It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Afghan War Reaches Soviet Milestone

page: 1
9

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   

Afghan War Reaches Soviet Milestone


www.military.com

November 26, 2010
Associated Press
KABUL, Afghanistan --- The Soviet Union couldn't win in Afghanistan, and now the United States is about to have something in common with that futile campaign: nine years, 50 days.

On Friday, the U.S.-led coalition will have been fighting in this South Asian country for as long as the Soviets did in their humbling attempt to build up a socialist state. The two invasions had different goals - and dramatically different body counts - but whether they have significantly different outcomes remains to be seen.

(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 08:37 PM
link   
It is a sad yet remarkable achievement, as today marks the exact length of time since we first invaded Afghanistan until now, of the Soviet’s occupation. At the nine year and fifty day mark the last of the Soviet Forces were withdrawing back over the border, leaving war torn Afghanistan to its own devices.

Meanwhile while one could argue we are no closer to winning a ‘peace’ abroad in Afghanistan, the War on Terror continues to ratchet up here at home with the TSA and the wonderful new coined set of words for people who value their constitutional rights and dignity “Domestic Terrorist” being employed as the latest weapon in the arsenal of words to go along with the new back scatter imaging machines in the electronic arsenal.

It would seem the U.S. Government is having a much easier time in subduing U.S. Citizens than it is in Afghanis and I wonder if we might all learn a thing or two from the proud and resilient people who have had little peace from the moments the Soviets rolled into Afghanistan in 1980 through today.

With the mounting human and economic cost of the war, coupled with the constant assault on our liberties and freedoms here at home, one wonders how long it will take for the average American to reach their saturation point as so many did regarding the War in Vietnam.

The truth is that the War in Afghanistan was pretty much the last straw that financially and morally broke the back of the Soviet Communist System.

One might wonder if the Powers that Be are trying for a repeat with the United States at this point.


www.military.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 08:48 PM
link   
Whoot...we won! Take that USSR...we totally stayed longer than you...in your face Gorby!


meh...make lemonade out of the lemon we are given



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by ProtoplasmicTraveler
The truth is that the War in Afghanistan was pretty much the last straw that financially and morally broke the back of the Soviet Communist System.


Afghanistan was an important strategic location for the Soviets, and a potential resource for oil pipelines and minerals (the Soviets were the ones who discovered the mineral deposits there, NOT the Americans).

The lost because of the will of the Afghan people. The US is doing the same crap that the Soviets did, which is resorting to more violence and indiscriminate bombing in hopes of ending the conflict faster. But the Americans fail to learn from both their own mistakes and history, while the Soviets made the decision to bring their boys back home when the will to fight was lost.

Afghanistan did not end the Soviet Union. It was just another burden on the USSR, and so the politburo decided it was time to advance in the interests of Russia. Gorbechev knew what was going to happen because he directed it along with his brass. If they had sat back and dicked around more, then their would be no modern Russian superpower like there is today (which, in my opinion, has a lot more legitimate global sway than the Americans).

So they cut their losses. They saw Afghanistan for what it was: a land inhabited by people who live by tradition and will fight for their ability to continue living the way THEY want to live. The Soviets couldn't go in their and tell the Afghans that they are wrong and to change, and the Americans sure the hell can't either but they can, by all means, continue to waste their precious resources in doing so. Afghanistan, just because it is a small country without a prominent government, will not allow itself to be some pawn in strategic games for empires.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 08:55 PM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


I wonder if there is any other collaborating info on this claim?

"The Soviet war set Afghanistan back dramatically from what had been a weak but functioning state. NATO has, by contrast, helped Afghanistan to a 10 percent annual economic growth rate, 7 million kids are now in school, and most people have access to basic health care within a two-hour walk," O'Hanlon said.



Wasn't it the Taliban controlled Helmand Province that produced most of the Poppy/Heroin supply in the News?

The United States and its allies, however, have made strategic mistakes, including taking their eyes off Afghanistan and shifting their attention to the war in Iraq. In those crucial years, the Taliban and their allies surged back and took control of many parts of the Afghan countryside and some regions in the south - especially parts of Kandahar and Helmand.




edit on 26-11-2010 by SLAYER69 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:03 PM
link   
Wouldn't it be ironic if the Russians were secretly funding the Taliban this time.
That would be a sick burn on us. Actually I almost guarantee it, it would be too good to pass up.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Whoot...we won! Take that USSR...we totally stayed longer than you...in your face Gorby!


meh...make lemonade out of the lemon we are given


And to think we used to complain about the Russians being stubborn.

It's pretty sad when the soldiers start buying homes there and moving their familes over!



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:44 PM
link   
reply to post by SLAYER69
 





I wonder if there is any other collaborating info on this claim?

"The Soviet war set Afghanistan back dramatically from what had been a weak but functioning state. NATO has, by contrast, helped Afghanistan to a 10 percent annual economic growth rate, 7 million kids are now in school, and most people have access to basic health care within a two-hour walk," O'Hanlon said.





Well considering the average annual income was 140.00 I am sure another 14.00 dollars comes in handy.

The truth is that Afghanistan is 7th on the failed states list, so it's hard to say where they would be today had they not endured another 9 years of war.



posted on Nov, 26 2010 @ 09:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


Thanks for the insightful and informative post.

I imagine because the U.S. hasn't committed as many troops, the Brass at the Pentagon figures it can basically function as an occupation force, attempting to secure key points of the infrastructure as long as possible to milk the corporate profits from the mineral deposits, and the Heroin/Opium trade, and pipeline.

The corporations have been charging the bulk of their costs to the American Tax Payer since about 1682, and the good news is the American Tax Payer is pretty used to it. The bad news is the American Tax Payer is pretty use to it.

Russia certainly is a dynamic and enterprising nation, as long as the U.S./British/Rome alliance has a stranglehold on the Middle East oil reserves, and the International Banking Cartel, I don't know if Russia will ever rise to that kind of prominence or dominance, but you know what they say, every dog has it's day, and what goes up must come down.

Thanks for the post.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 02:21 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


The USA is becoming a failed state; it has surpassed its climax and now they are doing whatever they can to keep the party going without caring about the hangover.

When the US finally proves to be unable to maintain its interests abroad, then you will see the rise of Russia and China. Think about it; who is there to replace US dominance when it collapses? Russia, China or the EU. The EU has potential, but it lacks a lot of unity and it needs more solid military and economical directives. Russia and China are already established powers who influence a lot of the world's affairs already, and guess what? They both have the intention to bring down the US.

I've pondered recently about US globalist corporations exploiting cheap labor in China when I was looking at my xbox controller. Millions of Chinese workers are working in American-controlled sweatshops building these decadent toys for people of the same age in the West. I don't think these Chinese workers would show much mercy when they join the PLA and swarm the beaches of San Francisco or parachute into Seattle. And what would the Americans think of their invaders, "oh, I thought these Chinese would appreciate the jobs we gave them!"



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 


I don't disagree but the one thing the Anglo Axis has going for it is a particular brand of cunning that usually thinks about 3 steps ahead on the Chess Board.

My personal belief is that much of what is going on in the Anglo/Western Axis right now is a forced austerity through economic manipulation to set up a all intrusive security state during a time when people lack the economic wherewithall and presence of mind to protest and rally against it.

This might in fact be leading to false hope on China and Russia's part, that could distract them from other pieces on the chess board being moved, for instance Korea, oblitarate the North of Korea and all of a sudden you have a beach head on China.

Afghanistan was a huge concern to the Anglo/Western Alliance when it was in Soviet Control because they were that close to having a toehold in the Middle East, now that Afghanistan is in American hands, it represents a potential front against Soviet Asia.

When it comes to the military, the technology in conventional weapons is likely to be the key there. Who has the best stand off and attack capabilities and the best munitions in the chute?

If one munition can consistently take out 10 landing troops for every round, then you need to expotentially increase your attacking force to numbers that might not ever be logistically feasible or tactically superior.

For instance with todays weapons, the English/American/Canadian/French Expiditionary Force to Nazi Europe would have never made it across the English Channel.

Meanwhile government's like China's has to consider what happens domestically when hundreds of millions of people become unemployed when American exports dry up, and how to keep their rapidly mechanized country rolling without Anglo/Western sources of oil.

Now the sad part is that the citizens of all three of these or four of these aliances or nations, end up virtual slaves working to acquire the miltary technology and munitions for this all, robbing themselves through taxation and artificially low wages of a real quality of life in the process, just to maybe one day end up with their guts spilling out on a piece of dirt tens of thousands of miles away from home, far from the people and things that they do truly love and get to enjoy.

I say give us all the fair share of resources of the earth we deserve so we can all enjoy a truly decedant life, where so preoccupied we are never going to care how the other guy is enjoying his.

Thanks for posting my friend.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 09:56 AM
link   
CIA Admits US Soldiers Only Fighting 50-100 al-Qaeda in Afghanistan
www.youtube.com...


CIA director Leon Panetta called the war in Afghanistan "a very tough fight," and acknowledged that "there are some serious problems." Panetta said that the Taliban "is engaged in greater violence" now than when President Obama took office, and said that they're stronger in some ways, but weaker in others, noting that "we're undermining their leadership." Panetta said that al Qaeda's presence in Afghanistan is now "relatively small."

"I think at most, we're looking at maybe 50 to 100, maybe less


wow talk about the height of ass wupping
and according to GWB Pat Tillman was killed in a Taliban ambush, while the generals and the doctors proved it was deliberte freindly fire...MURDER
so the US just wupped itself....?

is that not a sign of some kind of ummmm"problem"?



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by GogoVicMorrow
 


the Russians are drowning in CIA heroin
the Russians asked the US to stop flooding the world and specifically Russia with the stuff
the US said no, we need to grow it to fight the Taliban
the US IS the Taliban ( see above)
the Russian are thinking this an act of asymetric warfare
the Chinese still remember when the US and Britian had them all hooked up on opium back in the day
it was an act of asymetric warefare
the Russians remember this too
the Russians read Bryzynski's book about how he created the Taliban to flood the USSR with heroin to povoke a Russian invasion to stop it, and how the US then supplied the Taliban with stinger missles.
Putin read the book (rightside up)
the Russians know the US IS the Taliban
They are considering this an act of asymetric warefare

the russians and chinese just stopped trading with the dollar
this is asymetric warfare

hey Proto you are welcome to visit Canada anytime, kick offf your shoes, stay awhile.


edit on 27-11-2010 by Danbones because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:06 AM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


It would seem so. Though El-Queda and the Taliban are two different thing. El-Queda is the shadowy CIA led front group and the Taliban are the people manipulated by them.

It's like the 'bomb attack' in Portland yesterday. The FBI recruits the kid, and nurses him for months, helping him every step of the way, even going so far as to test explode a bomb. Do they arrest him for test exploding the bomb they helped him acquire the materials for and made, even though they were all standing right there?

No they help him make another bomb, this time a phony one and sit there with him while he attempts to explode it publicly.

The reality is at the onset 10 months before when they first started working with the kid they could have gotten him pyscological intervention, or simply just monitored him to make sure he never did the things he was talking about as a angry kid.

Instead they fuel it, aide it and abet it and then act like they saved us from it.

The war on terror is the phoniest thing I think there ever was.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:10 AM
link   
They picked a kid like that because the last time they used an adult
he taped the conversation and they were busted
but will the peeps remember?

some of us do.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Of course, this barely (if even) got a mention in the mainstream American media on Friday.

People seem to be more concerned about getting the best shopping deal on Black Friday.

It's all a distraction people, shiny baubles meant to make you forget that people are dying in the desert in a fake war against a fake enemy.

It's also very convenient that the world's press is focused on North Korea, barely mentioning Iraq for months now, and Afghanistan only seems to get mentioned as an afterthought on any of the news networks.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 10:48 AM
link   
reply to post by ProtoplasmicTraveler
 


Nice post Proto, now you just need to realize that the CIA does not represent the people of he U.S., but the ICs who control this rogue branch that we seem unable to neutralize.

There will always be a share of super wealthy, from all nations, who go around doing bad stuff where ever they can take advantage. If seems you want to portray the Chinese and the Russians as the good guys, and the Taliban as well. They are not the good guys.

You also seem unable to help but bring up race as a factor.

The power of the west does not come from our military, our military gets its power from our economic success, and our economic success comes from the ability of our people to establish representative governments and create far more just societies than those you seem to admire.

The U.S. nor Britain is the problem, the problem is ruthless people in positions of power all over the world, and the third world nations have more than their fair share.

Personally, I have no sympathy for the Taliban. They kill school girls and their families for daring to go to school. That is evil.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 05:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Danbones
 


You are very right in your assessment of drug exploitation against the Russians and the Chinese.

CIA funds Pakistan's ISI, which in turn supports the Taliban, who is their proxy in Afghanistan. It has been like this since both the CIA and ISI formed the mujahedin against the Soviets in the late 70s.

Proto-
The Western commanders are thinking three steps ahead. Problem for them is that the Russians and Chinese are thinking in the present. If they engage in strategy contrary to what the West predicted, then the entire Western strategy falls to pieces and by the time they reorganize they will already fall behind.

It is common American divide and conquer strategy to incite conflict in the regions they want to control. They usually fund both sides (like Iran and Iraq) so they can beat eachother into submission, then the US moves in to provide "stability". I see the US engaged in long and economically exhausting wars, while Russia and China continue to modernize their forces. They are just waiting to provide their own "stability".

And one other note, Americans are people united by money. As long as their government can afford to pay the troops, they will fight. I'm confident enough in saying that Russian and Chinese forces have enough Soviet experience that even if they can't afford war, they will still fight for their interests with even more volition.



posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Dimitri Dzengalshlevi
 





And one other note, Americans are people united by money. As long as their government can afford to pay the troops, they will fight. I'm confident enough in saying that Russian and Chinese forces have enough Soviet experience that even if they can't afford war, they will still fight for their interests with even more volition.


The Russians do have some excellently trained elite crack troops that are probably on par with any of the elite units of any armies of the world.

Though in many ways it's not per say 'admirable' from a humanitarian standpoint, one advantage I think Russia has had in the past, for instance in Beiruit the one time Russian citizenz were kidnapped the KGB kidnapped the factions Mother, Wife and Children and hacked them into little bits and left them in see through plastic bags on the man's door step.

They returned the Russian Hostage the next day and never touched another.

Of course there is something to be said for ruthelessness in war.

However when it comes to motivation to fight, that soon might be rendered mute by technology as not only is the U.S. going with more remote controlled automated machines to do the fighting, but they are also working on technology to remote control the actual human soldiers so they don't freeze up in a firefight.

They claim to be testing that in labratory settings already.

I don't know what kind of advanced technology the Russians or Chinese can deploy, or what they have in the chute, I won't discount that they aren't capable of coming up with even better technology, but having battle tested superior technology is a lot different than having untested superior technology, take the Israeli Fighter Jets crashing in Lebanon for instance. Looked great on paper from a specs standpoint, but performed poorly in the field.




The Western commanders are thinking three steps ahead. Problem for them is that the Russians and Chinese are thinking in the present. If they engage in strategy contrary to what the West predicted, then the entire Western strategy falls to pieces and by the time they reorganize they will already fall behind.


I think one thing it would be wise to consider is the West’s capability to employ clandestine asymmetrical warfare.

When you consider that they are looking at things as weapons like making China oil dependent and their citizens dependent on jobs that dry up without American markets, this is not only a form of warfare, but what allows the Western Commanders to think three steps ahead.

In essence they are always leaving a trail of breadcrumbs like this, that as the other nations follow along to gobble them up, it typically does always lead to where Western Commanders want them to go when they finally get three steps on down the line.

I think one of the things that many people fail to recognize is we are always at war with these various ploys, machinations, ruses, and deceptions to keep other nations bogged down in a present, that was more or less created for them to get bogged down in, while the strategists are still thinking three steps ahead to keep them bogged down.

Most of the actual physical fighting always seems to be about attrition, or culling, and justifying the cost of the huge military expenditures.




It is common American divide and conquer strategy to incite conflict in the regions they want to control. They usually fund both sides (like Iran and Iraq) so they can beat eachother into submission, then the US moves in to provide "stability". I see the US engaged in long and economically exhausting wars, while Russia and China continue to modernize their forces. They are just waiting to provide their own "stability".


This is Rome at it's finest and a strategy being employed for a very long time.

What a lot of people fail to recognize though, is that the nations such as the U.S. are Corporate Fictions and in fact are Roman when you trace the money that invested in them, and the titles of the people who made those investments and set them up, back to the source.

So in reality America itself was in fact designed to function in that role of heavily taxing it's people, appealing to their vanity, ego and pride, selling them an illusion of freedom in that fashion, and then keeping it on a constant and ever expanding war footing, for the sake of the gun boat diplomacy and the strategy that allows that divide and conquer strategy to keep being employed three steps ahead.

It's a very deceptive world we live in, and shock and awe, is basically meant to keep people focused on the source of shock and awe, as opposed to the money trail and contracts that make it all possible.

Personally I think that same money, that same Patrician Elite controls Russia and China too, and that we are fasted headed to a staged war of monumental proportions to cull the human herd, and install a one world government, in part to shield the duplicity of the politicians who all sold their peoples out to these corporate fictions and have been hiding that from the people to eventually manipulate them to that end.

If true, who ever comes out on top in these fights, will simply be the faction the moneyed elite wants to come out on top of these fights, to serve the next fiction they create to control us through.

That's what the three steps ahead is eventually all about, keeping the people of the world decieved and divided, while the nations of the world which are corporate fictions, have a vested interest to do that.

Thanks for your insightful posts, it's great to hear from members who have the advantage of an entirely different perspective as opposed to the ones that are indoctrinated into us here in the U.S.

Greatly appreciated!




posted on Nov, 27 2010 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 





Nice post Proto, now you just need to realize that the CIA does not represent the people of he U.S., but the ICs who control this rogue branch that we seem unable to neutralize.


No it doesn't, it represents the principle domestic and international oligarchs who invested in and developed the physical infrastructure, education, government, and social welfare systems, and military of the U.S. and it's banks and corporations.

They represent in essence the Shadow Government that literally owns the stocks and bonds and infrastructure in the U.S. that makes commerce, domestic and international, and urban life possible and sustainable.

To these people the United States is an investment, that they have their own uses and goals for that run contrary often to the American people who because of their control of the education and media systems, have little idea to what extent they own and control infrastructure and institutions within the U.S.




There will always be a share of super wealthy, from all nations, who go around doing bad stuff where ever they can take advantage. If seems you want to portray the Chinese and the Russians as the good guys, and the Taliban as well. They are not the good guys.


I talked about those super wealthy people from all nations above, who in fact have invested much into Russia and China as they have every where else.

There are no good guys, there are no bad guys, in Western thinking, good is simply a social construct, that changes from one century to the next, from one nation to the next, and is always based on polar opposites. Pay your taxes you are good, fail to for any reason and you are bad, even though you might have a good reason for failing to.

People are simply a product of their own breeding and environment and the social norms put forth by their state and often their religion. What you percieve as bad they often percieve as good, while what you percieve as good they often percieve as bad.

Basically all people are inherently good, prone to do bad things, when presented with nothing but bad choices.




You also seem unable to help but bring up race as a factor.


Race is a factor, go to the Bohemian Club, or try to get into Yale's Skull and Bones the places where the elite congregate and the CIA recruits from and try becoming a member as a Jew, a Black, a Arab, Indian or Asian, and no matter how much money you have, the answer is going to be no.

Trust at the most implicit level is often based on those social constructs that makes people entirely trustworthy to one another because they are entirely of like mind, background, thinking and breeding.

So race does have something to do with it. I am anglo myself, and have been to places like the Bohemian Grove and know some of these elites referred to the Powers that Be on a personal basis so I am intimately familiar with how they think and to a large extent why.




The power of the west does not come from our military, our military gets its power from our economic success, and our economic success comes from the ability of our people to establish representative governments and create far more just societies than those you seem to admire.


First it's a false assumption to imagine I admire any government.

However having said that your representative republic is in fact not a democracy but simply allows 400,000,000 people to make a choice as to which 545 people are going to represent them that then do get to vote and make decisions.

The economic success long term of our nation which has to be based on the present, has largely been enjoyed by the corporations who have the most access to these 545 people who get to make the decisions for the other 400,000,000.

This is hardly representative of the people, which is as you say yourself, why the CIA can not be dislodged, and in alrge part because the people running for those 545 decision making seats are in fact prescreened by the CIA and the Elites to ensure that they will be amiable to their own goals and wishes and control.

Meanwhile you have little idea what those 545 people are actually doing and almost none as to who the 14 trillion dollars in debt they are managing, is owed to or why.

I have nothing against any human being from any nation or system because for the most part except for a very few bent on control at all costs, most human beings just want to live a peaceful and productive life.




The U.S. nor Britain is the problem, the problem is ruthless people in positions of power all over the world, and the third world nations have more than their fair share.


Actually everyone is part of the problem. As long as people feel the overwhelming and primary need to base their identity on nationality and religion instead of their own humanity, then it's not likely people are going to be fully responsible for themselves or their nations.

We know, or at least many of us do, that our governments have been corrupted by people of great wealth and influence and been subverted to their own ends, but we keep going along with it, often supporting those rutheless causes if by no other means than tacit consent.

Part of the overall problem is people in essence wanting everyone else to clean up their backyards first, and then dodging behind notions like "well our hedges aren't trimmed, but our grass is cut, and their grass isn't cut, and their hedges aren't trimmed, so we are better, and shouldn't have to trim our hedges until they cut their grass".




Personally, I have no sympathy for the Taliban. They kill school girls and their families for daring to go to school. That is evil.


Like I have said, it's all a social construct. Israelis make women get on at the back of the bus instead of the front for religious reasons, men and women should not enter through the same door and sit in the same areas.

Different societies have different standards.

So it begs the question if you know the CIA has corrupted the American Government and does evil things, why would you trust them to not do evil things in Afghanistan? Why be more concerned about how some ultra religious people want to live, than how your own government is conducting business?

Good and evil is a matter of perspective. One hundred 50 years ago, we still kept slaves. Wasn't considered bad then, it's considered bad now. It's all about societal standards, and frankly we aren't living up to our own societal standards, and suffer for that.

Like it or not, for what ever reason, we are living in a bankrupt nation, on a perpetual war footing, using might makes right gun boat diplomacy and military force to force our views on other.

Killing a little girl because she wants to go to school, has the same end result as killing a girl with a aerial bomb dropped from 10,000 feet on her home because her family won't let her go to school. If that is what you really believe as why we are over there.

The little girl ends up just as dead, both sides think they know what's right for her, their side will argue if she had just stayed home and no outsider encouraged her to go to school, she would be fine and alive, and the other side is simply going to say, well had you let her go to school, we wouldn't have bombed you and she would still be fine.

Both sides believe they are doing what are right, one side that gave birth to her, sheltered her, and lives with her, and one side that is 10,000 miles away and 10,000 feet up in the air that doesn't want her to be loved and considered in that way, simply because they don't want to be loved and considered in that way.

It's all a social construct though and part of the breeding and the environment no matter what side you are on.

We have been there for 9 years now, and killed so many more little girls than the Taliban ever has. We didn't ask those little girls if they wanted to lay down their lives so other little girls 'might' one day live as 'we want' them to live, and we want to 'imagine' they want to live.

We have spend trillions of dollars doing it, we have made many more enemies than we started out with in the process, and are no closer to changing that society than the Soviets were at the end of nine long years.

I know you mean well my friend, but meaning well, and doing well, aren't really always the same thing, especially when it's based on societal constructs, that one society is trying to force on another.

The 19 alleged Saudis that were considered to be involved in 9-11 died that day. The little girls, and boys, and moms and dads, and grandmas and grandpas of Afghanistan had nothing to do with that.

This is all about greed and power and control, not our security, and not what's really right.

The cost we as people living in America are paying for it in lives, dollars, lost liberties, and dignity is just not worth it, and is fundamentally flawed and wrong.

That's not about loving the Taliban, or Muslims, or other countries, that's about loving common sense, and self respect and dignity.



new topics

top topics



 
9

log in

join