what is happening to America?

I'm very concerned for our country. We seem to be going in a very bad direction here. When you just look at how we are "conducting" our war in Iraq, the tactics we use and have been using these last years. They way we use/abuse the folks we have "detained" at Gitmo. Things get very complicated.
Yes, I know that the war is illegal, that is understood by many people even in America finally. That isn't the point of this post. That is a given about the war being illegal. It is also a given that our treatment (?) of those we have "detained" (actually kidnapped in many cases) at Gitmo is illegal. Again, that is not the focus of this post. It is another given that it is a criminal fact.
My concern, if you will, is that our tactics are also verging on the illegal. We are becoming un-American in how we conduct ourselves in these areas. What we are doing in our "conduct" of the war is not the old "American way". Same goes for our treatment of the detainees we keep at Gitmo and other prison facilities.
We used to, or at least pretended to, abide by the rules of war and the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners. Now, it seems to me, that we no longer even pretend to follow those rules. They have been called "quaint" and "archaic" by the legal staff of our "decider".
We have had attorneys general say such things publicly. We have a current attorney general who is unable, or unwilling, to call water boarding torture! Every decent,sane, thinking, and caring human being has said that it IS torture. Makes one wonder what sort of "human being" we have as our attorney general today. We know what sort of shit our last two are. Damn crooks and liars, both of them. At least Ashcroft had then good sense to say during at least one White House meeting that history may not judge them nicely. He had some concern for what they were discussing at the White House. That at least shows, to me anyway, some semblance of humanity. Of course it may just have been a fleeting thought for him and not a true long term concern of his. I am sure he is looking for ways to cover his ass from any responsibility for any crimes done while he held that post. Need to keep his ass out of jail don't you know.
I imagine the same can be said of our last attorney general, Gonzales, he is sure to wish to remain out of jail as well. Pass the blame to someone else. It is the way of politics in America.
Maybe the current occupant of that office figures he won't hold the post long enough to be brought up on charges of any sort of crimes. Want to bet? How is it that he is unable to define what is or is not torture? I am sure there must be some legal definition available to him. Can't he even read the Geneva Conventions? Is he unable to read international laws? Aren't there definitions of torture in American law?
I only ask these questions because I am not a lawyer, and have no legal background or training. I could go and do an inter net search for the answers myself, but shouldn't the US Attorney General know these things?
I don't know. Maybe I am just an old, out dated idiot, who expects way too much of our "leaders". Maybe I expect all of our folks who hold high office to be like the founders of this country, or that they know the laws they are supposed to enforce. That they know what is and is not torture. That they know what is and is not legal according to our national laws. That some of them even know something about international laws and treaties. Maybe I just expect way too much of our poor, over worked and (of course) under paid people who hold high office in America.
I like to think that if I held such a position as attorney general, that I would at least know the answers to some of the questions I raise above. This is not to say that I am better than they are, or seem to be. It IS to say that I have always taken whatever job I had very seriously. I always tried to do my job to the best of my ability, and to know in detail just what my job was and how to do it. But then, that is how Dad taught me. He and my grandparents were like that. They taught me to take personal responsibility for my job and myself. If I screwed up, it was my fault and don't go looking for someone else to blame for my failures. I try to do that still to this day. Yes, there are many times when others contribute to the failure of something, but ultimately, I try to be honest about my part in it. Telling the truth is so much easier, you don't have to remember what you said the other day, as it is the same thing now as it was then, or will be tomorrow. The truth may be hard to deal with, but it sure beats trying to lie your way out of things. We have all seen folks who lie so much that they forget just what story line they are on today, and watch as they get the lies confused. It sure can be funny to watch. Telling the truth means you get to skip that embarrassment.

Back to where I was going earlier, tactics and such.
The way we are, or at least the way we have been fighting the Iraq war is not how one would expect America to do things. The kicking down doors at 3 AM, the use of air power in densely packed cities, the abusive checkpoints. These are not typical America tactics in my opinion. Sure, our police here do the door kick at double "oh" dark thirty, but bombing of houses from the air? Come on folks, that is an Israeli tactic. Using missiles and air power to "take out" a person or maybe a few people in a city? That isn't how we used to fight wars. It sure as hell is NOT the way to win the "hearts and minds" of the locals. It is, again, more how the IDF does things in Gaza and the West Bank.
Fire off a missile and damn the "collateral damage". Well, this will NOT make friends for your side. It WILL make even more terrorists (?) than there were before you attacked. It is the way Israel does in Gaza. We hear this on the news regularly. It is not the way to make friends. It will just lead to more killing on both sides.
We are becoming the Israelis. I for one, do NOT like that.
We abuse, even torture, the folks we "detain" at our facilities at Baghram in Afghanistan. Remember Abu Ghraib? Read the latest from Gitmo. We are doing things to the people we "detain" that Israel does to the Palestinians that they have prisoner.
We are becoming the Israelis. Again, I am repulsed by this.
We allow ourselves the use of tactics that have been used by the IDF in our current wars and in our prisons. This is something that should cause great concern for any thinking, caring human being. The tactics of the IDF and Mossad are inhuman. They brutalize the Palestinians because they can. We are starting to do the same in Iraq, Afghanistan and Gitmo. We are becoming the IDF, and it is repulsive.
Our Congress critters fall all over themselves to swear allegiance to Israel. Our candidates for president do the same. Why? Why do we, the people of America not protest this outrage? Should not OUR elected representatives swear allegiance to America? Should not OUR candidates for president swear allegiance to America and to the people OF America? Why do we allow these people who are OUR elected representatives to swear allegiance to a FOREIGN country? When will they swear allegiance to US? Ever? Maybe next election cycle? Maybe when the "spirit" moves them?
What the hell is happening here folks? How long are "we" going to just sit back and allow this crap?
Look at the two illegal wars we are stuck with. Look to our prisons in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo and the abuses we have done to those we hold in those facilities. Look at the treatment(???) of the Palestinians and you must see the parallels there.
We are becoming the Israelis. And no wonder, we have OUR elected leaders running off to AIPAC to swear their allegiance to Israel! Didn't WE elect them? Does Israel get to vote in our elections now? Just who the hell do OUR elected representatives work for?
Now, look at New Orleans and the Gulf Coast. It is nearly three years since Miss Katrina and her sister Miss Rita paid us a visit. The city of New Orleans is still a mess! Three years later! Where is the outrage at this mess? Where are "our" leaders? Well, they are off singing the praises of Israel to AIPAC. Where did you think they'd be? What, did you say you thought that "our" leaders might be doing some "good" for us? Why, who are you to say such a thing? Holy crap, you must have been thinking like me to have such terrible thoughts! Be very careful now, I am quite prepared to take my punishment for my "crimes" and thoughts and words. Are you? Don't follow me, I may be on the wrong road. Be careful now, this isn't the America they mentioned in high school civics class. It is becoming more like Israel, where dissent will be punished.
Our mainstream media is of no help at all. That sector of America has become basically a propaganda machine. Real reporting isn't done here very much any more. The truth is what the government says it is. Remember, we have a "decider" in the White House.
Our "leaders, even BOTH of our candidates for president make statement s that "we" will "obliterate" Iran if they dare to attack Israel. Why? We do NOT have a mutual defense pact with the state of Israel. While we should be concerned about any attack on any country by another country, we have NO business getting into this mess. We have gone and started TWO illegal wars ourselves. If Israel wants to fight Iran, let them. But we should keep out of it. Or, better yet, sell arms and ammunition to BOTH sides. Cash only, no checks, no credit. Of course with Israel, we would just be getting our own money back, as we send them about 3 Billion dollars every year.
Now we have had an Israeli historian do an article in the New York Times last weekend that basically says that if America won't bomb Iran. Israel will go it alone. Well great. Just goddamn fine. Of course this shit will pull us into the mess and everybody knows it. They will need to fly through Iraqi airspace, which WE control now. Iran has said that if Israel does attack, they will retaliate against both Israel and America. Why? Because they equate an Israeli attack with an American attack. We have stood with Israel for so damn long, no matter how badly they behaved that we are now seen as one and the same. Again, we are becoming Israel.
We even have high ranking members of some "Christian" religions who support Israel to the absolute detriment of America. Just like some of our politicians do and have done. Why do any decent Americans allow this? When do "we" get OUR leaders to stand up for US? When will we stop being Israel?

just a thought............or three

I had a thought while reading an article this evening. The article is not what I am writing about just now. It did get this old brain to spinning at a slightly higher rpm than normal though.
The article was about air strikes against Iran, and how the Air Farce and Navy have the "capacity" to do in Iran what they did during "Operation Iraqi Freedom".
So, big deal you say. Well, wait i second here. Back before the Shrub had even launched the attack against Iraq, the original name of the "operation" was going to be "Operation Iraqi Liberation". Why the name change you ask? Because if you use the first letters of each word, it becomes OIL. Now it is OIF.
OK, big deal again you say. Well, that was my thought, then it morphed into another thought, I get a bit "off track" at times.
So, here goes my "take" on OIF. Bear with me while this develops, it is a bit convoluted, like much of my "thinking" these days, or longer even. OIF, take it this way, Oh, If. OK, good so far?
Well, "Oh, If this Iraq deal works, we'll go down in history as heroes!"
Take it another way, the one I like best, "Oh! If the Iraq deal goes bad, we'd better be ready to spread the bullshit by the train car load." Yep, I like the second way the best. In fact, it seems to me that things did work out more like the second "interpretation" rather than the first one. Yes sir, OIF. Damn, sure sounded good once upon a time, or so they thought.
See, it wasn't all about OIL after all.
Sure, right on, and how would you like some nice beach front property in the southern area of Arizona?
Just a "passing" thought this evening. Take care folks, fuel prices are still going up.
semper fi

a crime and an outrage, at least it should beDo You Have Love in Your Culture?

Once again, I am indebted to another writer for the following article. His is/was not the first I had read of this criminal act against a fellow human being. His article did get me even more set to post here on this crime and to add my comments after his excellent article.




Do You Have Love in Your Culture?
Israel Flexes Its Muscles
By BRIAN CLOUGHLEY
“[The Israeli security man] took his gun out, pressing it to my head . . . Another man, who was laughing, said: “Why are you bringing perfumes?” I replied: “They are gifts for people I love.” He said: “Oh, do you have love in your culture?” ”
Palestinian journalist Mohammad Omar, June 26, 2008
That sums it up. It encapsulates the disrespect, the utter contempt for Palestinians – indeed for all Arabs – felt and displayed by vicious and spiteful Israeli buffoons. This tiny but significant cameo explains the entire ethos of the Israeli regime as concerns colonially-suppressed Arab serfs who have been for sixty horrible years without help or hope in their destitution and despair. This incident, which was not made known by the mainstream media (“Your search - Mohammad Omar - did not match any documents” – New York Times), became public only because non-mainstream editors, not subject to pressure or to energetically held personal beliefs, have nothing to fear from media moguls with financial or personal axes to grind.
The journalist Mohammad Omar was trying to return home from attending a function in London to mark his award of a journalistic distinction, the Martha Gellhorn Prize, for his reporting. His journey back to Gaza was assisted by the Dutch Embassy, which deserves great credit for trying – albeit unsuccessfully – to have his return free of harassment and the normal casual barbarity of Israeli officials. (The Dutch and the Scandinavian countries do a great deal, quietly and usually effectively, in support of decency and world-wide human rights. Official Washington laughs at them.) But the Israelis pay no attention to diplomatic custom and civilized traditions when these do not suit them, although they insist on them when it seems that someone might be so indelicate as to make it clear that Israel is behaving illegally and disgustingly, which it does a lot of the time.
Let me declare an interest : I was made aware of the arrogance of Israelis when one of my duties was to brief and debrief army officers going to the UN Mission in the Middle East. My briefings were straightforward and impartial, but I was interested in the fact that the young officers were without exception pro-Israeli. “There are the brave Israelis,” they exclaimed, “surrounded by evil Arabs intent on destroying their country!” (Or words to that effect.) “Gallant little Israel” was the theme, because it was standing alone against the massed might of the Arab nations. (And true enough, because Egypt and Syria had tried and failed to invade Israel to avenge the treatment of the Palestinians to whom the land belonged – and still belongs, in law.)
I debriefed three of these officers when they returned after their year in UN service. By that time they despised and loathed Israel and Israelis. They told me that without one exception, so far as they knew, their scores of colleagues of all nations represented in the UN Mission had equally forthright views. One of them, an old friend, told me in detail of his experiences, and of one in particular that to his mind demonstrated the jackboot approach.
One day he was in a UN jeep in an area forbidden to Israeli troops, and driving through a village street, when an Israeli tank blocked the way. He got out of his jeep to remonstrate, and the Israeli tank commander – “blond, blue-eyed, he was straight out of Rommel’s Afrika Corps or the bloody SS” – traversed the gun and depressed it to sight on the UN vehicle. He didn't say anything, but obviously was ready to fire. The UN officer was sensible, and got back into his jeep and reversed the hell out of there. His report, like all those detailing Israeli arrogance and non-cooperation, was sent to UN HQ in New York and filed and forgotten. The US does not permit any criticism of the country that its current secretary of state has described as “the key to security of the world.”
This was an astonishing statement by Dr Rice, and should be put in context. So here is the report from an Israeli newspaper:
“In an exclusive interview with Israel’s daily Yediot Aharonot . . . Dr Condoleezza Rice said that “the security of Israel is the key to security of the world.” Rice added that she feels “a deep bond to Israel.” Asked if her feelings toward Israel stem from her religious convictions, Dr. Rice said “That is a very deep question. I first visited Israel in 2000. I already then felt that I am returning home despite the fact that this was a place I never visited. I have a deep affinity with Israel. I have always admired the history of the State of Israel and the hardness and determination of the people that founded it . . . I think that we, Israel and the US, share common values. Israel is the only democracy in the region. That is also very important . . .”
Obviously she has love for Israeli culture, and she is not alone, for there are other lovers of Israel, some in high uniformed places.
Much publicity was given to a statement on 2 July by the US Chairman of the Joints Chiefs of Staff, Admiral Mullen, when he was asked about a possible Israeli attack on Iran. He said “This is a very unstable part of the world and I don't need it to be more unstable . . . Opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us.” How this could be interpreted, as it was by most US media, as a sign of “discouragement” to Israel is intriguing. (And use of the personal pronoun “I” says a great deal : who is this man who is grown so mighty?) Associated Press also recorded that Mullen “refused to say what Israeli leaders had told him during his meetings with them last week about any intentions to strike Iran.” But we might have some idea about that, if only because of what Mullen said on 4 May concerning US support for Israel. He declared that the US
“has been at Israel's side for all of 60 years, it will be for the next 60 years, 100 years and 1,000 years. With all its success, I am a tremendous admirer and have great respect for Israel.” It is amazing that a military officer of any nation could make such a public declaration of unconditional support for a foreign country. It was a blatantly political statement by a uniformed officer following his leader, George W Bush, who is similarly committed to Israeli supremacy and has said that “Israel is a solid ally of the United States. We will rise to Israel’s defense, if need be. . . . You bet, we'll defend Israel.”
It was reported on 4 June, following a Bush meeting with Israel’s Prime Minister Olmert, that the latter said “We reached agreement on the need to take care of the Iranian threat. I left with a lot less question marks [than] I had entered with regarding the means, the timetable restrictions, and American resoluteness to deal with the problem. George Bush understands the severity of the Iranian threat and the need to vanquish it, and intends to act on that matter before the end of his term in the White House.” It could not be more clear that the Bush administration is determined to help Israel attack Iran, not matter what might otherwise be stated in public.
The Israeli lobby in Washington has a stranglehold on US foreign policy. There is no US politician of any party who dare criticize Israel. Such impudence would lead to a campaign for their political extinction, funded by rich and vindictive zealots who are single-minded in their support of a foreign country to which they owe unconditional loyalty. So the stage is set for a strike on Iran, after which the world will reel from the effects of Israel’s lunacy.
There is not much love in their culture.
Brian Cloughley lives in France. His website is http://www.briancloughley.com/

There is a further update available at www.ips.org/blog/jimlobe/?p=163.
At this link, Mr. Omer gives his own account of this crime. I have read it, and how he can maintain a sense of humor after what he has endured is beyond what I would be able to manage. Then, he is much younger than me. Maybe back when I was in my mid 20's I'd be able to keep up my sense of humor, I did manage it in Vietnam, but that was with the help of my buddies.
What I am getting at, is that in my old age (60) I no longer have much tolerance for these sorts of crimes. This is not to imply that I ever did really tolerate this sort of criminal behavior before, but as I get older, thses sorts of abuse just piss me off all that much more. Like my near zero tolerance for stupid these days. Maybe it is just my age that makes me feel the extra outrage. Maybe with age, we all see things differently. I am certain that is how it is with me. When I was younger, I could tolerate more crap, also, to a certain extent, I maybe just wasn't as aware of the shit going on in the world.
When we are young, at least for most Americans, we have a different set of priorities, just ask old Dick Cheney ( LOL ). Yes, that was a poor attempt at humor, sorry. When I was young, I had my job, the new house, the new marriage to occupy most all of my time. Now, in my old age, I have the time to look into in more detail, this sort of criminal behavior.
Yes, I am trying damn hard to keep my language "polite" on this. After all, I let it all "hang out" a few posts ago. Now it is deadly serious time and I am even more pissed than I was for that post. I would enjoy cussing out the low life morons who abused this fellow human being, not that it would do any good. Oh, I would be accused of being an anti-Semite, big damn deal.
That is another part of this entire story. The abuse, or as I have called it, the bastardization, of our (American English) language.
The Semites include Hebrews AND Arabs. I may have gone over this before, but here it goes again. BOTH Jews (Hebrews) AND Arabs are Semitic peoples. MY source is the old Oxford English Dictionary. Therefore, to be a real anti-Semite, one would despise BOTH Jews (Hebrews) AND Arabs.
The Zionists have hijacked the term to now mean exclusively anti-Jewish sentiment. Again, bastardizing our language. Yes, I know that words and their meanings DO change over time. That is NOT what has happened in this case. This is a true hijacking of terms to suit a particular group for propaganda purposes. My opinion, plain and simple.
Another thing on this note. The constant crying of "anti-Semitism" every time anyone is the least critical of the government of Israel, or its actions, is degrading the effectiveness of that term. Like the boy who cried wolf too many times, it is losing and will continue to lose its sting. I do not care if I am called anti-Semitic. Big damn deal. Hell, I was a Marine and have been called everyting under the sun. As my Dad used to say, he didn't care what you called him, as long as it wasn't late for dinner. Well, I have even been called late for dinner, so again, big damn deal. Sling those temrs for all you areworth, it won't hurt me at all.
Another thing that this sort of criminal abuse does, or can do, is to create more anti-Jewish feelings among those who do not habor such sentiment at this time. Every time a person reads of such crimes, they get more and more upset about it, or they just get bored and turn off completely. If a person has any sense of humanity, I would think it would get them highly agitated and very upset. Of course the "defense" could (?) be that the Jews are the "chosen people" and they can do as they wish. But, they, or at least the older generation, survived the Nazis, how can they now turn and do such to those who never persecuted them? How can the victim become the criminal? Maybe it would be better to ask why rahter than how. Either way, it is not right, there can be no justification for this sort of crime. It is a crime against humanity, and as such, should outrage every decent human being, period.
All of this because of some old book? Because some tribal god or other said that one group of people were the "chosen" ones? No wonder I refuse to believe in any religion at all. How stupid. How childish. Superstition. Bah, humbug.
semper fi

Obama, Afghanistan, and change?

Make Way for Field Marshall Obama
Hunkering Down in Afghanistan
By MIKE WHITNEY
Afghanistan was supposed to be the "good war"; a "just response" to the attacks of September 11. It was supposed to bring Bin Laden to justice "dead or alive" and quash terrorism wherever it originated. 95 per cent of the American people supported the invasion of Afghanistan. Now less than half think the U.S. will prevail. The war was promoted as a way to replace a repressive fundamentalist regime with a democratic government based on western values. The Bush administration promised to rebuild war-torn Afghanistan, transform its feudal system into a free market economy, and liberate its women from the oppression of Islamic extremism. It was all hogwash. None of the promises have been kept and none of the goals have been achieved. Besides, war isn't an instrument for positive social change; it's about killing people and blowing up things. Dolling-up military aggression as "preemption" can work for a while, but eventually the truth comes out. Democracy and modernity don't come from the barrel of a gun. Far from being the "good war", Afghanistan has turned out to be a brutal war of revenge. Three decades of fighting has left the country in ruins and the violence is only getting worse. As victory becomes more elusive, the US has stepped up its bombing campaign making 2008 the most deadly year on record. Civilian casualties have skyrocketed and millions of Afghans have become refugees. At the same time, the Taliban have regrouped and taken over strategically vital areas in the south disrupting US supply lines from Pakistan. Khost has fallen into the hands of the Afghan resistance just as it did before the Soviet Army was defeated in the 1980s. The Taliban are moving inexorably towards Kabul and a battle for the capital now seems unavoidable.For the second month in a row, the number of foreign troops killed in Afghanistan has exceeded Iraq. The fighting has intensified while security has steadily deteriorated. The Taliban's numbers are growing, but the total allied commitment is still under 60,000 troops for a country of 32 million. This makes it impossible to capture and hold territory. The military is limited to "hit and run" operations. The ground belongs to the Taliban. Michael Scheuer, former CIA chief of the Bin Laden Issue Station, made this statement at a recent conference at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC: "Afghanistan is lost for the United States and its allies. To use Kipling's term, 'We are watching NATO bleed to death on the Afghan plains.' But what are we going to do. There are 20 million Pashtuns; are we going to invade? We don't have enough troops to even form a constabulary that would control the country. The disaster occurred at the beginning. The fools that run our country thought that a few hundreds CIA officers and a few hundred special forces officers could take a country the size of Texas and hold it, were quite literally fools. And now we are paying the price." Scheuer added, "We are closer to defeat in Afghanistan than Iraq at the moment."Scheuer's pessimism is widely shared among military and political elites. The situation on the ground is hopeless; there is no light in the tunnel. Author Anatol Lieven put it like this in an article in the Financial Times, "The Dream of Afghan Democracy is Dead": "The first step in rethinking Afghan strategy is to think seriously about the lessons of a recent opinion survey of ordinary Taliban fighters commissioned by the Toronto Globe and Mail. Two results are striking: the widespread lack of any strong expression of allegiance to Mullah Omar and the Taliban leadership; and the reasons given by most for joining the Taliban -- namely, the presence of western troops in Afghanistan. The deaths of relatives or neighbors at the hands of those forces was also stated by many as a motive. This raises the question of whether Afghanistan is not becoming a sort of surreal hunting estate, in which the US and Nato breed the very “terrorists” they then track down. "Lieven is right. The occupation and the careless killing of civilians has only strengthened the Taliban and swollen their ranks. The US has lost the struggle for hearts and minds and they don't have the troops to establish security. The mission has failed; the Afghan people have grown tired of foreign occupation and support on the homefront is rapidly eroding. The US is just digging a deeper hole by staying. By every objective standard, conditions are worse now than they were before the invasion in 2001. The economy is in shambles, unemployment is soaring, reconstruction is minimal, security is non-existent and malnutrition is at levels that rival sub-Saharan Africa. Afghanistan not safer, more prosperous, or freer. The vast majority of Afghans are still living in grinding poverty exacerbated by the constant threat of violence. The Karzai government has no popular mandate nor any power beyond the capital. The regime is a sham maintained by a small army of foreign mercenaries and a collaborative media which promotes it as a sign of budding democracy. But there is no democracy or sovereignty. Afghanistan is occupied by foreign troops. Occupation and sovereignty are mutually exclusive. According to The Senlis Council's report, "Stumbling into Chaos: Afghanistan on the brink": "The security situation in Afghanistan has reached crisis proportions. The Taliban's ability to establish a presence throughout the country is now proven beyond doubt; 54 per cent of Afghanistan’s landmass hosts a permanent Taliban presence, primarily in southern Afghanistan. The Taliban are the de facto governing authority in significant portions of territory in the south and east, and are starting to control parts of the local economy and key infrastructure such as roads and energy supply. The insurgency also exercises a significant amount of psychological control, gaining more and more political legitimacy in the minds of the Afghan people who have a long history of shifting alliances and regime change."Journalist Eric Walberg further clarifies the role played by the Taliban in his article "The Princess and the Taliban": "Western readers have become numbed into accepting the code words 'enemy' and 'insurgents', ignoring the underlying fact that the Taliban are still the legitimate government, that these so-called insurgents are in fact widely seen as freedom fighters battling the non-Muslim foreign occupiers — the real 'enemy' — who invaded the country illegally and have killed hundreds of thousands of resistance fighters and innocent civilians illegally. Rather than 'killed', the word 'murdered' might be more appropriate. For locals, the dead are 'martyred', as in Iraq and Palestine..... The country’s declining socioeconomic situation point to the Taliban as the only feasible force to control the situation."It is not even clear that women are better off now than they were under Taliban rule. According to Afghan Parliament member, Malalai Joya: "Every month dozens of women commit self-immolation to end their desolation....The American war on terror is a mockery and so is the US support of the present government in Afghanistan which is dominated by Northern Alliance terrorists....Far more civilians have been killed by the US military in Afghanistan than were killed in the US in the tragedy of September 11. More Afghan civilians have been killed by the US than were ever killed by the Taliban.....The US should withdrawal as soon as possible. We need liberation not occupation." ("The War on Terror is a Mockery", Elsa Rassbach, Z Magazine Nov 2007)The Taliban had effectively eradicated poppy cultivation before the invasion in 2001. Now, after six years of war, the opium trade is back with a vengeance and Afghanistan accounts for 93% of world's heroin production. 2007 was a particularly good year yielding 20% more opium than a year before. Heroin is now Afghanistan's number one export; the nation has become a US narco-colony. Bush could care less about drug trafficking. What matters to him is stabilizing Afghanistan so that the myriad US bases that are built along pipeline corridors can provide a safe channel for oil and natural gas heading to markets in the Far East. That's what really counts. The administration has staked America's future on a risky strategy to establish a foothold in Central Asia to control the flow of energy from the Caspian to China and India. But US policymakers are no longer confident of victory in Afghanistan. In fact, according to a Pentagon report: "Taliban militants have regrouped after their initial fall from power and 'coalesced into a resilient insurgency.' The report paints a grim picture of the conflict, concluding that Afghanistan's security conditions have deteriorated sharply while the fledgling national government in Kabul remains incapable of extending its reach throughout the country or taking effective counternarcotics measures."The situation is dire and it's forcing Bush to decide whether to shift more troops from Iraq or face growing resistance in Afghanistan. Meanwhile the violence is spreading and combat deaths are on the rise. Pentagon chieftains now believe they can only defeat the Taliban by striking at bases in Pakistan, a reckless plan that could inflame passions in Pakistan and trigger a regional conflict. Gradually, the US is being lured into a bigger quagmire. ONWARD FIELD-MARSHALL OBAMA Presidential candidate Barak Obama, "The Peace Candidate", supports a stronger commitment to the war in Afghanistan and has proposed "sending at least two additional combat brigades -- or 7,000 to 10,000 troops -- to Afghanistan, while deploying more Special Operations forces to the Afghan-Pakistan border. He has also proposed increasing non-military aid to Afghanistan by at least $1 billion per year." (Wall Street Journal) Obama, backed by Brzezinski and other Clinton foreign policy advisers, has focussed his attention on the "war on terror", that dismal public relations coup which conceals America's desire to become a major player in the Great Game, the battle for supremacy on the Asian continent. Obama appears to be even more eager to repeat history than his opponent, John McCain. In November, voters will be asked to pick one of the two pro-war candidates. McCain has made his position clear; his focus is on Iraq. Now it is up to Obama to point out why it's more acceptable to kill a man who is fighting for his country in Afghanistan than it is in Iraq. If he can't answer that question, then he deserves to lose.
Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

The above article by Mr. Mike Whitney is an outstanding commentary on where we are headed today. I want to give a big "Thank you" to Mike for allowing me to share his article with you folks here who may not drop in over at the Counterpunch web site very often.

What wonders we have done in that poor country, Afghanistan. We have increased the production of opium poppies. Now Afghanistan accounts for close to 95% of the worlds trade in heroin. Wow, god bless 'Merica I suppose. We keep bombing them and that leads to more civilians deaths. Do not believe the Air Force (air farce), there is no such thing as "precision bombing". The jet jockeys always kill the Innocent civilians along with a few (maybe) of the "bad guys". This was as true in Vietnam as it is still today in Iraq and Afghanistan. "Surgical air strikes" are a fig newton of the Pentagon brass who probably never have had any real combat experience.
The jet jocks are like old McCrazy, they do their killing from the cockpit of an air craft, never seeing who it is they are killing. The ground troops have that messy job, along with trying to clean up the mess made by the "fly boys".

We also cannot defeat the Afghans nor the Taliban. Why? Same reason we did not defeat the Viet Cong in Vietnam. Actually the very sane reason the Brits lost the American Revolution. They are fighting for THEIR homes and families. Yes sir, just as the folks who fought the Brits were doing back in the late 1770's. They are on their own home turf. No invading army can suppress that for long. Oh, sure, the Romans did get away with that sort of crap for a good long time, but eventually, even the mighty Roman army lost or pulled out and headed for home.
Invading armies tend to do that. They get tired, worn out, beaten down and pack it in and go home. Every occupying army has ultimately done that. We will too. Yes, we are still in Japan, Korea, and Germany, to name just a very few places where we "occupy" foreign countries. We will have to come home from those places as well some day. The sooner the better actually. Those countries no longer need our military to protect them. They are stable enough and rich enough to defend themselves.
Back to Afghanistan, even the almighty Alexander the Great could not defeat them. Now that ought to tell us all something right up front.
The Brits tried, twice at least. The Russians, or should I say Soviets, tried and failed. Of course "we" had a good hand in that one. Remember, WE trained many of these folks. Now we are fighting them. Funny, but Saddam comes to mind about now. We funded him in his war with Iran. We sold him chemical and biological weapons. There is even that famous (infamous?) photo of him shaking hands with old Rummy. Funny how they can be the "best buddies" to America one day, and then, all of a sudden, they are our sworn enemies. Is it them, or do we turn on our "friends" often? Think about that for a while. We did the same thing in Vietnam even. We installed "our" guy in Saigon, then, when we tired of him, we had him "eliminated". Why would anyone trust America? We don't seem to be very good at staying friends for long.
Afghanistan will go down as another defeat, just as Vietnam did, and Iraq probably will. Please don't even think about war with Iran. Or crossing into Pakistan. That area of the world does NOT need more killing.
I would wish that an Obama presidency might make a difference, but seriously doubt that it will. After his groveling at the AIPAC meeting, I no longer think he will change anything regards our foreign policies. He will stay in Iraq and Afghanistan until the treasury can no longer find anyone to borrow money from to keep those wars going. In the end, Obama will be just like W. Shrubbie is now. Yes, he may be less a disaster than McCrazy, but he will not be the "savior" some think he is. He is just another politician, seeking a higher office than the one he has now. No different than the rest of them.
We need to end our idiotic wars and bring our troops home from the war zones. Then we need to start to bring ALL of our troops home from around the world. The only "need" for US troops in foreign countries is to keep the Marine guard at our embassies. All our bases are not required for our defense. Only an empire needs to keep bases in foreign lands. We need to restore our constitutional republic, end the dreams of empire, they will bring us nothing but grief.
semper fi

ok, this shit is going to damn far now

OK, now I'm getting highly pissed off at the shit going on in Washington D.C. and TelAviv. The shit is getting pretty damn deep. And it is going to be us, the "average" Americans who will suffer for the bullshit that is going on in those cities.
What is the old fart (me) going off about now? Oh, nothing much, just the facts that Israel is "pushing" and pushing bloody damn hard to get US, as in America, to attack Iran for them.
They have said that if "we" don't do it, they will be "forced" to attack Iran on their own. Oh, the poor fucking little babies! Dear me, if we won't fight another of their goddamn asshole wars, they will be "forced" to do it themselves. Well. my reply is this, let them go right ahead and do it. BUT, once they do, and even before they start, WE (as in America) tell the whole world, that WE (as in America again) have nothing to do with this shit and further, that WE (yep, America again) have told them not to do this idiotic mission, which will be considered by the rest of the world, including America, to be a war crime, crime against peace, crime against humanity, and other violations of international laws.
If they then go ahead with this bullshit war against Iran, they will be on their own. America will NOT jump to defend the aggressors, Israel, if they attack Iran. No sir, not this time folks. Better yet, never again. America should NEVER defend any aggressor nation period. That Israel has gotten away with this shit before no longer matters. We have to demand that our "leaders" do not fall for any more bullshit propaganda from Israel. We have had enough of their shit and we refuse to be their proxy military force. They sucked us into Iraq for sure, now they want us to bomb the shit out of Iran.
Why do they want this? Well, they have nukes. Israel is the only country in the Middle East who has nuclear weapons. They are dead scared that Iran may get one some day. This would be unacceptable to the Israeli government as they would no longer be the sole possessor of those nasty weapons. They would not be the "top dog" in that region. They cannot accept that others might be even close to having a military capable of being even with theirs. This same bullshit attitude has infected the government of America. It is way past time to end this childish game of "king of the hill" and grow up and act like adults, stop playing in the little kiddies sand box.
According to some sources, the plan is to attack between the election in November and the inauguration in January. Why then? Well, it would "lock" America "having" to defend our "ally"(???) Israel. We would have to defend them from the Iranian retaliation. Why? Hell, if they attack Iran, why would we be obligated to back up the aggressors? Do we have a "mutual defense" agreement with Israel? I haven't seen one.
Another report mentioned that Israel has a much more powerful military than Iran has. This makes an attack on Iran a "good deal" for some "think tank" idiots. Also, the Israeli military IS more well supplied with modern equipment that Iran has. This is fact so far.
Another reason for an attack on Iran in the near future. The Iranians have on order a new, sophisticated air defense system from Russia. This system would make an air attack on Iran, by Israel or America, very costly to the attackers. See, "we" must attack Iran soon, before they have a decent defense system in place.
Now, to me, this all sounds like a school yard bully. Or, it sounds just like the sort of shit that W. Shrub would get behind fast. Same difference to me, W or a school yard bully. Yes sir, pick the weakest kid around you and slap the shit out of him. Why? Well, because you can. No real reason needed. After all, that weak kid might take karate lessons some day and be able to kick the shit out of the bully, so kick his ass now, before he can fight back.
No, this sort of goddamn bullshit, so typical of the right wing assholes in Israel and America must stop. And it must stop NOW. If we here in America let this happen again, there will be nothing left of OUR constitutional republic. We might as well just turn ourselves in at the nearest police station and get sent to the camps.
one short note to end this for now. I am NOT anti-Jewish in any way. I am not anti-Semitic either. That means, if you look it up in the old Oxford English Dictionary, that you dislike Jews AND Arabs! Yes sir, BOTH the Arabs and the Hebrews are Semitic peoples. Therefore, a true anti_semite would dislike BOTH Jews and Arabs. Just wanted you to know that for the next time you are critical of the Israeli government and some asshole calls you an anti-Semite for your comments.
Now, my closing note. If Israel keeps pushing us into their damned wars, there is a very good possibility of some serious anti-Jewish feelings being expressed here in America. It may not get as bad as, say, Nazi Germany, but it could get quite bad nonetheless. I just wonder if the folks at AIPAC or the ADL or other groups like them have even considered this possibility. Hell, if I can even think of it, there must be some folks who are much smarter than I am who have thought about it. Do they want to open that pandoras' box? I sure as hell would not. But then, who the hell am I? I'm just an old (60) former US Marine/Vietnam vet who is permanently disabled from a work injury. Yep, only have a community college degree to my "educational accomplishments".
Well, that is enough for today.
semper fi