- Dec 13, 2013
- 13,990
- 180
- 106
Can't even stop opium trade in NATO "controlled" Afghanistan.
![]()
![]()
You have not been paying attention.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/drug-w...ds-to-all-time-high-heroin-production/5358053
The US has propped up the opium trade in Afganistan on purpose. Hearts and Minds!
Fixt that for ya.They're just taking advantage of our non-willingness to blow them the fuck up.
Edit: You know, it occurs to me that we carry out war like scrubs play video games. That is we play (war) within the constraints of self-imposed rules while the guys who are truly playing (warring) to win mercilessly exploit whatever advantages are afforded them without compunction. There's no wonder all our conflicts get stretched out into infinity. Massive wealth is the only reason wecancompete at all.
The US has been propping up drug organizations around the world for decades, it's in the news. No one cared, nor can they do anything about it.That's crazy. How come this stuff isn't on the news?
That's crazy. How come this stuff isn't on the news?
The US has been propping up drug organizations around the world for decades, it's in the news. No one cared, nor can they do anything about it. P.S. Dear guys in black suits, I'm just an apathetic guy that doesn't care, either. Don't accidentally accident me, please.
Don't accidentally accident me, please.
Wow. They need Liam Neeson. Is that number for real?!
Amazing when you look at the scale of warfare the world has seen this past century, and now some ragtag group numbering only in the 10s of thousands is talked about as some new unstoppable force.
The U.S. won the battles but did not decisively win the war against the commies in Vietnam, however the NVA had A LOT more than just 10s of thousands of bodies to throw at the U.S., along with Soviet and PRC support. ISIS doesn't have enough strength to offer little more than a few skirmishes in open battle and then dissolve away into the mountains.
Does Obama even have a strategy for Syria yet?
I have 3 words to end the problem.."Tactical Nuclear weapons"..
My ex-father-in-law said something pretty profound. He said the old saying "give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime" is complete bullshit, because if a man is hungry, and his family is hungry, then he is going to be fishing as best he can if there's anything to him. All you can do is teach him better methods or help him get better tools.We need to help these countries, and peoples, establish Governments that are not based in Religion, but rather in the belief that all men are created equal, or...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
George Bush, went a long way towards this, when he assumed control of Iraq, but he lost sight of the goal, and succumbed to the pressures of the "liberals."
Nation Building is exactly what has to be done in these areas. They have a lot to offer. Including poppy seeds.
-John
Sanctions ain't going to do anything. How can you tell people to stop giving money to a radical Islamic group hell bent on rampaging, homicide, and vengeance on their religious beliefs? Obviously if people already know this yet enjoy the benefits of the trade, shit aint going to stop. Neither is another war at this point. Place is a vacuum and needs to change culturally which takes centuries.
Just in case anyone takes your post seriously,We need to help these countries, and peoples, establish Governments that are not based in Religion, but rather in the belief that all men are created equal, or...
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
George Bush, went a long way towards this, when he assumed control of Iraq, but he lost sight of the goal, and succumbed to the pressures of the "liberals."
Nation Building is exactly what has to be done in these areas. They have a lot to offer. Including poppy seeds.
-John
Islamist Sharia in Iraq Made in the USA
Historical and Investigative Research - 18 May 2006
by Francisco Gil-White![]()
http://www.hirhome.com/iraniraq/sharia.htm
__________________________________________________________
Below, HIR reproduces a report by Reuters on the developing political climate in Iraq. The main message of the article is that, imposed by terror, Sharia, or Islamic law, is fast becoming the law in Iraq.
What does Sharia mean?
It means that if you own a store that sells alcohol, your store will be bombed. If you are a woman, you will be violently attacked if you neglect to wear a veil or dare to drive a car. If you are a man, you will be violently attacked if you wear shorts or decide to shave. This is the future of Iraqi society.
The article explains that things were quite different under Saddam Hussein:
Baghdad [was] known under the secular rule of Saddam Hussein for its nightlife and liberal social culture.
Something else that the article explains is that:
Some of the militias suspected of being behind the attacks or the threats are linked to Shiite parties in power.
In other words, what is happening in Iraq is that it is becoming the westernmost province of Iran. About 60% of the population of Iraq is Shiite, like the Muslims who run the totalitarian theocratic state of Iran, next door. Ever since 1979, the Iranian Shiites have been attempting to control Iraq through their influence on Iraqi Shiites, and their goals have now been largely accomplished: Newsweek recently remarked on just how deeply Iran has infiltrated Baghdad.[1]
The terrorist imposition of Sharia in Iraq is a consequence of the US invasion of Iraq, because before the US invasion, Iraq had a secular government and a liberal social culture. In other words, before the US invasion, the Iraqi government repressed political dissent but did not mess with the minutiae of Iraqi private life, so that the Iraqis were free to shave or not shave, drink or not, wear a veil or not, drive or not drive, and wear shorts or pants as they desired.
Now, in public the US claims to oppose Islamist terrorism, but HIRs position is that governments very often have reasons to publicly misrepresent their real intentions and actions, which means that a social scientist can hardly be learning much if he constructs a model of the world with the statements of public officials. Ignoring, therefore, what US officials say, there are two obvious hypotheses to consider here:
Hypothesis 1. Iranian-style Islamist terrorism in Iraq is an unintended consequence of the decisions of the US foreign policy elite.
Hypothesis 2. Iranian-style Islamist terrorism in Iraq is a foreseen and intended consequence of the decisions of the US foreign policy elite.
HIR has been defending the second hypothesis. In favor of HIRs view is the entire history of US foreign policy towards Iran and Iraq, which HIR has been documenting here:
As HIR has shown, US foreign policy has been remarkably consistent since 1979: the US ruling elite of both major US parties, over and over again, has made decisions whose effect is to strengthen Iranian Islamism. HIR has defended the view that the whole point of the US invasion of Iraq was to remove a secular rival so that Iranian-style Islamism could spread to Iraq. Consistent with this view is the absence of evidence to suggest that invading Iraq was necessary to protect the national security of the US, and the abundance of evidence that the US ruling elite had other motives and lied to the US citizenry.
Also consistent with this view is the fact that the US sponsored the imposition of Sharia in Iraq, as the Reuters article also explains:
A new, U.S.-sponsored constitution introduced last year makes Sharia, or Islamic law, a main source for legislation.
The bulk of the evidence is consistent with HIRs hypothesis: the US ruling elite would like to see the spread of Iranian-style Islamist terrorism.
Does Obama even have a strategy for Syria yet?
Just in case anyone takes your post seriously,
Bullshit, George Bush helped bring Sharia law to Iraq and instantly made women who were enjoying secular type freedoms under Saddam second class citizens literally overnight, it had nothing to do with liberals, apologists, phonies or otherwise.