Group items tagged

A spate of horrific civilian killings by NATO in Afghanistan has led Afghan President Hamid Karzai to demand that NATO cease all air attacks on homes.  That is likely to be exactly as significant as you think it would be, as The Los Angeles Times makes clear: "This should be the last attack on people's houses," the president told a news conference in Kabul. "Such attacks will no longer be allowed." Karzai's call was viewed as mainly symbolic. Western military officials cited existing cooperation with Afghan authorities and pledged to continue consultations, but said privately that presidential authority does not include veto power over specific targeting decisions made in the heat of battle. So we're in Afghanistan to bring Freedom and Democracy to the Afghan People, but the President of the country has no power whatsoever to tell us to stop bombing Afghan homes.  His decrees are simply requests, merely "symbolic." Karzai, of course, is speaking not only for himself, but even more so for (and under pressure from) the Afghan People: the ones we're there to liberate, but who -- due to their strange, primitive, inscrutable culture and religion -- are bizarrely angry about being continuously liberated from their lives: "Karzai's statements . . . underscored widespread anger among Afghans over the deaths of noncombatants at the hands of foreign forces."

When the war in Libya began, the U.S. government convinced a large number of war supporters that we were there to achieve the very limited goal of creating a no-fly zone in Benghazi to protect civilians from air attacks, while President Obama specifically vowed that "broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake."  This no-fly zone was created in the first week, yet now, almost three months later, the war drags on without any end in sight, and NATO is no longer even hiding what has long been obvious: that its real goal is exactly the one Obama vowed would not be pursued -- regime change through the use of military force.  We're in Libya to forcibly remove Gaddafi from power and replace him with a regime that we like better, i.e., one that is more accommodating to the interests of the West.  That's not even a debatable proposition at this point. What I suppose is debatable, in the most generous sense of that term, is our motive in doing this.  Why -- at a time when American political leaders feel compelled to advocate politically radioactive budget cuts to reduce the deficit and when polls show Americans solidly and increasingly opposed to the war -- would the U.S. Government continue to spend huge sums of money to fight this war?  Why is President Obama willing to endure self-evidently valid accusations -- even from his own Party -- that he's fighting an illegal war by brazenly flouting the requirements for Congressional approval?  Why would Defense Secretary Gates risk fissures by so angrily and publicly chiding NATO allies for failing to build more Freedom Bombs to devote to the war?  And why would we, to use the President's phrase, "stand idly by" while numerous other regimes -- including our close allies in Bahrain and Yemen and the one in Syria -- engage in attacks on their own people at least as heinous as those threatened by Gaddafi, yet be so devoted to targeting the Libyan leader?

Berlin immediately declared its unconditional support for the French invasion of Mali, and has been providing material military aid to the French invasion. As the weeks go on, Berlin is providing more and more support for the invasion. qt: Since the belligerent nature of these operations and the training of Malian soldiers cannot be denied, they must be approved by the Bundestag (federal parliament), which should happen retrospectively in early March. Chancellor Angela Merkel, Defence Minister Thomas de Maizière and Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle never tire of protesting that they are acting out of "solidarity with France" and for the "defence of the security of Europe against terrorists." This is the same mendacious war propaganda with which the United States justified the war against Iraq. Paris and Berlin say the aims of the war are the elimination of groups such as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO). These same organisations were funded and armed in Libya by the US, France, Britain and their allies in Qatar and Saudi Arabia to fight against Muammar Gaddafi. In Syria, organisations like al-Nusra, which is close to Al Qaeda or works with it, are part of the National Coalition of the Syrian Revolution and Opposition Forces (NCSROF), which is recognised by the NATO powers and the Gulf countries as "the legitimate representatives of the Syrian people", and is armed and financed by them to foment the overthrow of the Assad regime. The article says that the invasion is a "dirty colonial war" and that the hated bourgeois regimes in the region are supported only by the French support in putting down uprisings. The role of Germany is unconditional military support for the French invasion. They're making Mali into a military base for the subjugation of Africa for purposes of capital.

BARAK OBAMA DEFIED CONGRESS AND WENT TO WAR WITHOUT CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL.

Well. Notice that RT notes that "So far, the only drones making incursions into Pakistani skies have been US Predators used to attack Taliban insurgents." Making this distinction means that UAVs would be flying for a reason distinct from attacking the Taliban, i.e. war with Pakistan. This is in response to the bombing which killed many Pakistani soldiers due to NATO forces fucking up and thinking they were 'terrorists'.

Pakistan is currently the flashpoint of international politics due to numerous reasons. Among the broad array of factors that make Pakistan highly essential and important country in world politics, the two main factors are the geographic location of Pakistan as well as the international War on Terror. Pakistan is located right in the middle of some great powers of the world that are Russia, India, China, similarly the country like Iran is also a neighbor of Pakistan. The presence of the United States along with International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) and NATO (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) countries has also significantly increased the importance of Pakistan in World Politics. Other factors that make Pakistan the central point of interest in world politics are the alleged presence of wanted extremists across the Pak-Afghan border, Nuclear Capability, State of the Art Missile System, one of the most professional and capable Military and Spy Agency and the hub of international trade.

As soon as the news was reported that Gen. David Petraeus is succeeding soon-to-be-retired Gen. Stanley McChrystal as commander of the US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, the media narrative was set in stone: the super-general who won the war in Iraq with the so-called surge can now work his magic in another theater. It's hard to stop a locomotive meme-which is what the surge story has become. But the success of the surge in Iraq remains debatable to this day. Still, try injecting that point into media discussions of Iraq or Afghanistan. Yet with Petraeus taking over the Afghanistan war, it's worth noting the other side of the surge tale. So as a public service, here are a few analyses that question the surge hype.

For most people in Britain and the US, Iraq is already history. Afghanistan has long since taken the lion's share of media attention, as the death toll of Nato troops rises inexorably. Controversy about Iraq is now almost entirely focused on the original decision to invade: what's happening there in 2010 barely registers.

TRUTHDIG - President Barack Obama signed a slew of bills into law during the lame-duck session of Congress and was dubbed the "Comeback Kid" amid a flurry of fawning press reports. In the hail of this surprise bipartisanship, though, the one issue over which Democrats and Republicans always agree, war, was completely ignored. The war in Afghanistan is now the longest war in U.S. history, and 2010 has seen the highest number of U.S. and NATO soldiers killed.

No promised interceptors in Poland and no radar in the Czech Republic by 2013. In a reversal to Bush security policies in relations with Poland and the Czech Republic, the Obama administration will not proceed in the direction of deploying an expensive untested radar and missile defense system to Eastern Europe. The Bush missile interceptor plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office, estimated in February 2009 that the proposed plan would cost $9-13 billion over 20 years.

Whatever the strategic - and humanitarian - considerations behind NATO/U.S. intervention in Libya, a larger force utterly indifferent to both, and seldom sufficiently newsworthy to merit mention, unites tyrant and rescuer and keeps the world tangled in an endless cycle of hellish violence far beyond

!

Web Services Make Your Business Visible OnlineWe create custom made quality designs that will stand out from your competition. Systems Development Customized To Suit Your Needs Professionally developed custom software application gives you a significant business advantage over your competition.

Presidential impotence! The implementation of a no-fly zone over Libya represents one more pathetic national security performance by the Obama administration. Letting the U.N. Security Council do the decision making for him after weeks of inaction, the Obama administration was upset at the French for acting too aggressively. Once more it was the French acting too aggressively. If we want the United States to be considered the world superpower, we need a president who will act as if he wants and believes that to be the case.