The Forum > Article Comments > Now who will debate the U.S. Afghanistan Strategic Agreement? > Comments
Now who will debate the U.S. Afghanistan Strategic Agreement? : Comments
By Kathy Kelly, published 27/3/2012Has it taken the killing of 16 Afghans' for the world to notice?
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
Posted by halduell, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 9:04:37 AM
| |
The soldier who murdered 17 innocents was twice wounded in Iraq; and on his forth tour of duty?
We know from various reports gradually coming to light; that it was not just Japanese who committed terrible atrocities, but quite a few allied troops as well! Moreover, it's not just soldiers who die as a consequence of improvised explosive devises, but entirely innocent women and children as well. We're told that the outlying villages want to divest themselves of their Taliban "guests"; but lack the both the means or the requisite courage. Nor are they very happy about being forced to grow the poppy that now funds most of the Taliban's atrocities and the endless slaughter of innocent civilians! Two million have been sacrificed by the Taliban and their entirely indiscriminate weapons of choice? The Taliban are reported to have no interest in a political solution; and, are more than willing to continue to slaughter friend and foe alike in their effort to reimpose their rule! Which would return women to the status of cattle/dogs or sex slaves. We do have an exit strategy and are progressively handing over security responsibility to the Afghan Army, which is poorly equipped and infiltrated with many Taliban sympathisers! The president is often referred to as the Mayor of Cabal; given that is the real limit of his sphere of real influence. The soldier who cracked and went on his murderous mission, will need to be sacrificed at the alter of political expediency and wear the death penalty, the only possible outcome of a trial and the bare factual evidence. If we go now, we hand the country and the innocent civilian population back to the murderous Taliban and ritualistic beheading for alleged adultery by women etc/etc. So, in the final analysis, we have no other truly moral and ethical choice; or, react to the expressed will of the worst affected outlying villages, but to stay the course until the Afghan Army is fully trained and equipped; and, with suffient numbers and strength to take complete control of their own security needs. Rhrosty. Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 11:23:10 AM
| |
Recent weeks show badly laid plans in Afghanistan go haywire. The murder of six Americans. Until that moment, the ANA was jewel of Obamas strategy for drawing down forces. Trained by U.S./NATO troops the ANA will replace coalition forces and defend its country. This policy is the apex of Washington’s Plan A. There is no Plan B.
Add the ‘rogue’ Sergeant killing civilians and Drone collateral damage. This is the paralysis in Afghanistan, much easier than reexamining Plan A. The U.S. exercise rolls ever closer toward belly-up position, Plan A remains in place, signals from Obama down, Americans and the world still don’t seem to get what’s going on. Many people who know Afghanistan warned against training up an armed force. The number of Afghan soldiers and police trained varies but the last estimate was 240,000 soldiers and 160,000 police four times the current coalition troops in Afghanistan. Second, review Afghan history as it applies to Plan A. In the country’s modern history, no Afghan army has ever saved a government, or even tried. Such an army has either sat on its hands or helped overthrow the incumbent ruler. Every pwershift was followed by a purge of political enemies which sent thousands to prison, death, or an exodus that has made the Afghan diaspora the largest in the world. Afghan history is an antidote to the relentless optimism of the U.S. Afghan history indicates no Afghan National Army has ever warded off a single foreign enemy or done good for any Afghan ruler. Afghans back a winner, if he goes into decline, they ditch him. To spot that winner is the mark of the intelligent survivor. To stick to a losing cause, as any patriotic American would do, seems to an Afghan stupid. To redeem the disastrous invasion of Afghanistan and improve the quality of life of its people we should have invested in electricity, clean water, education and sanitation. Civilians live in dread of the legacy of the Obama strategy: the presence of half a million gunmen on the loose, in search of a sponsoring Khan. Posted by Geoff of Perth, Tuesday, 27 March 2012 12:58:21 PM
| |
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2012/3/27/the-massacre-of-the-afghan-17-and-the-obama-cover-up/
According to Prof James Petras and Gordon Duff there is now way that one man Sgt Bales could have pulled this off alone.The Houses were two miles apart and he could not have killed so many alone and burnt their houses.Bales was wisked off to the USA before local authorities could question him. According to Hamid Karzi there have been many massacres done by US forces that have effectively been covered up. Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 28 March 2012 5:59:50 AM
|
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
-
- All
I suggest not just similar but exactly the same. Remember Dick Cheney and his willingness to walk on the dark side? Unstated was the truth learned through centuries of war, but especially in Vietnam, that it is impossible to walk on that dark side without going dark oneself.
I weep for that American officer who killed so many in those families who sleep in fear of night raids, as I weep for his many victims. But what, really, did we expect.
The the War on Drugs has been merged with the War on Terror, and scoundrels stalk the lands.