Jump to content

NYT: OBAMA WEIGHING AFGHAN 'ZERO OPTION'


Recommended Posts


WASHINGTON, July 8 (Reuters) - The United States is considering speeding up its planned withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, including a possible "zero option" that would result in no U.S. forces in that country after 2014, the New York Times reported on Monday.

 

I can't wait to get out of that dung hole. When we leave, it will then be two unnecessary republican wars started by Bush, two wars ended by Obama.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

WASHINGTON, July 8 (Reuters) - The United States is considering speeding up its planned withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, including a possible "zero option" that would result in no U.S. forces in that country after 2014, the New York Times reported on Monday.

 

I can't wait to get out of that dung hole. When we leave, it will then be two unnecessary republican wars started by Bush, two wars ended by Obama.

 

 

 

 

Obama COULD have and SHOULD have ended it when he took over the presidency DUMBASS instead of ESCALATING it. He did a great job of following Bush's withdrawal plan in Iraq though. :lol:

 

Are we ANY better off in Afghanistan with Obama ESCALATING the war and dragging it out another 6+ years?????????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WASHINGTON, July 8 (Reuters) - The United States is considering speeding up its planned withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, including a possible "zero option" that would result in no U.S. forces in that country after 2014, the New York Times reported on Monday.

 

I can't wait to get out of that dung hole. When we leave, it will then be two unnecessary republican wars started by Bush, two wars ended by Obama.

 

 

Almost liked your post. Than I read the partisan hackery part....

 

You lose a cool point hack

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

WASHINGTON, July 8 (Reuters) - The United States is considering speeding up its planned withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan, including a possible "zero option" that would result in no U.S. forces in that country after 2014, the New York Times reported on Monday.

 

I can't wait to get out of that dung hole. When we leave, it will then be two unnecessary republican wars started by Bush, two wars ended by Obama.

 

 

 

 

Bush ended the Iraq War, and it's great to see that you believe that the United States should not honor it's treaties, stand with it's allies, or enforce the Geneva Convention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama did everything we could to make sense of these dumbass wars you cons supported, and now you celebrate?! Incredible.

The only thing you can count on with a con is, that whatever Obama does, they will want the exact opposite.Opinion has been programed out of them, and they obey their talking heads like good little pawns and political peons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama is first American president in history to LOSE two wars.

 

Essentially, this non-leader, neophyte, neoisolationist has retreated in defeat with his ears behind his ass resulting in a dangerous degradation of American global influence and security.


Of course, by surrendering American interests and security abroad, Obama has 'strengthened' American at home by presiding over the following:

record debt increases,
anemic growth rate,
wage stagnation,
increased income inequality,
long term unemployment at decade high levels,
poverty at decade high levels,
food stamps at record levels,
welfare recipients at record levels,
surging education costs,
surging energy costs,
surging food costs,
high wage jobs replaced with low wage jobs,
increase in Americans rejecting citizenship,
local and state govt. cutting jobs and services,

the list goes on and on.......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no feasible way to "win" these wars. That's what people like me were telling people like you when your guys were trying to get them started. These arab nations have been behaving like this for centuries, and you thought Dick Cheney was going to ride in on his white horse and make it all better?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are we ANY better off in Afghanistan with Obama ESCALATING the war and dragging it out another 6+ years?????????

Stop it man, we're not allowed to talk about Obama's failures.

 

There was no feasible way to "win" these wars. That's what people like me were telling people like you when your guys were trying to get them started. These arab nations have been behaving like this for centuries, and you thought Dick Cheney was going to ride in on his white horse and make it all better?!?

But we did win in Iraq. Did you miss that fact?

 

The only thing you can count on with a con is, that whatever Obama does, they will want the exact opposite.Opinion has been programed out of them, and they obey their talking heads like good little pawns and political peons.

Did it ever cross your feeble mind, that taking a position opposite Obama almost certainly assures someone of being correct in the end?

What has Obama ever been right about? Economics? No. Foreign policy? Obviously not. What ARE his accomplishments?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stop it man, we're not allowed to talk about Obama's failures.

 

But we did win in Iraq. Did you miss that fact?

 

Did it ever cross your feeble mind, that taking a position opposite Obama almost certainly assures someone of being correct in the end?

What has Obama ever been right about? Economics? No. Foreign policy? Obviously not. What ARE his accomplishments?

What more irrefutable proof do we need that you are an idiot? The only way Obama could be right in the mind of a simpleton like you, is if he promoted the disastrous con policies of imbeciles like you. He's doing right by the people that elected him, and he has no concern about promoting the insane bulls--t of morons like you, that have the destruction of this country foremost on their tiny brains. You are no more than a longer winded JT zilla.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should I check that little phag goofy's thread damning obama for the iraq withdrawal, to see if you're up to your usual right wing, republican water carrying?

Completely eliminating our presence in Iraq was never considered by anyone until Obama did it.

That was a massive failure on his part, no matter how badly you want to lay it off on Bush.

 

Obama was responsible for securing an agreement to keep our people there, and he failed, as he ALWAYS fails.

 

What more irrefutable proof do we need that you are an idiot? The only way Obama could be right in the mind of a simpleton like you, is if he promoted the disastrous con policies of imbeciles like you. He's doing right by the people that elected him, and he has no concern about promoting the insane bulls--t of morons like you, that have the destruction of this country foremost on their tiny brains. You are no more than a longer winded JT zilla.

Yes, it's my fault that you can't defend Obama's record of failure.

Nice job proving my point for me. Dumbass.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Completely eliminating our presence in Iraq was never considered by anyone until Obama did it.

That was a massive failure on his part, no matter how badly you want to lay it off on Bush.

 

Yes, I recall your invented lie.

 

You never answered the question. Was it your contention, sally, that obama should have:

 

1. Left tens of thousands of troops under the guise of diplomats, or

 

2. Left a token force that was not big enough to even establish a green zone, much less launch a credible attack?

 

Which one of those would you have applauded, goofy?

 

How many hundreds? How many thousands? What kind of armaments?

Obama was responsible for securing an agreement to keep our people there, and he failed, as he ALWAYS fails.

Oh, so NOW he is a failure for not doing BETTER than bush? The bar is higher for a black man?

 

Nothing new to see here, folks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I recall your invented lie.

You never answered the question. Was it your contention, sally, that obama should have:

 

1. Left tens of thousands of troops under the guise of diplomats, or

2. Left a token force that was not big enough to even establish a green zone, much less launch a credible attack?

 

Which one of those would you have applauded, goofy?

How many hundreds? How many thousands? What kind of armaments?

 

Oh, so NOW he is a failure for not doing BETTER than bush? The bar is higher for a black man?

Nothing new to see here, folks.

LOL, so now I lied, when I didn't answer a question?

Wow, what a twisted world you live in.

 

Once again, the President is responsible for actions he takes while in office.

Obama failed, as he always does. Sadly, your refrain of "Blame Bush" and racism seem to be your sole defense.

Another low information Obamatron voter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted this is another thread and I'm tired of explaining this so here's a copy to save myself the time and aggravation. Probably few if anyone will even read it.

 

__________________________________________

 

William it’s time for a real world based discussion so let’s see who is really serious enough about what’s really going on to even read this. We’ll all really know by the responses.

Irregardless of whomever really pulled off 9/11, Osama Bin Laden (OBL) and Al Qaeda (AQ) got worldwide credit for that attack. According to Arab cultural thinking if you don't hit them as hard, or even harder, they perceive you as being weak which opens the door for their continued attacks that historically increase in intensity. This is real world so we had to hit AQ in their home turf otherwise we literally would have been fighting an active terrorism campaign here on American streets where events like the Boston bombing would have become routine common place acts.

The original mission briefs were to destroy AQ and expel them from A-Stan and once it became apparent TB was against our operations there they became a secondary target and the mission changed to destroying and expelling both from zone. That military mission was indeed accomplished during 2004 which left everyone wondering why we didn't pull out since both AQ and TB had either been killed or run off into Pakistan (P-Stan) which is still TB’s “secret” main supporter.

Real world is TB has always had high numbers of P-Stan Frontier Troops (20%) in their ranks because P-Stan’s version of CIA has always used TB to control A-Stan’s poppy fields. Think about it, how does a broke third world country come up with the mega dollars necessary to develop a world class nuclear weapons program? You got it, opium poppy fields. To make matters even worse we continue to provide military aid to P-Stan and they’ve been caught more than once in using at least some of those very American dollars to kill American Troops since 9/11 because TB is owned and operated by P-Stan.

As for Iraq the original mission briefs were to go in, remove Sadam and take physical custody of his WMD’s. However once boots on the ground we found nothing as it turned into one frustrating raid after raid of empty structures that had been vacant for years or were being used for commercial purposes that had nothing to do with nuclear, biological or chemical (NBC) weapons. By the end of the first deployment the rank and file servicemembers knew there were no WMD’s and that part of the mission was lie.

Now unlike A-Stan we knew Sadam and his sons had been terrorizing the Iraqi People and the Kurds and we had enough forces in play so we immediately launched into a hearts and minds nation building campaign as we wrestled control from hard core fighters from all over the world which included Chechens, Moroccans and Libyians as well as former Iraqi Army, home grown terrorists, religious fundamentalists and average citizens looking for payback because we killed their friends and relatives. Let’s just say it was a real free for all from 2003-2005.

The Iraqi People held their national elections in December 2005 which signaled the end of our original military mission. Our top generals in zone told the whole world on CNN we could be home by summer 2006 because our job was done only to be told by VP Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on CNN that we were staying indefinitely which stunned everyone.

While searching the internet for professional military reading in 2006 we came across a really bizarre indepth Department of Defense (DOD) study of Iraqi oil fields and production. That’s CIA type stuff, not DOD because it has nothing to do with warfighting or nation building. While it can be argued that type of data is useful in figuring out possible war funding sources, that would be something mentioned as part of a report without being a separate indepth report of it’s own.

Not long after that we read in the civilian press how Halliburton and other mega US energy corporations had established international headquarters in the Middle East. That’s when we realized our mission in Iraq had always been to cease local hostilities so the energy corporations could exploit Iraq’s shia oilfields which at the time were estimated to hold one third of the world’s oil reserves. That’s when the WMD lie made perfect sense given VP Cheney was former CEO of Halliburton.

What gives legitimacy to this accusation is our staying in A-Stan after that mission was completed back in 2004. Turns out China bought A-Stan’s mineral rights and Chinese have miners have been mining those resources for the past few years as American Troops stabilize the local situation to cease the violence there as well. This establishes a clear cut pattern and pretty much shows the US government isn’t executing militarism on it’s own but more like an international business consortium is using the United States to do it’s bidding and former VP Dick Cheney is in the middle of it. This explains precisely why he “redefined the vice presidency” by being so active and giving orders normally only issued by the President himself.

We know President Reagan suffered from alzheimers and his staff took control to hide his illness from the world in order to keep us from looking weak. A lot of career Marines I know, myself included, believe that same crew took over the Bush Administration and ran a lot of the show without President Bush’s consent. We further believe Dick Cheney is trying to cover his tracks with an HBO special where he supposedly mourns the loss of his friendship with President Bush by putting everything on Bush instead of owning all the stuff he pulled from torture to lying to illegal defense appropriation procedures where Halliburton made mega millions at taxpayers’ expense.

The cool thing is politically we're dems and repubs and just because we were career Marines doesn’t mean we’re stupid and blindly believe what politicians say and we make no apologies for liberating the Iraqi and Afghani people from really shiatty lives. The powers that be have their agendas and we had our’s and helping other people is why a lot of us stayed in. Just because we were lied to and used doesn’t mean we broke faith with ourselves, what we stand for and you the American People we served.

Semper Fi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's your definition of "win"? Would you do it all over again if you were prez?

Based on the same known facts at the time? Yes.

Based on what we learned after going in and learning the truth? No.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There was no feasible way to "win" these wars. That's what people like me were telling people like you when your guys were trying to get them started. These arab nations have been behaving like this for centuries, and you thought Dick Cheney was going to ride in on his white horse and make it all better?!?

 

I'm pretty sure that we won in Afghanistan, as the entire purpose of our invasion was the NATO enforcement of the Laws of Land Warfare and the removal of the Taliban to prevent the further destruction of irreplaceable historic monuments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

bla bla, i'm gay

You credited bush, when the withdrawal went smoothly. You said obama deserved no credit for the successful withdrawal, since it was all on bush's time table.

 

And I agreed, because unlke you, I;'m not a hypocrite partisan.

 

Then it began to appear there might be trouble brewing for the civilian government in iraq. What did you do? You IMMEDIATELY went to blaming the withdrawal on obama. pretending it was all HIS doing - bush had nothing to do with it.

 

You're a little partisan hack, son.

 

Tell us how many soldiers obama should have left, arm chair general. You won't, because you're scared, because you know I'll smear your hypocrisy all over you, delores.

 

 

I'm pretty sure that we won in Afghanistan, as the entire purpose of our invasion was the NATO enforcement of the Laws of Land Warfare and the removal of the Taliban to prevent the further destruction of irreplaceable historic monuments.

As long as you're willing to pretend that there were historic monuments worthy of defense in that hillbilly haven shur, shur. Sounds hunky dory.

 

I'm sticking with the war for resources theory, myself - but then, I'm an adult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I'm pretty sure that we won in Afghanistan, as the entire purpose of our invasion was the NATO enforcement of the Laws of Land Warfare and the removal of the Taliban to prevent the further destruction of irreplaceable historic monuments.

uhhh...don't think I can agree with that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted this is another thread and I'm tired of explaining this so here's a copy to save myself the time and aggravation. Probably few if anyone will even read it.

 

__________________________________________

 

William it’s time for a real world based discussion so let’s see who is really serious enough about what’s really going on to even read this. We’ll all really know by the responses.

 

Irregardless of whomever really pulled off 9/11, Osama Bin Laden (OBL) and Al Qaeda (AQ) got worldwide credit for that attack.

 

I see that you could be another wacko conspiracy theorist, so wasting my time citing fact, logic and empirical research is probably futile. Nonetheless, I will try.

 

 

 

 

According to Arab cultural thinking if you don't hit them as hard, or even harder, they perceive you as being weak which opens the door for their continued attacks that historically increase in intensity. This is real world so we had to hit AQ in their home turf otherwise we literally would have been fighting an active terrorism campaign here on American streets where events like the Boston bombing would have become routine common place acts.

 

 

True that. However, include 'Muslim culture' with Arab culture.

 

 

 

The original mission briefs were to destroy AQ and expel them from A-Stan and once it became apparent TB was against our operations there they became a secondary target and the mission changed to destroying and expelling both from zone. That military mission was indeed accomplished during 2004 which left everyone wondering why we didn't pull out since both AQ and TB had either been killed or run off into Pakistan (P-Stan) which is still TB’s “secret” main supporter.

 

Your misinformed.

 

1) OBL was not killed or captured, nor were the majority of AQ personnel in 2004 -- hence the mission was not completed.

 

2) allowing Afghanistan to decay into a failed state again would increase the likelihood of another grand terror attack. Hence, what you don't seem to understand is that failed or rogue islamist states like pre-2001 Afghanistan are breeding grounds for grand terror attacks.

 

Real world is TB has always had high numbers of P-Stan Frontier Troops (20%) in their ranks because P-Stan’s version of CIA has always used TB to control A-Stan’s poppy fields. Think about it, how does a broke third world country come up with the mega dollars necessary to develop a world class nuclear weapons program? You got it, opium poppy fields. To make matters even worse we continue to provide military aid to P-Stan and they’ve been caught more than once in using at least some of those very American dollars to kill American Troops since 9/11 because TB is owned and operated by P-Stan.

 

 

Your misinformed.

 

Pakistan has a population of 175 million, it is a huge nation with a significant educated population that is emminently capable of both generating a large GNP and educating citizens to develop a nuclear weapon program.

 

Moreover, good luck trying to find a single mention of illicit drugs, poppy, heroin, etc. in the following brief on Pakistan economy

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Pakistan

 

You stand corrected.

 

 

As for Iraq the original mission briefs were to go in, remove Sadam and take physical custody of his WMD’s. However once boots on the ground we found nothing as it turned into one frustrating raid after raid of empty structures that had been vacant for years or were being used for commercial purposes that had nothing to do with nuclear, biological or chemical (NBC) weapons. By the end of the first deployment the rank and file servicemembers knew there were no WMD’s and that part of the mission was lie.

 

 

Absurd. You have issued another ridiculous fallacious talking point designed to brainwash the typical low information American voter.

 

The following bipartisan investigations came to the unanimous conclusion that the Bush administration did not 'cook the books' or otherwise mislead the American people:

 

"Review Of Intelligence On Weapons Of Mass Destruction," Report Of A Committee Of Privy Counsellors, 7/14/04, Pg. 110

 

Senate Select Committee On Intelligence. “Report on the U.S. Intelligence Community’s Prewar Intelligence Assessments on Iraq.” 7 July 2004.
(pages 284-285). Internet. Accessed: 10 January 2009.

 

Charles S. Robb And Laurence H. Silberman, The Commission On The Intelligence Capabilities Of The United States Regarding Weapons Of Mass Destruction, 3/31/05, Pg. 50-51

It is rare when Democrats agree with Republicans, but in this case they do. Moreover, everybody and his brother believed that Saddam had WMD, indeed Saddam stated himself that he wanted to convey this message to deter Iran from attacking Iraq. Hence, he miscalculated and considered Iran a greater immediate threat than the USA.

 

 

 

Now unlike A-Stan we knew Sadam and his sons had been terrorizing the Iraqi People and the Kurds and we had enough forces in play so we immediately launched into a hearts and minds nation building campaign as we wrestled control from hard core fighters from all over the world which included Chechens, Moroccans and Libyians as well as former Iraqi Army, home grown terrorists, religious fundamentalists and average citizens looking for payback because we killed their friends and relatives. Let’s just say it was a real free for all from 2003-2005.

 

 

True that.

 

 

 

 

The Iraqi People held their national elections in December 2005 which signaled the end of our original military mission. Our top generals in zone told the whole world on CNN we could be home by summer 2006 because our job was done only to be told by VP Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on CNN that we were staying indefinitely which stunned everyone.

 

The generals and you are wrong as today's escalating violence, instability and corruption have demonstrated.

 

 

While searching the internet for professional military reading in 2006 we came across a really bizarre indepth Department of Defense (DOD) study of Iraqi oil fields and production. That’s CIA type stuff, not DOD because it has nothing to do with warfighting or nation building. While it can be argued that type of data is useful in figuring out possible war funding sources, that would be something mentioned as part of a report without being a separate indepth report of it’s own.

 

 

Conspiracy nonsense, I will explain soon.

 

 

Not long after that we read in the civilian press how Halliburton and other mega US energy corporations had established international headquarters in the Middle East. That’s when we realized our mission in Iraq had always been to cease local hostilities so the energy corporations could exploit Iraq’s shia oilfields which at the time were estimated to hold one third of the world’s oil reserves. That’s when the WMD lie made perfect sense given VP Cheney was former CEO of Halliburton.

 

Absolute nonsense.

 

Indeed, if the USA wanted to profit from harvesting Saddam's oil fields, then why not align with him against Iran and get this oil on the cheap without an expensive war?

 

Moreover, the USA energy concerns have taken a back seat to European oil producers further debunking the nonsensical 'argument' above.

 

Moreover, this ill-informed dude promotes the absurd notion that Cheney intended that Haliburton profits were a primary rationale for the war, hence Cheney was driven by monetary goals in promoting the war ?!!!?

 

Absurd, since anyone motivated by money wouldn't have given over $8 million in charity in a single year as Cheney did in 2005. Moreover, this ill informed contributor can't name a single firm other than Haliburton that could have done the job required in Iraq. Similarly, this conspiracy theorists can't name a Haliburton competitor who has challenged the contracts Haliburton received from the govt.

 

 

In sum, this dude stands corrected, yet again.

 

 

 

 

What gives legitimacy to this accusation is our staying in A-Stan after that mission was completed back in 2004. Turns out China bought A-Stan’s mineral rights and Chinese have miners have been mining those resources for the past few years as American Troops stabilize the local situation to cease the violence there as well. This establishes a clear cut pattern and pretty much shows the US government isn’t executing militarism on it’s own but more like an international business consortium is using the United States to do it’s bidding and former VP Dick Cheney is in the middle of it. This explains precisely why he “redefined the vice presidency” by being so active and giving orders normally only issued by the President himself.

 

 

Talk about brainwashed irrational conspiracy theorist nonsense.

 

There you have it folks, the convoluted nonsense that involves China, Cheney, the USA military, Afghanistan, mineral rights (really rare Earth metals), etc.

 

Essentially, when you belong to an ideology that doesn't understand or comprehend how geopolitical events transpire, you make stuff up.

 

 

We know President Reagan suffered from alzheimers and his staff took control to hide his illness from the world in order to keep us from looking weak. A lot of career Marines I know, myself included, believe that same crew took over the Bush Administration and ran a lot of the show without President Bush’s consent. We further believe Dick Cheney is trying to cover his tracks with an HBO special where he supposedly mourns the loss of his friendship with President Bush by putting everything on Bush instead of owning all the stuff he pulled from torture to lying to illegal defense appropriation procedures where Halliburton made mega millions at taxpayers’ expense.

 

 

Not a shred of substantive, objective and rational evidence to support this conspiratorial nonsense.

 

Like most nonsense of this type, it is primarily 99% minutia, circumstantial and anecdotal evidence -- and it rejects the overwhelming and irrefutable contrary evidence.

 

 

The cool thing is politically we're dems and repubs and just because we were career Marines doesn’t mean we’re stupid and blindly believe what politicians say and we make no apologies for liberating the Iraqi and Afghani people from really shiatty lives. The powers that be have their agendas and we had our’s and helping other people is why a lot of us stayed in. Just because we were lied to and used doesn’t mean we broke faith with ourselves, what we stand for and you the American People we served.

 

 

It appears that you have either been traumatized by war, full of crap or another drone brainwashed by conspiratorial nonsense.

 

Moreover, I challenge you to explain what you would have done in 2003 under the following conditions (note that these conspiracy theorists have yet to identify a solution to the Iraqi problem):

 

(1) Continued use of sanctions and diplomacy against Iraq despite the fact that this action was causing great suffering to the most vulnerable and innocent in Iraq while having virtually no effect at moderating Saddam's behavior. Equally important was the animus created in the Islamic and Arab world from the sanctions that were a recruiting boom for regional terrorist organizations. Note that one of the primary motives for bin Laden's attack on the US in 2001 was in protest of sanctions against Iraq and its impact on Iraqi women and children.

 

(2) Resumption of hostilities against Iraq for violating the ceasefire of 1991 with a goal of removing Saddam and installing a Western ally and representative government in its place.

 

(3)Do nothing and allow Saddam to reconstitute his WMD program as he stated was his intention while incarcerated by the US military after his capture in 2003.

 

 

Semper Fi

 

Yeah, Semper Fi.

 

And get some help for that subjective, irrational and non-scientific based view of the geopolitik.

 

Indeed, knowledge and objectivity will set you free.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted this is another thread and I'm tired of explaining this so here's a copy to save myself the time and aggravation. Probably few if anyone will even read it.

 

__________________________________________

 

William its time for a real world based discussion so lets see who is really serious enough about whats really going on to even read this. Well all really know by the responses.

 

Irregardless of whomever really pulled off 9/11, Osama Bin Laden (OBL) and Al Qaeda (AQ) got worldwide credit for that attack. According to Arab cultural thinking if you don't hit them as hard, or even harder, they perceive you as being weak which opens the door for their continued attacks that historically increase in intensity. This is real world so we had to hit AQ in their home turf otherwise we literally would have been fighting an active terrorism campaign here on American streets where events like the Boston bombing would have become routine common place acts.

 

The original mission briefs were to destroy AQ and expel them from A-Stan and once it became apparent TB was against our operations there they became a secondary target and the mission changed to destroying and expelling both from zone. That military mission was indeed accomplished during 2004 which left everyone wondering why we didn't pull out since both AQ and TB had either been killed or run off into Pakistan (P-Stan) which is still TBs secret main supporter.

 

Real world is TB has always had high numbers of P-Stan Frontier Troops (20%) in their ranks because P-Stans version of CIA has always used TB to control A-Stans poppy fields. Think about it, how does a broke third world country come up with the mega dollars necessary to develop a world class nuclear weapons program? You got it, opium poppy fields. To make matters even worse we continue to provide military aid to P-Stan and theyve been caught more than once in using at least some of those very American dollars to kill American Troops since 9/11 because TB is owned and operated by P-Stan.

 

As for Iraq the original mission briefs were to go in, remove Sadam and take physical custody of his WMDs. However once boots on the ground we found nothing as it turned into one frustrating raid after raid of empty structures that had been vacant for years or were being used for commercial purposes that had nothing to do with nuclear, biological or chemical (NBC) weapons. By the end of the first deployment the rank and file servicemembers knew there were no WMDs and that part of the mission was lie.

 

Now unlike A-Stan we knew Sadam and his sons had been terrorizing the Iraqi People and the Kurds and we had enough forces in play so we immediately launched into a hearts and minds nation building campaign as we wrestled control from hard core fighters from all over the world which included Chechens, Moroccans and Libyians as well as former Iraqi Army, home grown terrorists, religious fundamentalists and average citizens looking for payback because we killed their friends and relatives. Lets just say it was a real free for all from 2003-2005.

 

The Iraqi People held their national elections in December 2005 which signaled the end of our original military mission. Our top generals in zone told the whole world on CNN we could be home by summer 2006 because our job was done only to be told by VP Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on CNN that we were staying indefinitely which stunned everyone.

 

While searching the internet for professional military reading in 2006 we came across a really bizarre indepth Department of Defense (DOD) study of Iraqi oil fields and production. Thats CIA type stuff, not DOD because it has nothing to do with warfighting or nation building. While it can be argued that type of data is useful in figuring out possible war funding sources, that would be something mentioned as part of a report without being a separate indepth report of its own.

 

Not long after that we read in the civilian press how Halliburton and other mega US energy corporations had established international headquarters in the Middle East. Thats when we realized our mission in Iraq had always been to cease local hostilities so the energy corporations could exploit Iraqs shia oilfields which at the time were estimated to hold one third of the worlds oil reserves. Thats when the WMD lie made perfect sense given VP Cheney was former CEO of Halliburton.

 

What gives legitimacy to this accusation is our staying in A-Stan after that mission was completed back in 2004. Turns out China bought A-Stans mineral rights and Chinese have miners have been mining those resources for the past few years as American Troops stabilize the local situation to cease the violence there as well. This establishes a clear cut pattern and pretty much shows the US government isnt executing militarism on its own but more like an international business consortium is using the United States to do its bidding and former VP Dick Cheney is in the middle of it. This explains precisely why he redefined the vice presidency by being so active and giving orders normally only issued by the President himself.

 

We know President Reagan suffered from alzheimers and his staff took control to hide his illness from the world in order to keep us from looking weak. A lot of career Marines I know, myself included, believe that same crew took over the Bush Administration and ran a lot of the show without President Bushs consent. We further believe Dick Cheney is trying to cover his tracks with an HBO special where he supposedly mourns the loss of his friendship with President Bush by putting everything on Bush instead of owning all the stuff he pulled from torture to lying to illegal defense appropriation procedures where Halliburton made mega millions at taxpayers expense.

 

The cool thing is politically we're dems and repubs and just because we were career Marines doesnt mean were stupid and blindly believe what politicians say and we make no apologies for liberating the Iraqi and Afghani people from really shiatty lives. The powers that be have their agendas and we had ours and helping other people is why a lot of us stayed in. Just because we were lied to and used doesnt mean we broke faith with ourselves, what we stand for and you the American People we served.

 

Semper Fi

we invaded Iraq because our boy Saddam was over pumping oil to pay off his nations debts and he was threatening to drop the dollar and use euros. We didn't go to exploit we went to cut off oil. As far as opium goes Afghan opium was about 10% of world opium supplies, after we invaded the stuff is everyplace. It was on national TV that our troops were in charge of the poppy fields. Now Afghan opium is 84% of the world supply. This had nothing to do with liberation or the CIA run Al quada and no, there would be no real attacks other than false flag attacks in American streets if we didn't invade or if we totally leave.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...