban a carpet of gold if they accepted, or a carpet of bombs if they refused. The Taliban refused, knowing full well that the crumbs they were being offered for allowing the pipeline to be built was both an insult and a tiny fraction of what they normally pay other countries. Hence, the war. People knew about that war before 9/11 - those who were paying attention and keeping themselves informed, that is.

Let me refresh your memory (if you've forgotten), or inform you (if you didn't know):

Jane's Defense - India Joined US led plan against Afghanistan in March 2001.

"India joins anti-Taliban coalition"

By Rahul Bedi

India is believed to have joined Russia, the USA and Iran in a concerted front against Afghanistan's Taliban regime.

http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/jir/jir010315_1_n.shtm...

*

India Reacts - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JUNE 2001.

In this article published in India in the summer of 2001 the Indian Government announces that it will support America's PLANNED military incursion into Afghanistan.

India in anti-Taliban military plan

India and Iran will "facilitate" the planned US-Russia hostilities against the Taliban.

By Our Correspondent

26 June 2001: India and Iran will "facilitate" US and Russian plans for "limited military action"
against the Taliban if the contemplated tough new economic sanctions don't bend Afghanistan's fundamentalist regime. The Taliban controls 90 per cent of Afghanistan and is advancing northward along the Salang highway and preparing for a rear attack on the opposition Northern Alliance from
Tajikistan-Afghanistan border positions.

Indian foreign secretary Chokila Iyer attended a crucial session of the second Indo-Russian joint working group on Afghanistan in Moscow amidst increase of Taliban's military activity near the Tajikistan border. And, Russia's Federal Security Bureau (the former KGB) chief Nicolai Patroshev is visiting Teheran this week in connection with Taliban's military build-up.

Indian officials say that India and Iran will only play the role of "facilitator" while the US and Russia will combat the Taliban from the front with the help of two Central Asian countries, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to push Taliban lines back to the 1998 position 50 km away from Mazar-e-Sharief city in northern Afghanistan.

Military action will be the last option though it now seems scarcely avoidable with the UN banned from Taliban controlled areas. The UN which adopted various means in the last four years to resolve the Afghan problem is now being suspected by the Taliban and refused entry into Taliban areas of the war ravaged nation through a decree issued by Taliban chief Mullah Mohammad Omar last month.

http://www.indiareacts.com/archivefeatures/nat2.asp?recno=10∓ctg=policy

Yes, the book, " Forbidden Truth" tells it all. It is always about OIL.

More:

BBC - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001.

US 'planned attack on Taleban'

The wider objective was to oust the Taleban

By the BBC's George Arney

A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin. Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.

The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah. Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.

He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby. Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.

He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks. And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/world/south_asia/newsid_1550000/1550366.stm

*

MSNBC - Afghanistan war plans were on Bush's desk on 9/9/2001

President Bush was expected to sign detailed plans for a worldwide war against al-Qaida two days before Sept. 11 but did not have the chance before the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, U.S. and foreign sources told NBC News. ... The plan dealt with all aspects of a war against al-Qaida, ranging from diplomatic initiatives to military operations in Afghanistan, the sources said on condition of anonymity.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/

But AQ was not started by the CIA.

Brendan,

I agree with what you say about American intelligence and its culpability. I just wanted to point out that AQ was not a CIA creation.

Samthesixth, Al Qaeda is the name the CIA gave to its database of the Mujahedins it recruited, trained, equipped, and financed, to fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan. It is indeed a CIA operation.

Just because we were once allied with a given entity does not mean we are responsible for all their actions, past, present or future. Sometimes varying forces form temporary alliances to fight a common enemy. Remember, we were once allied with Stalin against Hitler. Did that mean we were responsible for Stalin's atrocities? Of course not, and as soon as WW2 was over our long, cold war with the USSR began.

So yeah, America was originally supportive of Bin Laden and the "mujihadeen" in Afghanistan in their rebellion against the Soviet Empire. Our main objective at that time was the defeat of the USSR, so the alliance seemed natural. There was no way for the US to know that these "mujihadeen" would eventually evolve into the global, terrorist movement it has become. Even if we had forseen it, we might have helped them fight the USSR anyways. You gotta deal with present threats before you deal with future threats. I'm just saying, the fact we once supported Bin Laden when he was not a threat to us does not take away from our right to oppose his movement now that he is. Deal with reality.

America was also originally supportive of Saddam Hussein in Iraq's war against Iran. When choosing sides between a secular dictator in Iraq and the theocracy of religious fundamentalists in Iran, the US chose Saddam. That didn't mean that we were responsible for the brutal crimes he later committed on his own people or surrounding countries, nor did it take away from our right to oppose him once it was clear our objectives were no longer in sync and that he was a threat to our interests and security.

This is the way of the world. It's dynamic, and alliances shift with changing priorities. Yesterdays enemy can be todays friends- look at Japan and Germany.

The Pakistani government is incapable of taking on the extremists in Waziristan because there are extremists all over Pakistan, including in the military and intelligence services, and any real attempt to destroy the terrorist strongholds could lead to civil war. Taking out the terrorists is something we'll have to do ourselves. It was right when Bush did it, and it will be even more right if Obama ups the ante as he promised. I have my doubts he'll keep his promise, but I sure as hell hope he does.

I know that I am a very opinionated person but you, you live in some kind of delusional fantasy world. Al Qaeda a CIA operation? How wonderful it must be for you to solve all the complex issues of the world by fantasies of world spanning conspiracies by the Zionists, CIA and knights Templar.

V,
I would love to see a source on your claim that the CIA named AQ. According to Zawahiri in his book, and Messages of the World, and Looming Tower, the name came from within, not from any westerners. The CIA did not have a name for UBL's organization until much later in the game. The fact that AQ is "the Base" has nothing to do with any databases the CIA may have kept.

Thank you for the interesting thoughts and threads!

For your edification, mik661:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=7713

http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/jan/17/yemen.islam

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22082

I could posts dozens and dozens more, but once you get through these, perhaps you will get the gist and realize that I do not live in a fantasy world, but you certainly do. Furthermore, I don't believe in nor promulgate world-spanning conspiracies by the Zionists and the Knights Templar - you have made a total fool of yourself by claiming that I do so.

samthesixth, to answer your request:

Bin Laden was, though, a product of a monumental miscalculation by western security agencies. Throughout the 80s he was armed by the CIA and funded by the Saudis to wage jihad against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan. Al-Qaida, literally "the database", was originally the computer file of the thousands of mujahideen who were recruited and trained with help from the CIA to defeat the Russians.

--Robin Cook (Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of the United Kingdom, and therefore in a position to know exactly what he was talking about)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jul/08/july7.development

V,

I agree with your (or Cook's) assessment of UBL's activities in the 80s. I still don't think that rises to the level of full CIA control. Certainly he can think for himself and could back then. Surely the CIA bears some responsibility but not all. If we look at the 80s, the Saudi's had far more control over the operation than the CIA. Cook is an interesting source but I am not sure he is more of a source than Zawahiri or UBL. And I thought al translates as "the" and qaeda as "base." Data is nowhere in there.

Thanks for the response.

Samthesixth, one thing you seem to have forgotten (if you ever knew it) is that once a CIA asset, always a CIA asset - the CIA will never let go of an asset save to use the asset as a patsy or fall-guy for some false-flag operation or other - just as in the Mafia (with which the CIA is inextricably interlinked).

V,

I just don't think the CIA is as powerful as you think they are. I think it is misleading (at best) to state that UBL or AQ is a CIA creation or is some how controlled by the CIA. So the CIA and UBL at one time shared a common enemy; times change as they did for Roosevelt and Stalin.

You state that the CIA will never let go of an asset. Sure they do. It's called termination. Could the asset let go of the CIA? Does having a common enemy make one an asset? A puppet?

Yes, I suppose the intelligence is perfect now too. And prolonging this land war in Afghanistan is a fools' errand. If you had paid attention to the result of that in the 80s you would understand that this will go on for decades and do nothing but exacerbate the hatred that started it all. We can use international law enforcement to bring terrorists to justice. War is an answer only when you have failed otherwise. You simply want to praise Obama like Bush supporters praised him and his warmongering.There is no such thing as a "right war." That is simply a propaganda slogan. And don't throw 9/11 at me like the Bushies did to intimate that if I am against escalating this it makes me UnAmerican. I didn't put up with that rhetoric from Bush supporters, and I won't put up with it from Obama supporters who all of sudden think war is a good thing. What hypocrisy. But I will tell you the same thing I told many a Bush supporter: you want this war, go fight in it. Don't think my child is going to be sacrificed to keep the war machine happy.

Go re-read my comment. I merely used 911 as a reference in time. Al Qaeda is stronger and there a more deaths globally by the use of terror tactics now than there was even then. Is that clear enough. I assume by your tone that you have a diplomatic alternative to fighting Al Qaeda in the Peshwar, hum? I'd love to here about it. Do tell........

@ Janforgore

International Law Enforcement? What are you talking about? There is no such thing... at least not in the way you envision it. The UN peacekeeping forces are a joke. Terrorists also tend to set up camp in lawless countries or in countries that actually support them. How are they supposed to be kept in check without someone fighting them?

Right. Only because it is Obama who won the election. If McCain had won and was doing the same thing you would be trashing him for it. They will not blow terrorism out of this area of the world. They will be there for decades spilling much blood as more and more come to fill the shoes of those they kill.

Terrorism is a tactic. You can't declare war on it. It is not a country. The wacknuts just change tactic's While we chase our tale, and you and I pay for it.

We are in agreement. My point was a littel vague, sorry.

The "war on terror" is a farce, window dressing at best. It is actually a "war of terror" and a "war for terror", nothing else.

V,

Oh please! Terrorism is a tactic that the US has used many times (Hiroshima, Dresden, others) but who is beheading people in the name of religion? War of Terror? Delusional.

If anyone is delusional here, it certainly is not me.

Sam, I'm still trying to figure out your stance seeing you haven't quite spoken for it yet...

You support Iraq being a dumb war, but you support the fact we're in there. And then when people oppose the dumb war you're down their throats. Do you like to just see yourself type?

V,

I am not trying to imply that you are delusional. I was poorly attempting to make the point that terror is a tool.

How can one have a war on terror when war IS terror??

Imminint,

I am interested in people's reasoning. I don't want to come off as jumping down people's throats who may or may not agree with me. That is not my intent.

I was for removing Hussein. I am not for the occupation or the nation building or the deciding for other peoples what political form their government should take.

I am for defending non-combatants from any and all sides.

Sam, I can reason with you somewhat....

Brendan, Great Quote!

It's not that people are okay with the casualties. It's the fact that the Obama administration is being upfront about what the real cost of war is, something we have not seen during the Bush administration.

Its not that people are being cool-aide drinkers here. However anyone with common sense could see that there was no way for Obama just to up and leave the wars bush put us in. Bush purposely entrenched our country in a war that we could not just pull out of once he was gone.

Bush could have done a lot to end the war quicker. I don't want anyone else ot die but having to few troops over there isn't going to get this war over faster is just going to prolong the time it takes for us to complete the war.

If we are lucky enough to have Ron Paul run again in 2012, please take a look. The man predicted the financial crisis and the war quagmire.

Honesty may be the best policy, but sending more troops to the mountainous terrain of Afghanistan is not the best policy by a long shot. Don't blindly follow Obama on this, read your history books.

Oh, and by the way, you are clueless. Occupying a country for profit? You have no idea. Have you been in Iraq? Have you visited with the common people? Did you watch them vote? Have you heard their stories? Or do you just watch MSNBC and read posts on Current?

Iraq is stabilized. Iraq has a new government. Iraq has freedoms that haven't existed there ever. But all you can muster is occupation for profit? And Obama's strategy to double troops in Afghanistan is fighting to win? You have no clue. It's scary what our country's general public believe.

You're an idiot dabne and you disgust me.

We DID NOT go to Iraq to free the Iraqi people and if at this point you can't realize that, then nothing will dissuade you.

None of the false intelligence or the lies, none of the no-bid contracts or corporatization, none of the countless deaths or torture or destruction that has occurred will ever break you away from this delusional right-wing insanity.

Which is consistent with this comment, because now that a Democrat is actually going to try and WIN in Afghanistan, you have to give him the good thrashing that you NEVER gave President Bush. You may be right about the fact that is an untameable region of the world, but that is NOT why you're criticizing Obama.

Saladin,

It's just a different look at the world. Bush went to War on false intel, no doubt. Our democratic Congress backed him, no doubt. We went to war on bad intel. That's a fact. It's shameful. No doubt.

What we did there is up for debate. I was there. I served two tours. It was a nation of oppressed people. They cried tears of joy when we rolled in. They had elections. They have a new government, new freedoms. I still get emails from families I met there, Things are better everyday. None, and I say none, wish to go back to life under Saddam's regime. They actually have a chance at building something as a people. They appreciate our sacrifice. Again, I was there. That's my experience. Is it perfect? No. Are their Iraqi's that are upset? Yes. do they represent the whole nation? No.

So that is my take. I was there. I don't get on my knees for Bush, never have. I also agree with Obama's continued airstrikes into Pakistan, keep taking it to the enemy.

However, I do not feel more ground troops are what is needed in Afghanistan.

Is there anything else you need explained?

Now that you've changed your position? No, I need nothing explained.

But if you knew better than your earlier comment, why did you pretend to feel otherwise?

You're right, more troops in Afghanistan probably won't work. I definitely feel ambivalent about the situation. But that's definitely also not what your intention in writing that comment was, and our current strategy is also completely insane and has barely worked over the past seven years.

Whether or not Afghanistan can even be won is up for debate, but I won't tolerate inconsistency or lies for the sake of partisan bullshit.

The typical "I was there, I know" attitude.

While you were there others of us were studying it while you were fighting it... and don't act like the military informs you of what your purpose truly is in a mission....

Furthermore, I suggest you reference the PNAC or The Project for the New American Century, which Cheney and Jeb Bush were signators on. It might shed some light on why we were in Iraq as opposed to anywhere else. False Intel, yes... but not a mistake, there is a difference...

The freedom of Iraqis is a great benefit to the Long War but it definitely was not the purpose, merely a positive side effect.

Going in to free the Iraqis after the destruction of the twin towers would be the same as us having attacked China because of Pearl Harbor....