Well, I saw this coming.
A reason to stay in Afghanistan, it is too good a position to give up so easily.
I'd have to agree that this could be a 'false flag', no soldier, just an excuse to stay. That said, it could be just as easily be true and if it is
I do feel so sorry for the person and their family.
I do not hate America, IMO, they are just as 'controlled' as the rest of us, they do not 'control', but there purpose, IMO, is the muscle, they
take the heat, they take the attention, they take the blame.
Their foreign policy is disgusting, but it is no better than the rest us, IMHO.
Where all pointing fingers at each other, when really, we're just as bad as each other.
I think this is more than just Afghanistan, as I said, it is too good of a position to just give up. Ever since I read the thread on the SCO (Shanghai
Co-operation Organisation), I have not been able to get it out of my head, why have we never heard about this?!? Seriously, China, Russia, Khazakstan,
Tijikistan, Uzhbekistan, Kyrgyzstan these are all members, this doesn't include Iran, India, Pakistan, Mongolia as observers.
This organization is an equvalent to NATO for the East and let's say they are not too happy with NATO being on their doorstep.
Let's also not forget what NATO's original purpose was!
"to keep the Russians out, the Americans in, and the Germans down"
Source NATO:
en.wikipedia.org...
Source SCO:
en.wikipedia.org...
LMAO!!
EMM
Edit to add: Afghanistan isn't really a part of the SCO yet, but they have been in talks with the SCO over joining. Since 9/11, NATO has invaded 2 of
the potential members to this organization, anyone see the pieces falling yet?
Edit again: Just found this on the NATO wiki page:
The combined military spending of all NATO members constitutes over 70% of the world's defence spending, with the United States alone
accounting for about half the total military spending of the world and the United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Italy accounting for a further
15%.
That says to me that they are preparing for something, but ofc, I could be wrong.
Edit again! Lol, to add this:
On 30 May 1978, NATO countries officially defined two complementary aims of the Alliance, to maintain security and pursue détente. This was
supposed to mean matching defences at the level rendered necessary by the Warsaw Pact's offensive capabilities without spurring a further arms
race.
Again from the wiki page, so I guess this went out the window?
Lol, that page is full of goodies:
The scholar Stephen F. Cohen argued in 2005 that a commitment was given that NATO would never expand further east,[16] but according to
Robert B. Zoellick, then a State Department official involved in the Two Plus Four negotiating process, this appears to be a misperception; no
formal commitment of the sort was made.[17] On 7 May 2008, The Daily Telegraph held an interview with Gorbachev in which he repeated his view
that such a commitment had been made. Gorbachev said "the Americans promised that NATO wouldn't move beyond the boundaries of Germany after the Cold
War but now half of central and eastern Europe are members, so what happened to their promises? It shows they cannot be trusted."[18]
Curious!
[edit on 2-7-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]
[edit on 2-7-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]
[edit on 2-7-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]
[edit on 2-7-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]
[edit on 2-7-2009 by ElectroMagnetic Multivers]
