Obama escalates in Afghanistan
Obama escalates in Afghanistan
by Project Mayhem
Nobel 'Peace' Prize winner Obama escalates war in Afghanistan in act of Orwellian tragedy.
Within the first several minutes of the speech , Obama , brow furrowed, aggressive and serious, was working the crowd over with frightening words like 'slaughter' , 'terror' , 'Taleban' , 'ruthless' , 'ravaged' and so on. The West Point cadets sit uncomfortably as our heroic Nobel Peace Prize winner comes out sounding far more like a Roman military commander than like compassionate and liberal sitting President. To be honest the whole process was disgusting and I will not dwell on it further, other than the fact there was no mention of this. But as we all know, truth is the first casualty in war.
In terms of the political implications of this event, it is obvious we are witnessing an a serious and long-term escalation in Afghanistan by yet another President obsessed by war and acting on behalf of banks and defense contractors. But here, by 'Afghanistan', we implicitly mean Pakistan, which must necessarily enter chaos in order to meet the political objectives of Kissinger, Brzezinski, and others. So when you hear Afghanistan, think Pakistan.
Pakistan is now ravaged by CIA Predator drone attacks and in is on the brink of civil war in the Pashtun regions. But civil war appears this was precisely the political objectives of those operating behind the scenes in the Western political establishment -- to include the CFR and Trilateral Commission. We have known for some time that Brzezinski has favored fracturing Afghanistan-Pakistan into a series of micro-states. There are four major political objectives here, which you will not hear discussed outside of closed doors.
1) Protection of the Afghan drug trade
2) Control of Eurasian Oil supplies and pipeline routes
3) Fomentation of a longer-term conflict with Russia and China
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin. He definitely knows Judo..
SCO summit in Russia - June 16, 2009
The former head of Pakistani ISI from 1987 to 1989 -- Lt. Gen. Hamid
Gul (on far left in above picture)-- has made the claim that the newly
created Afghan Intelligence Agency 'RAMA' has the officially-sanctioned
purpose of destabilizing neighboring Pakistan. A bold claim indeed.
4) Access to the strategic Pakistani deep-water ports
Pakistani deep-water port. US wants it. China wants it.
Deep-water ports -- strategically important.
The troop levels in Afghanistan now rival the levels when Russia was lost amongst its' quagmire 30 years ago. Pakistan is now in play. All that is required is a Gulf of Tonkin incident.
Project Mayhem Research (PMR) is a DC/Baltimore-based grassroots think tank dedicated to exposing corruption worldwide. PMR is affiliated with Zerohedge.com, a popular and growing anti-corruption site, through contribution of free articles for the public. Topics include the politics of war and weapons systems, unexpected applications of cybernetics, the growing international surveillance state, global warming 'deindustrialization' economics, broad systemic international corruption , in-depth policy analysis of studies from bank and military funded research groups, genetic analysis and surveillance of pandemic influenza, corruption in the international gold market, the power structure and history of the global elite, and analysis of their political objectives expressed through monopolistic international finance capital (read: powerful banks) between now and 2050.
Sign up for free news updates and future subscription information--
(5 votes)
»
-
- Login or register to post comments
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 14:23
#149446
Pakistani deep-water port. US wants it. China wants it.
IVAN WANT TOO!!!!
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 14:32
#149457
http://www.stratpost.com/indo-russian-naval-drills-this-month
Ivan's buddy Peter the Great (the guided missle cruiser incarnation) cruising the Arabian Sea, looking for a home (?) last January....
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 16:12
#149637
Makes perfect sense....use the AFGHAN war as a decoy to amass enough troops for another operation. That Bammy is sneaky, but Biden was definitely not the mastermind like Cheaney was to Bush.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 16:32
#149668
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 18:20
#149834
Puppetmaster and sockpuppet... no ties?
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 20:08
#149976
Uh, no--he's not. In fact, he couldn't find his ass with both hands...
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 14:32
#149458
What incredible foolishness to think that in 18 months, we will have accomplished enough in Afghanistan to start bringing the troops home. Or does it have more to do with the fact that no matter what we have or have not accomplished, having the bulk of troops home befor the next Presidential Election is really what matters to this administration? Just how stupid do they think we are?
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 14:48
#149474
Apparently we are very stupid.....we keep letting it happen.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 14:50
#149482
Hell we all know he has 0 intention of pulling the troops out in 18 months. It was said to hedge politically, to try to show that he is still the "peace" candidate. If we don't have a convenient "incident" to justify us staying over there I will be surprised. Though he might just man up and openly break this promise. It's not like he hasn't done that before. There is precisely 0 chance that we are out of the Middle East before we go into a full economic and social collapse, 0 chance. But remember folks the story would be the same with McCain. Last election we had the choice of being punched in the face by the right hand of tyranny or the left.
on Mon, 12/07/2009 - 23:27
#156188
By my calendar he has ~8 mos left on his original post inauguration 18 month
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 14:49
#149477
"To be honest the whole process was disgusting and I will not dwell on it further, other than the fact there was no mention of this. But as we all know, truth is the first casualty in war."
PM,
Truth is also the first casualty with conspiracy wingnuts. They don't want to believe the evidence their own eyes were witness to, or don't want to believe that the simplest explanation is often the best. (See:Occams Razor)
They don't want to believe that a bunch of cavemen in Afghanistan could have pulled off the WTC attack any more than they want to acknowledge or believe that some lone, loser asshole like a Lee Harvey Oswald could possibly have had the affect on world events or the course of history he had either.
I personally don't want to believe it either, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
If anyone seriously believes the WTC attack was an inside job with some sort of 'thermatic material', (to say nothing of a new fatal flu being deliberately released in Ukraine a few weeks back which didn't happen either) their tinfoil is on waaay too tight.
Your wild conspiracy theories have now made any of your future posts much less credible (and ignorable) except to your fellow wingnuts.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 14:58
#149493
As you may be aware, ad hominem is a logical fallacy.
see
http://pf11.blogspot.com
No one is forcing you to read anything.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:02
#149511
This is not ad hominem my man, this is my opinion but, unlike yours, mine contains no conspiracy theories. No one is forcing you to read anything here, either, btw.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:05
#149521
Of course the government's official story is really no more than a conspiracy theory. Come to think about it.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:20
#149550
ignorance is a bliss
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:24
#149557
yes, it truly is S.O., isn't it?
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:27
#149563
Fear Turns People Into Sheep
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 21:50
#150153
Are you mad that we are paying attention to PM? and not you?
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 14:59
#149504
Lou629,
In what are your obvious struggles to formulate a rational (counter) argument, it would behoove you to spend some time at the following web site:
Fallacies
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
In particular, see:
Fallacy: Ad Hominem
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:06
#149515
Theory? No. Just the usual, underreported geopolitics (at least in the proud US of A). Since when do human beings stop thinking about power and control?
As for WTC:
And your post is chock full of irony. I thought maybe you were joking until you replied above.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:43
#149596
Lou,
Niels Harrit found rests of an explosive in the WTC dust and published it an an scienticfic journal with peer review.
"Niels Harrit and 8 other scientists found nano-thermite in the dust from the World Trade Center. He is interviewed on danish TV2 News. People can see a full transcript, news, forum and the video in high quality here: agenda911.dk Another site in danish is encouraging people to stand forward..."
http://exercisebetter.com/Niels+Harrit/
That is not so easily dismissed as invention or conspiracy theory.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:28
#149761
Them thar cavemen in Afghanistan were really, really good organic and inorganic chemists.
Indeed, nanotech thermitic material is their specialty.
They made it in their caves and put it in the elevator shafts of WTC 1, 2 and 7.
Great post.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 14:49
#149478
What Empires Have Said Throughout History: "One More Surge"
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 14:55
#149492
So Obama said he's going to bang Afghanistan a little harder for a while and then pull out? Somehow I never believe a man who says he's going to do that.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 14:55
#149494
18 months is just long enough to get the US past its midterm elections and then leave the drug dealers and goat fuckers to their own devices.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 14:57
#149498
sorry for the puff ho, but couldn't find it elsewhere:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/02/brzezinski-calls-anti-cor_n_376...
talkin his book for sure, yet...
"Who are we to seriously be preaching [such] a crusade?" he asked. "We have a financial sector that is voraciously greedy and exploitative, to put it mildly. We have a Congress which is not immune to special interests. And we have an electoral system that is based largely on private donations which precipitate expectations of rewards. The notion of us going to the Afghans and preaching purity is comical... I think we should just quit that stuff."
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:02
#149512
p.s. poppy flowers sure are purdy...
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 14:58
#149500
If Obama wants to establish order in a drug-addled, illiterate region of the world he would do well to start with Detroit.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:04
#149520
hahah
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:21
#149551
or Chicago.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 16:39
#149685
Detroit or Chicago, both good options for that. It's hard to get past the fact that US troops are guarding opium production.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:02
#149716
If Obama wants to establish order in a drug-addled, illiterate region of the world he would do well to start with Detroit.
John, you have won the post of the day! Congratulations.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 18:28
#149844
Ha... easy to cheapshot Detroit when it's down... Washington also fits the bill you know and is a major reason why Detroit is on the ropes to begin with.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:12
#149901
Thank you for break in these self appointed experts, I'm a conspiratory sort, but what is he to do, kick a little ass, spend a lot of money, and see if he can get Pakistan somewhat reasonable. These things wouldn't happen, we'll go low key in Pakistan - we want Irag oil so we don't have make any changes here - guys and gals sign up for great benefits - I had $10,000 life insurance in Nam, my stepson has $250,000. To you guys that is chump change but in rural america that is money.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:18
#149912
And , unlike Detroit, there's lots of natural gas in D.C. too.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:14
#149736
:-)
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:01
#149510
Hogwash,
Were this president a war monger he would have committed the troops when asked for by the General on the ground rather than being indecisive for 6 months and wavering on the issue. PM shows complete ignorance of the issue on the ground and proves once again why fringe conspiracy bloggers can be largely ignored.
If anything the president is guilty of being 2 much of wuss for committing less than the number of troops required while taking 6 months to do it...
Since when did zerohedge become infowars.com.....
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 16:48
#149690
'Complete ignorance of the issue on the ground', huh? Let me tell you, I have friends who just barely made it back from that shithole , and they told me all about it. Think 12 people , including women and children , living together in a bombed out rubble and you'll get the picture.
How about I refresh your memory with some photographs
home destroyed
Rahmatullah, 19, a victim of Friday' NATO air strike, tries to sit up on his bed in a hospital in Kabul, Afghanistan, Saturday, Sept. 5, 2009.
LASHKARGAH , Nov 5, 2009 : The body of a teenager killed by a rocket attack of the NATO-led soldiers lies in a vehicle after the residents of Babaji brought the body to the provincial capital, Lashkargah, as a protest against the killing of nine civilians. PAJHWOK/Zainullah Astanakzai
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 16:53
#149708
Winning hearts and minds...so sad
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 18:33
#149849
"Winning hearts and minds"... one corpse at a time.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:04
#149721
I don't see how your friends being somewhere makes you any less ignorant, and I'm not some bleeding heart liberal who gives 2 shits about your war pictures. The world is a shit hole for most of the people that live in it and it always has been and always will be. Nature is simple and unforgiving the strong survive and the weak perish, all you conspiracy nut jobs can't understand this and turn toward some bullshit ideology.
on Thu, 12/03/2009 - 05:52
#150445
and you're so strong you have to be anonymous...
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:14
#149906
How do you get to post pictures? I have a few you'll love.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:17
#149743
hogwash?
a nice yiddish term that may come in handy for what this war is really all about. with me around i assure you, this place will not be anything like that controlled door keeper over at infowars.com. on this make my pledge....
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:13
#149537
"a bunch of cavemen in Afghanistan could have pulled off the WTC attack"
even our own government doesn't believe that. according to the 9-11 official report, the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, planned the attacks in Germany, trained in florida and lived in various states within the US.
so why exactly are we killing Afgan people? Oil, pipelines and Opium sounds pretty believable to me
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:51
#149610
I thought they came from Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/04/21/napolitano-border-canada021.html#socialcomments
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:23
#149918
No no the cavemen work for Buffet. Of course we want the oil 'status quo' is the gig. Speciality drug sales are also the status quo and are the exclusive domain of the political system, unfortunately down to the cops who get the chump change off the streets. No politician who has risen on high has done it with clean money - nobody with established wealth cares that much, it is only for the folks who need special help that huge, impossible to find political gifts make sense
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:15
#149542
Interesting post, but not sure how much "research" is there.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:25
#149561
Sep 30, 2006
General Boris Gromov, the charismatic Soviet commander who supervised the withdrawal in 1989, warned, "The Afghan resistance is, in my opinion, growing. Such behavior on the part of the intractable Afghans is to my mind understandable. It is conditioned by centuries of tradition, geography, climate and religion.
"We saw over a period of many years how the country was torn apart by civil war ... But in the face of outside aggressions, Afghans have always put aside their differences and united. Evidently, the [US-led] coalition forces are also being seen as a threat to the nation."
The 100,000-strong Soviet army operated alongside a full-fledged Afghan army of equal strength with an officer corps trained in the elite Soviet military academies, and backed by aviation, armored vehicles and artillery, with all the advantages of a functioning, politically motivated government in Kabul. And yet it proved no match for the Afghan resistance.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HI30Df01.html
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 16:17
#149644
It proved no match to the "Afghan resistance" because the United States armed the Afghan's with advanced surface to air missiles and pumped billions into Pakighanistan.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:58
#149964
About 350 Soviet helicopters lost. Nearly 5,000 helicopters lost in Viet Nam. That was not a decisive factor. The Russians are probably trading black market SAMs and RPGs for opium but it won't be the decisive factor.
on Thu, 12/17/2009 - 20:47
#168306
Hey! don't let facts cloud the issue! LOL
Now days I hear that the Afghan army is being given AK47s because the US weapons are crap. Geez, where have I heard this before? And the "support the troops" flag-wavers don't flinch! And then there's the Humveee, need I say more?
Arogance gets you closer to death...
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:32
#149572
Anyone who thinks that the American people have one iota of control over the direction their nation is going in needs either their head examined or a new cathartic. This jackal is the just the worst sort of lying whore, a function solely of the interests, financial, arms, drug and Middle East policy, that terrify him and fund his political aspirations. We've had our democracy stolen from us. One day, the people are going to want to recover control of their public life and vermin like Obama and his associated fungi in Congress will be cringing in their offices as a sea of faces peers angrily at them from every street and mall in Washington DC. That moment just can't come soon enough.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:26
#149921
Wow!! No doubt here!
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:33
#149574
It is curious that physical courage should be so common in the world, and moral courage so rare. -Mark Twain.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:37
#149581
First I thought it said Ejaculates, them emasculates , damn I need better glass's.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 20:10
#149978
Thanks for sharing.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:37
#149583
I agree wholeheartedly that #4 is an objective. I at least understand #1, and I can weigh the credibility.
But as to nos. 2 and 3, I don't fully understand the points being made. With regard to control of Eurasian oil, we're missing a critical fact: how much of the existing and proposed pipelines are controlled by American companies? There are a handful of majors that have stakes in some of the Afghan pipelines, I think. But what is the overall extent? If it's trivial, then why would the U.S. be wiling to escalate its war over this issue? What's to be gained if Roseneft controls 60% of the pipleines?
My level of understanding is even less on #3. Fomentation of conflict between the west, on one hand, and China/Russia on the other? Or fomentation of conflict between China, on one hand, and Russia, on the other? The pictures don't explain it to me -- especially the last picture, which is moderately interesting but seems totally off-topic.
One final point. Those opposing the U.S. efforts in Afghanistan love to point to the Soviet defeat there. I think that's a red herring. The Soviet Union would have crushed Afghanistan in an instant if we hadn't been covertly supplying the mujahadeen. That saga was one battle in the larger Cold War, just as Vietnam was. There's no parallel now -- while Pakistan may be mischievous, they are not a superpower. As a result, I say: evaluate the merits of the U.S. involvement in Afghanistan independently. Maybe it's a good idea based on the objectives and strategies; maybe not. But the Soviet experience is not relevant.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:56
#149606
Asymmetric warfare. That's why the Soviet experience is relevant.
Oct. 4 2008 8:31 PM ET LONDON — The senior British commander in Afghanistan says that a decisive military victory there is impossible and the Taliban may well be part of a long-term solution for the country. The Sunday Times newspaper quotes Brig.-Gen. Mark Carleton-Smith as saying that the alliance is not going to win the war. He says the issue now is about reducing the war to a manageable level of insurgency that's not a strategic threat and can be managed by the Afghan army. General Carleton-Smith says the alliance may well leave Afghanistan while there is still a low but steady rural insurgency.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20081004/british_vic...
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:56
#149617
I understand asymmetric warfare. And maybe it's not totally accurate to say the Soviet experience is irrelevant. More accurate would be to say that it's not remotely close to a direct parallel, as is usually implied. To the extent it's relevant, it's one of dozens of relevant examples, some of which cut the other way. The U.S. lost at asymmetric warfare/counterinsurgency in Vietnam. But in the same context, it appears to have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq. I'm sure you could have found a senior British commander in Iraq to say the same thing five years ago.
I don't mean to be a homer. Maybe the U.S. will lose spectacularly in Afghanistan. I just don't think it's a strong logical argument to say that is more likely to happen because it happened to the Soviets, because the same elements are not in place.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 18:07
#149738
It's the Afghan terrain which makes asymmetric warfare more difficult. Look how Hezbollah stopped Israel in an asymmetric war in Northern Lebanon, difficult terrain but not as difficult as Afghanistan.
on Thu, 12/17/2009 - 17:01
#168054
Ugh... Missed my point(s)...
It's about empire. Empires, which all expansionist governments are, require ever more resources in order to cover for its expanding government. Every empire, as history bears out, ultimately falls because eventually the empire exhausts its resources trying to keep control.
You can state things in military (sounding) jargon, but that's, IMHO, way too myopic. When it's talked about "hearts and minds" it's really the core of "winning" (such as one can "win;" fact is that it's about changing mindsets about ideologies, about economics). As the people in Afghanistan know (just as the people in Iraq know), the US isn't there for the good of the people there, it's there for oil. And in order to achive access to oil resources (in the case of Afghanistan it's territory for a pipeline) the US had to use some flowery-sounding story line. Hearts and minds will never, nor should they ever, be won over on a lie.
Again my initial intent was to state that total global domination will NEVER happen. Not for the Soviet Union, and not for the US.
But in the same context, it appears to have snatched victory from the jaws of defeat in Iraq.
You seem to speak with some sense of authority/knowledge. Perhaps you could explain, because no one else has yet been able to, what constitutes "victory" in Iraq? The only measure of vicotry that I can see is that Iraqi oil was kept from being traded in euros: and long-term it's a stretch to believe that this will hold (for the USD).
No modern army has defeated an insurgency. The French in Algeria. The US in Vietnam. The Soviets in Afghanistan. The Turks in the Kurdish region of Turkey. Geez, it just goes on and on...
For those with "homer-itis," the US is mired in economic troubles (with future government commitments and diminishing resources exacerbating this condition). Its population is aging and is obese and lazy. Its infrastructure isn't sustainable. And, perhaps the most damning attribute: extreme arogance. No, these aren't the hallmarks of something robust, something that's going to expand (win "hearts and minds").
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 22:15
#150178
NOTE: I am losing the right-hand side of the comment box, in which case some stuff manages to wrap around and stay visible while other stuff doesn't. Hopefully this won't come out all messed up.
As can be seen/read from this article and from the comments, there are plenty of indirect associations and dependencies.
One cannot look at the oil situation as being purely of interest only for US companies, or the US itself, though the US government has a huge interest in all of this (as world's policeman, special lobbying interests aside).
The oil embargo of the early 70s resulted in only a small percentage drop in oil production yet had a big impact on global trade.
The global system only knows growth (it's responding to the human population; though, however, the human population has been programmed for increased consumption, which has turned this all pretty ugly). What we're currently seeing economically is this very fact- there's not enough resources to fuel growth. No growth isn't going to work, let alone negative growth.
Anyone reading Jared Diamond's Collapse would have come away realizing that civilizations can collapse due to the failure of a key trading partner. And this is the key here. Those countries who get more of the oil from the middle east (the US gets something like 18% of its imported oil from there- that's a liberal number, I think it might be lower than that) face a greater threat. But... it's not even this so much as it is the impact on the globally pooled oil production- price impact. And again, THE primary reason why the world's economy is tanking is because the world's infrastructure was built for $20 - $30/bbl oil; and here we are at $80! Not only can expansion not occur, but maintenance as well cannot be kept up.
To drive this point further, just consider the precariousness of Europe with its natural gas coming from Russia.
All eggs in one basket isn't good. This concern has been there for a long time now. It's probably the primary reason why the US backed the Mujaheddin there in Afghanistan: the "fighting Commies" rhetoric is always good for lots of free money [to/for defense contractors]).
So, as Brzezinski would say, it's all a chess match. It's in the US's interested to not allow major impacts to occur to our trading partners (if they go belly up, then the US will as well).
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:38
#149586
Insightful as usual. I am sure most of the informed regulars at this site are fully aware of the United States' interest in the oil reserves of this region. They might not be so aware of the dangerous Kissinger/Brzezinski " great game" of fomenting conflict with Russia and China with the intent of preventing either power individually or cooperatively from resisting US global hegemony.Most individuals even in this well-informed, intelligent and and cynical group are probably not prepared to accept that an American President is acting to protect an unbelievably profitable drug trade. I am sure you know why protecting drug trading is government policy, and I am also sure you can lucidly explain the reasons. I hope that you have the courage to use your exceptional abilities to explain why and draw the logically inescapable implications.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 16:20
#149650
I am smarter than all and also privy to secret information. All bow before me!
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:37
#149940
Joe, lets roll back to the nineteen fifties - here we find my hard working biological uncle building a road from the western border of Afganistan to Kandahar and Kabul and beyond to the east - USA AIDs money - it is on the maps today. Beyond the oddity that they were required to buy fuel from the USSR which diesel could not handle the hot summers and so had huge cost overruns (this was cost plus, of course) the Soviets enjoyed this road in the 1980's, trying to stop the 'impulsive man' - the no government guy that is prevalent in much of the world.
This time Obama wants to hold on so his kids can enjoy the white house, so he'll more or less do what he says about acknowledged troop levels - who gives a shit they aren't drafties.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 15:44
#149598
In the delivery of his speech, President Obama used the word "I" 43 times. He used the words "victory" and "win" ZERO times. I guess the political ego trumps victory and winning.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:39
#149942
Victory? WTF, smoking the lawn?
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 16:00
#149622
Hi PM-
In addition to Pakistan you didn't mention Iran, as we are amassing troops in the two countries on both sides of Iran. Obama was probably sold this on the value of "an option" - for Iran or Pakistan, definitely war footing.
If it is Pakistan, an interesting news blurb wanted to link the Ft. Hood shooter to Pakistan and that he may have communicated with someone in Pakistan (possibly a trigger once the investigation is completed and the report is released).
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 16:03
#149627
Thanks... when war eventually goes down in Pakistan , I think Iran get pulled in by proximity. I agree 100% there is no way to have wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Pakistan without getting Iran involved.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 16:24
#149661
You are right about the idiotic migration of these wars. But that was always the design, was it not:
http://www.israeleconomy.org/strat1.htm
Iran has always been the eventual target and while there certainly are parallel objectives involving natural gas, let us not forget our overriding fundamental mission: Making the world safe for Israel. And to that end there will be absolutely no expense or American life spared, trust me.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 16:41
#149691
This may well be the plan... BUT - how on earth would we even fight, much less win, a war involving those four countries without using nukes? Even with nukes it would be a challenge. Think Cannae on a regional if not hemispheric scale. This could be a rapid and dramatic end of empire for us, if it happens.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 16:47
#149700
I think that was part of the idea behind 'full-spectrum'. I also suspect as regional conflicts escalate we'll see the use of more and more unmanned aircraft.
USA’s Unmanned Aircraft Systems Roadmap, 2005-2030
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/usas-unmanned-aircraft-systems-roadmap-20052030-01094/
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:29
#149763
How about if the idea is not to "win" in the traditional sense of "owning the ground", but merely to destroy so much infrastructure and cause such widespread suffering that the invaded country's government is forced to go to the IMF to borrow money to rebuild bombed hospitals, drinking water facilities, and roads. Through the IMF, the bankers enslave the country (the way bankers always enslave countries) by forcing it to "democratize" its government by allowing "campaign funding" of candidates by bankers. The resulting "duly" elected government then institutes "austerity programs" which enslave all the working people in the country. Again, to accomplish this, you don't have to "win"; all you have to do is "destroy enough stuff".
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 22:34
#150203
Very conspiratorial and yet extremely plausible. Yippee. I'm gonna be ill now.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:44
#149949
I don't think nukes would be devastating for us, reinforce our failing empire and get rid of a few aging weapons. Mt St. Helena wasn't that bad, little dust here and there. Slow down a lot of locals in western sub continent India if that is what this is, build oil pipelines - in and out like the guys in Canada who mine asbestos - live to fifty nine but love it.
on Thu, 12/03/2009 - 08:41
#150527
Gotta get our boots off the ground before we drop one though....
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 16:28
#149666
Good point on Iran, Kurtz. Securing the Realm, again?
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 18:50
#149624
None of the above. I think the surge has to do with (nuclear) Pakistan and it's success may depend on Pakistan.
Fate of Afghanistan surge 'lies in Pakistan'
Diplomats believe the fate of President Barack Obama's new "surge" in Afghanistan may be sealed in Pakistan.
The Obama administration was reported to be planning in influx of CIA operatives and an intensified campaign of missile attacks from Predator drones after Pakistan's failure to so far rein in militant attacks launched across the Afghan border and increasing concern about the security of its nuclear arsenal.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/6...
PS. Great fan PM, enjoy everything you write. Don't get too close to Fort Meade.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/84/National_Security_Age...
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:48
#149955
Yup it is Pakistan - only place around that can swing the deal - what are the odds - oddly I think 50/50 if they go weird India is hard to figure, if they fail they are out of biz as we will nuke.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 16:18
#149646
The Third World War must be fomented by taking advantage of the differences caused by the "agentur" of the "Illuminati" between the political Zionists and the leaders of Islamic World. The war must be conducted in such a way that Islam (the Moslem Arabic World) and political Zionism (the State of Israel) mutually destroy each other. Meanwhile the other nations, once more divided on this issue will be constrained to fight to the point of complete physical, moral, spiritual and economical exhaustion…We shall unleash the Nihilists and the atheists, and we shall provoke a formidable social cataclysm which in all its horror will show clearly to the nations the effect of absolute atheism, origin of savagery and of the most bloody turmoil. Then everywhere, the citizens, obliged to defend themselves against the world minority of revolutionaries, will exterminate those destroyers of civilization, and the multitude, disillusioned with Christianity, whose deistic spirits will from that moment be without compass or direction, anxious for an ideal, but without knowing where to render its adoration, will receive the true light through the universal manifestation of the pure doctrine of Lucifer, brought finally out in the public view. This manifestation will result from the general reactionary movement which will follow the destruction of Christianity and atheism, both conquered and exterminated at the same time." 4
4. Cmdr. William Guy Carr: Quoted in Satan: Prince of This World.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 16:38
#149683
+100
on Fri, 12/04/2009 - 17:47
#153230
Check out this video of an incredibly creepy masonic ritual at ground zero on the one year anniversary creating the eye of horus (also called the eye of lucifer). The twin towers represented the two pillars of freemasonry, Boaz and Jachin, which represent good and evil.
They were destroyed on the 11th anniversary to the day that GB Senior announced the masonic New World Order (Sept 11, 1990). The masons are big into the ancient mystery religions including numerology (hence the significance with dates and reoccuring numbers). They idolize Jacques DeMolay, a templar executed for heresy and rumored to have worshipped lucifer. The templars were the first to come up with the original concept of banking and became extremely wealthy. There is a reason they are a secret society.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ToJlsqyVdQ&feature=related
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 16:38
#149682
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 16:48
#149702
Well, this much is certain:
Escalation Is Withdrawal
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:03
#149718
1) China is supporting Taliban, you would do the same if someone invaded your back yard.
2) America will bleed the fuck out over there, just like Soviets and Brits did.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:04
#149722
His speech was retarded. But since when did Zero Hedge start flirting with moronic 9/11 conspiracy theories? The little article was hillarious. It drew quite a conclusion from the presence of mysterious "red chips" in the 9/11 debris. It admits that were that exotic chemical "iron oxide" and some were "aluminium." Holy shit, that's called rust and other stuff we'd expect when a huge building is toppled by Islamic crazy guys with beards and shorted AA stock.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 18:33
#149850
Instead of standard thermite, or even 'rust and aluminum' as you put it, what the Harrit team found was highly ordered dual layers of iron oxide /aluminum at the micrometer level (nanotechnology). The remarkable chips were highly reaction with an ignition temp that was half that of the theoretical Fe2O3/Al reaction activation energy . This was apparently due to the construction of the thermitic chips which had highly-ordered sub-micrometer structure. The issue was the fact that this was a military-grade incendiary, which remains unexplained.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 22:03
#150169
It was a national railroad track union day at the world trade center and after the meeting they were going to go out and weld some track? I'm sure that's what it is.
on Thu, 12/03/2009 - 10:46
#150701
Nice! That's a winner for record blank stares. How can even come back to that!
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:08
#149726
Project Mayhem...always find your pieces enlightening and thank you for the efforts.
as i have stated, i have always thought that one of the biggest fears for the current admin is that the tali/al q crew would get themselves one or two of them thar Paki nukes. naturally, Obama confirmed that last nite and we will soon be on Paki soil.
I would be curious to see what people think or if there is any research out there that assesses the odds of one or two Paki nukes being obtained? any thoughts?
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:11
#149729
I think a loose nuke is pretty high up the list of potential Gulf of Tonkin incidents. I was discussing exactly this yesterday, as we'd need a good pretext to go into Pakistan...
Pretexts to go into Pakistan--
1) Civil war / government collapse
2) Loose nuke
3) Kashmir
4) Hostages
There are probably plenty of others
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:16
#149742
I vote "Loose nuke", it has that WMD quality.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:51
#149958
Some participants may have loose nukes but I'll bet we do the precision nuking to stay on top.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 20:37
#150018
Agreed. Good stuff PM. Lots of work to put this piece together. Appreciate it.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 21:20
#150100
Thanks PM.
I think Obama put to rest last night the need for a pretext. in other words, I think his words in regards to Paki was that the deal has been cut and he has the okay of the Pakis to go in.
on Thu, 12/17/2009 - 17:12
#168071
Antrhax came from Fort Dix. WMD in Iraq were basically from the US, though were long-since (before the invasion) disposed of. US is the ONLY nati nto use nuclear weapons, AND ON A CIVILIAN POPULATION!
Sorry folks, but the real "enemy" isn't "out there" someplace...
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:09
#149727
He basically endorsed, adopted and is in the process of expanding the Bush doctrine.
We will invade anybody,anytime,anywhere if we perceive a potential threat may occur at sometime in the future in any dimension.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 22:34
#150204
Hope! Change! A turkey in every oval office!
on Thu, 12/03/2009 - 08:43
#150530
PM,
So, all the logic is in place for a first strike. Bases on every continent, good coverage overall. Eventually the world will turn on the US, so we need to defend ourselves to preserve freedom for all. All we need is someone with some small German subs and we should be good to go in a couple of years. Then we can continue our mandate of promoting freedom and democracy for all.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:19
#149747
coolaid drinkers on the left blaming bush. coolaid drinkers on the right, blaming obama. does anyone start to scratch their heads and realize what a grand show all of this really is? or shall we continue to swallow the garbage spewing out of the boob toob, day in and day out. eddie bernays knew what it was all about....
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:40
#149781
a whole generation of dumbed down children that played video war games and etc. now they have smoke blown up their asses about those mean old muslims and they go and join the army and go and see the world and be a army of one, and all of that bullshit, get sucked into this false paradigm of false patriotism, saying to anyone that listens. we are doing this for you to protect your rights.....oh really says i? and so they ride around day in and day out and get blown up and then go and re up for another 6 years time and time again and you ask yourself why? this has been going on now for almost 8 years.... why do they do this? why? surely they see what is going on? but no they don't. why is that? it has to be that most of these men and women cannot see what is really going on for they have been brain washed since the day they were born so that when they became of useful military age, they would be told to join this mercenary army for the terrorist state of israhell. just who is it that owns those damn pipelines that run across afghanistan? hmmm?
Pipeline Plans And Diaper Dreaming
http://www.rense.com/general83/pipe.htm
unless you wake up and realize who controls what and what is really going on, all is lost and i don't mean maybe. right now they destroy our young men and our armies. right now they are destroying our finanicial system. for many years they have worked overtime to destroy white western european culture by various means......
as old man sykes said in the movie "the wild bunch"
THEY!!! WHO THE HELL ARE THEY!!!
yeh , who the hell are they?
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:44
#149791
At best, this post is poorly presented. There is no evidence offered to prove or even suggest that the Obama administration is truly motivated by the four political objectives. The reader is left to draw their own conclusion on the basis of the own presuppositions and the rhetoric of the author.
You may very well be right - but until you offer actual evidence I can only admire how pretty your words and pictures are. You might as well have said, "President Obama really likes the shape that Afghanistan and Pakistan would make if they were one country instead of two. Therefore he is increasing US military strength in the region to conquer those countries so that maps in the future will show Afghapakimerica, his new favorite shape!"
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:47
#149796
i am sorry that our men and women are over there fighting. but let us not forget. they volunteered for this. no one made them go. also one must remember that if anyone invaded this country and did the things to us that we are doing to them, would you too, not fight and die for your country and make their stay most "hospitable".....? some of you may hate me for saying this. but it is a contrarian point of view. i support the freedom fighters of iraq and afghanistan against the invading enemies of their countries even though those illegal invaders are my own people. how can we as thinking americans do anything less? liberty and freedom is what they want. is that such a bad thing? they want the american boot off of their necks. so may God help them to remove it in whatever means they find necessary.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:54
#149802
you misspelled "escalate": e-j-a-c-u-l-a-t-e. honestly though, i'd get one helluva woody if i could invade the senate with my fully loaded m-16.
you don't need religion to see the karma that's coming our way.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 17:58
#149805
Last night Soetoro said, "Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power."
Given that we have to borrow every flippin' dollar for these wars, we're screwed.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 21:22
#150108
"Our prosperity provides a foundation for our power."
I burst out laughing when Obama said that, startling my wife sitting beside me on the couch.
Our prosperity.....that's some funny shit Barry!
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:29
#149924
BO is not a leader. If you decide to fight a war, if you decide it is in our vital interest, if you say we will have resolve, but don't use overwhelming force, don't have any real plan for victory, and tell everyone we will retreat in 18 months, well then you are a political pandering moron - our President.
And the MSM just soaks it up without any serious questions - as does the majority of the general public who remains focused on whether they can get that big screen TV or not, while others are forced to provide them health care.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 19:40
#149944
PM, if you will, explain a good question raised by OxfordJoe re why it is profitable for Western Governments to protect the Drug trade?
PM another great read, but please - less of the pompous scientific bamboozlement that you are beginning to throw around to explain the virus thoeries. I know about your background- it's science etc, but its like a finance graduate who now works as a brick-layer, explaining to all the other brick-layers about the EMH.
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 21:23
#150109
Any thoughts about the big party for India's prime minister and the IMF allowing them to purchase 200 MT of gold?
Did we buy the blessing from India? Will they can finally get Kashmir?
on Wed, 12/02/2009 - 22:23
#150193
To say the least, Bentham is unprofessional, and highly questionable as a source.
Bentham is not a member of OASPA. (Open Access Scholarly Publishing Association).
They are better known for spamming researchers than publishing scholarly scientific research.
The editor-in-chief resigned because this particular paper was published without her knowledge or approval.
They seem to publish virtually anything submitted, including “C.R.A.P.” (Center for Research in Applied Phrenology), as long as the fee is paid. This (2009) case alone proves that the claim by The Open Information Science Journal (TOISCIJ) to “enforce peer-review” is a lie.
http://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2009/06/10/nonsense-for-dollars/
The author was told that this obvious bunk had been peer-reviewed, and was instructed to “pay US$800, to be sent to a post office box in the SAIF Zone, a tax-free complex in the United Arab Emirates.”
This is not an isolate incident:
http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/fos/2009/06/bentham-editors-resign.html
on Thu, 12/03/2009 - 08:51
#150539
Those rascals at MIT. Sitting around with nothing to do.
http://apps.pdos.lcs.mit.edu/scicache/724/scimakelatex.43538.Tyler+Durden.Marla+Singer.OhMeOhMy.html
on Thu, 12/03/2009 - 08:40
#150524
China already has a port on the Indian Ocean, in Burma. In addition, they are constructing two pipelines from the Arakan (Rakhine) coast in Burma to Kunming. One pipeline will carry natural gas, recovered from Burma's massive offshore deposits, and exploited by a host of firms from China, Singapore, Thailand, Vietnam, South Korea and Australia, many using platforms on lease from the US firm Transocean (so much for the effectiveness of sanctions when one is politically connected in Washington). The second pipeline will carry crude oil shipped from the Middle East, saving China the dangerous trip through the pirate infested waters of the Straits of Malacca. (A gas pipeline operated by the French firm Total and the US firm Chevron currently carries gas from Burma to Thailand, and is responsible for 25% of the junta's revenues. When the Burma Sanctions Bill hit Congress' floor, effective lobbying removed Chevron from any possible repercussions and economic loss. Such is the moral high ground the US claims to occupy.)
Just to show that not all shenanigans are the monopoly of Western Powers, one of the prime contractors in the port/pipeline is a company called Asia World, whose owner is Lo Hsing Han, a Kokang Chinese and the so-called King of Opium, Southeast Asia's top druglord. Day to day operations are run by his Harvard Business School educated son, Steven Law, who is married to a woman from one of Singapore's top families. Singapore may execute the occasional Filipina maid or Vietnamese bargirl for possessing a gram or two of heroin, but when the rich druglords hit town, the Singapore Government rolls out the red carpet. As a humorous aside, much of the Burmese junta's ill-gotten gains, as well the monies of the druglords, flows from Singapore banks to Temasek, who was a major investor in the ill-timed Merrill Lynch bailout.
on Fri, 12/04/2009 - 11:02
#152424
A comment on the Bush/Obama doctrine. No one seems to see how these policies can be dangerous to us.
Mexico has problems with drug cartels with US weapons. They are within their right to now bomb US based ammunition and weapon manufacturing plants.
Any US citizen (military, CIA or otherwise) captured can be sent to any country and tortured for information (just like our black prisons).
By our rules and definitions - 9/11 can be classified as a defensive first strike.
on Mon, 12/07/2009 - 12:02
#155351
The purpose of more warfare across the world is one fold - to weaken the populous at home by removing anyone that can fight.
Open your eyes people, this has to do with money and control, not anything whatsoever with the common man except weakening him and his family.
First his money, then his life -- wake up fools.
on Thu, 12/17/2009 - 17:36
#168100
Finally, someone gets it!
[Offensive] Wars are for one of two things, often encompasing both:
1) Acquire resources;
2) Control dissent within one's country.
Power is being challenged. It is fighting back, but eventually it will lose as it ends up using more and more energy being destructive than constructive.
As things go today there's a loss in the constructuve material (due to resource depletion, escalating costs). This has to be offset by the destructive, though this sets up a negative downward spiral, which not only places the common person in peril, but also the powers themselves.