Why Is Elon Musk Hiring Lobbyists In Texas?
5 hours ago
"All The News You Never Knew You Needed To Know ...Until Now." [Pop Out Player? Click Here] Prefer An MP3 Playlist? It's Here: [128Kbps MP3 15:08 Minutes] Other Audio Formats Available [ Here ] Razer Raygun Says: ♥ Sharing IS Caring! ♥ Twitter This Commentary |
Afghan President Hamid Karzai told Pakistan's Geo Television in an interview aired on Saturday that Afghanistan would support Pakistan if it were to go to war with the United States, or any other nation, calling Afghanistan "a brother" to Pakistan (Reuters, NYT, AP, WSJ, Guardian). The interview sparked a wave of criticism from many Afghans, particularly in the north if the country, who believe that Pakistan is responsible for much of their ongoing struggle with militancy. It is unclear when the interview was recorded, but its broadcast came just after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton left Pakistan, where she pushed the government to facilitate reconciliation in Afghanistan, while at the same time pressing Pakistan to take more action against insurgents (AP, LAT, Post, Reuters).The reason for the pullout from Iraq? US citizens will no longer be immune from prosecution under Iraqi law, and that includes military personnel.
Pakistani officials have said that Pakistan made it clear to the visiting U.S. delegation that it is willing to assist the reconciliation process, but opening a front against the Haqqani Network based in North Waziristan is not an option, [More, with links]
Withdrawal Symptoms: Curtain Rises on Second Act of an Endless War Crime
Monday, 24 October 2011
by Chris Floyd
Barack Obama has announced that all American troops will be withdrawn from Iraq by the end of the year. This was presented as America honorably adhering to the agreement signed years ago by the Bush Administration.
At the same time, White House and Pentagon spinners were planting stories to make clear that the United States had fully intended to continue its military presence in Iraq past the deadline, but was thwarted by the Iraqis' unconscionable refusal to allow American forces to commit crimes with impunity -- and immunity -- on Iraqi soil.
These backroom "process" stories -- filled, as always, with unnamed insiders providing savvy "nuance" -- were detailed, laying out a long series of negotiations, ending in what was clearly the Americans' chief goal: a military presence of 3,000-5,000 troops, placed strategically around the country, with a main focus in Baghdad. These negotiations failed; hence Obama's announcement that he was being forced to honor the existing agreement on withdrawal.
At the same time, however, we are also told that the State Department will maintain "at least" 5,000 armed "security personnel" -- mercenaries of various stripes. These 5,000 militarized (if not officially military) troops will be stationed in strategic locations around the country, where the United States will establish mini-fortress "consulates" in Iraqi cities, with a main focus in Baghdad.
So the Americans had a baseline goal of 3,000 armed personnel remaining in Iraq; they will now have a minimum of 5,000 armed personnel remaining in Iraq.
It could be argued that the original intent was to have the 3,000-5,000 uniformed troops in addition to the 5,000 mercenaries, and thus the Americans have taken a bit of a haircut in the occupation department: 5,000 instead of combined total of 8,000 (or a top end of 10,000.) Maybe so. But the fact remains that whatever else happens, the American government will have a minimum of 5,000 men under arms, stationed all across the conquered land. What's more, there is apparently no limit on the number of such mercenaries the Americans can employ to provide "security" for the thousands of other American government operatives who will remain. Any number of pretexts could provide excuses for a "surge" in "security contractors": 8,000, 10,000, 20,000 -- who's to say how many will ultimately be "needed" to combat "terrorists"?
So we have a baseline of 5,000 militarized forces remaining indefinitely in Iraq, with no immediate limit on an expansion in their numbers. And of course, all the stories make it abundantly clear that the Americans will quickly negotiate a new "security agreement" with Iraq, which will include -- or even be in addition to -- thousands of military "advisers" to help "train" the Iraqi forces, especially with the multitude of new weapons that Washington's war profiteers are lining up to sell to the "sovereign" government in Baghdad. How many troops will be involved in these "agreements"? Thousands? Tens of thousands? Again, we don't know... [In Full]
"We don't do body counts" ~~General Tommy Franks srcBut, of course that was just another lie:
"The Wikileaks Iraq war logs provide us with a unique picture of every death in Iraq.
These are those events mapped using Google Fusion tables."
When the Hand Cursor points at a red dot, click once for the specifics of that particular death.
Ron Paul plans to ‘eventually’ end all federal student aidMeanwhile, in Sweden, "Drunk elk found in apple tree near Gothenburg"
o
o
o
“Because there’s no (congressional) authority to do this and just think of all this willingness to want to help every student to get a college education. So, they’re a trillion dollars in debt, we don’t have any jobs for them, the quality of education has gone down. So, it’s a failed program.”
Last week in Las Vegas, Paul put forth his plan to slash $1 trillion from the federal budget by ending the departments of Energy, Education, Housing and Urban Development, Commerce and Interior. The Environmental Protection Agency, Food and Drug Administration and Department of Defense would also see deep cuts."
[In full with the "Meet The Press" segment in which he said this]
I B Bad. I'm The 897,186,093 Richest Person On Earth! Discover how rich you are Here! |
No comments:
Post a Comment