Publish to Newswire
Add an EventFrom the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Veterans and Activists Slam “Illegal” Iraq War
Speakers at Berkeley event say bringing home the troops the only real patriotic act
(Main photo: Stephen Funk and Camilo Mejia show off their Not In Our Name medal of resistance)
(Main photo: Stephen Funk and Camilo Mejia show off their Not In Our Name medal of resistance)
For more than 300 people gathered in the auditorium at the Martin Luther King Middle School in Berkeley Sunday, May 29 graphic photographs and gritty testimony dominated their Memorial Day celebration.
Residents from throughout the Bay Area decided to forego barbecues and parades to find out from Iraqi war veterans, a mother of a slain son and a military surgeon about the true cost to human life taking place daily in Iraq.
The program “Military Voices Against Endless War” presented testimony from Stephen Funk, the first military resister to the current war, Camilo Mejia, the first Iraqi War veteran to resist, Tim Goodrich, a co-founder of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Aidan Delgado, who was stationed at Abu Ghraib, Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq and Dr. Gene Bolles, a neurosurgeon who treated wounded soldiers at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany.
“We were treating from 40 to 60 soldiers a day,” said Bolles. “In this war we are seeing more amputees and more brain damage.” Bolles told the sober crowd that every war has a signature injury associated with it, such as Agent Orange in Vietnam and The Gulf War Syndrome from the Persian Gulf War. “This war will be remembered for the high incidences of brain damage,” he said.
In addition to testimony, the doctor showed a series of slides showing severely injured Iraqi War soldiers. Mangled bloody men missing limbs and even their faces flashed on the screen causing collective hushed sounds of horror from the audience.
But Bolles’ slides weren’t the only ones to cause discomfort to the more than 300 hundred sitting riveted in their seats. Delgado, who attained conscientious objector status after refusing to kill Iraqis, offered his collection of photos from Abu Ghraib Prison. He presented pictures of dismal, inhumane living conditions for the prisoners consisting of tents staked over muddy ground in a place that got down to 25 degrees in the winter. He said the camp was rampant with communicable diseases, including tuberculosis, and that the prisoners were fed rotting and rancid food.
“The guards used the cold weather as a punishment by taking away blankets and warm clothing from the prisoners,” he said.
Mud and cold were not the worst of it for the prisoners, according to Delgado. He said that the prison was attacked my mortar fire regularly and that the missiles landed in the prisoners’ part of the compound.
“We were inside the buildings,” he said. “It was the prisoners who were injured in the attacks. There were dozens of prisoners killed. They died and were injured in droves.”
He showed Iraqi prisoners with blown off limbs and missing heads from the attacks.
“I heard that 22 more died the week after I left.” he said. And, Delgado painted a grim picture of the conduct of the majority of the guards at the prison. “To say that it was just a few bad apples (referring to soldiers prosecuted for the abuse that was exposed last year) is laughable.”
He said the fear and confusion was devastating for the 17 to 21-year-olds there trying to run the prison. He also pointed out that the American Red Cross has estimated that 70 to 90 percent of the prisoners were being held there mistakenly. He went on to say that most of the crimes the prisoners did commit were petty non-violent offenses.
Former soldiers, Funk, Mejia and Goodrich, brought home clearly the face of the young men and women who are being sent over to Iraq to fight a war that many believe is only being fought to protect America’s oil interests.
Funk, 22, looked more like a shy teenager getting ready to ask a girl to dance than the Marine he used to be. He shuffled his feet and humbly told the audience about the heroic action he took that changed his life.
“I was just the first resister,” he said. “It’s no big deal. There are thousands of others who are doing the same thing.”
Funk was tried and spent several months in prison for his actions. However, the young man seemed to take the punishment in stride.
“Being in jail was better than boot camp,” he said with a big smile.
Mejia, who took his action after witnessing the debacle that is the Iraq War, is spending his time traveling the country spreading a message of the need for unity around the tough issues that face our nation. Informing the crowd that more than 100,000 Iraqis have been killed and not counted he urged personal action against the war.
“When we see what the war is doing we must come forward and speak out against it,” he said. He also touched on the price soldiers who have been in the war are facing when they come home to a government that is discarding them.
“They are coming back and committing suicide and going homeless,” he said, bringing up visions of the similar fate of the Vietnam vets. “We need to hold the government responsible for taking care of them.”
Goodrich, looking every bit like a clean cut native son of Middle America, told the crowd that he had proudly fought in Afghanistan, but was soured to Iraq War and wanted no part of it.
“There are pictures of me smiling and signing bombs used in Afghanistan,” he said. His patriotic zeal took a dive when he started researching information on the war apparently.
“I looked up a web site with information from a weapons inspector that showed there were no weapons of mass destruction left in Iraq. He said he realized that government was going in under false pretenses.
Perhaps the most powerful voice for peace came from Sheehan, who turned from grieving mother to outspoken anti-war activist. As a founder of Gold Star Families for Peace, Sheehan travels around the country indicting the George W. Bush Administration for what she believes is an illegal war.
“My son Casey was murdered,” she said. “As far as I am concerned George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice blew off the back of Casey’s sweet head.”
Sheehan helped wrap up the three-hour event by calling for actions against the government. She called for the Bush’s impeachment and for him to be charged with international war crimes.
“We have already lost 1,656 young Americans just to pad somebody’s bank account,” she said angrily.
Residents from throughout the Bay Area decided to forego barbecues and parades to find out from Iraqi war veterans, a mother of a slain son and a military surgeon about the true cost to human life taking place daily in Iraq.
The program “Military Voices Against Endless War” presented testimony from Stephen Funk, the first military resister to the current war, Camilo Mejia, the first Iraqi War veteran to resist, Tim Goodrich, a co-founder of Iraq Veterans Against the War, Aidan Delgado, who was stationed at Abu Ghraib, Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey was killed in Iraq and Dr. Gene Bolles, a neurosurgeon who treated wounded soldiers at Landstuhl Regional Medical Center in Germany.
“We were treating from 40 to 60 soldiers a day,” said Bolles. “In this war we are seeing more amputees and more brain damage.” Bolles told the sober crowd that every war has a signature injury associated with it, such as Agent Orange in Vietnam and The Gulf War Syndrome from the Persian Gulf War. “This war will be remembered for the high incidences of brain damage,” he said.
In addition to testimony, the doctor showed a series of slides showing severely injured Iraqi War soldiers. Mangled bloody men missing limbs and even their faces flashed on the screen causing collective hushed sounds of horror from the audience.
But Bolles’ slides weren’t the only ones to cause discomfort to the more than 300 hundred sitting riveted in their seats. Delgado, who attained conscientious objector status after refusing to kill Iraqis, offered his collection of photos from Abu Ghraib Prison. He presented pictures of dismal, inhumane living conditions for the prisoners consisting of tents staked over muddy ground in a place that got down to 25 degrees in the winter. He said the camp was rampant with communicable diseases, including tuberculosis, and that the prisoners were fed rotting and rancid food.
“The guards used the cold weather as a punishment by taking away blankets and warm clothing from the prisoners,” he said.
Mud and cold were not the worst of it for the prisoners, according to Delgado. He said that the prison was attacked my mortar fire regularly and that the missiles landed in the prisoners’ part of the compound.
“We were inside the buildings,” he said. “It was the prisoners who were injured in the attacks. There were dozens of prisoners killed. They died and were injured in droves.”
He showed Iraqi prisoners with blown off limbs and missing heads from the attacks.
“I heard that 22 more died the week after I left.” he said. And, Delgado painted a grim picture of the conduct of the majority of the guards at the prison. “To say that it was just a few bad apples (referring to soldiers prosecuted for the abuse that was exposed last year) is laughable.”
He said the fear and confusion was devastating for the 17 to 21-year-olds there trying to run the prison. He also pointed out that the American Red Cross has estimated that 70 to 90 percent of the prisoners were being held there mistakenly. He went on to say that most of the crimes the prisoners did commit were petty non-violent offenses.
Former soldiers, Funk, Mejia and Goodrich, brought home clearly the face of the young men and women who are being sent over to Iraq to fight a war that many believe is only being fought to protect America’s oil interests.
Funk, 22, looked more like a shy teenager getting ready to ask a girl to dance than the Marine he used to be. He shuffled his feet and humbly told the audience about the heroic action he took that changed his life.
“I was just the first resister,” he said. “It’s no big deal. There are thousands of others who are doing the same thing.”
Funk was tried and spent several months in prison for his actions. However, the young man seemed to take the punishment in stride.
“Being in jail was better than boot camp,” he said with a big smile.
Mejia, who took his action after witnessing the debacle that is the Iraq War, is spending his time traveling the country spreading a message of the need for unity around the tough issues that face our nation. Informing the crowd that more than 100,000 Iraqis have been killed and not counted he urged personal action against the war.
“When we see what the war is doing we must come forward and speak out against it,” he said. He also touched on the price soldiers who have been in the war are facing when they come home to a government that is discarding them.
“They are coming back and committing suicide and going homeless,” he said, bringing up visions of the similar fate of the Vietnam vets. “We need to hold the government responsible for taking care of them.”
Goodrich, looking every bit like a clean cut native son of Middle America, told the crowd that he had proudly fought in Afghanistan, but was soured to Iraq War and wanted no part of it.
“There are pictures of me smiling and signing bombs used in Afghanistan,” he said. His patriotic zeal took a dive when he started researching information on the war apparently.
“I looked up a web site with information from a weapons inspector that showed there were no weapons of mass destruction left in Iraq. He said he realized that government was going in under false pretenses.
Perhaps the most powerful voice for peace came from Sheehan, who turned from grieving mother to outspoken anti-war activist. As a founder of Gold Star Families for Peace, Sheehan travels around the country indicting the George W. Bush Administration for what she believes is an illegal war.
“My son Casey was murdered,” she said. “As far as I am concerned George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld and Condoleezza Rice blew off the back of Casey’s sweet head.”
Sheehan helped wrap up the three-hour event by calling for actions against the government. She called for the Bush’s impeachment and for him to be charged with international war crimes.
“We have already lost 1,656 young Americans just to pad somebody’s bank account,” she said angrily.
Add Your Comments
Comments
(Hide Comments)
The young men in these photos look like kids. to me. That means I have seen this movie too many times before. Tell me, are the young people finally going to stop going to war? That is the only way these wars will end.
And when there is no military and every other country in the world decides to walk over us and our allies the communist lefties in this country will be real happy, but what about us Americans that love America????
Every war has had a purpose and a reason. Give me one war without a valid cause. The Revolution? Civil War? War of 1812? WW1? WW2? Korea? Vietnam? Iraq 1? Afghanistan? Iraq 2?
All had purposes and through history there has always been idiot objectors... Hitler would have loved to have all the lefties in the US and worldwide right now back in WW2 because he would have been able to walk all over Europe and then could have helped Japan with the US....
So what language do you lefties want us to speak? Chinese? Arabic? I'd just like to know because if we keep growing up children that are pu*sies, we might as well start learning our enemy's language!
Every war has had a purpose and a reason. Give me one war without a valid cause. The Revolution? Civil War? War of 1812? WW1? WW2? Korea? Vietnam? Iraq 1? Afghanistan? Iraq 2?
All had purposes and through history there has always been idiot objectors... Hitler would have loved to have all the lefties in the US and worldwide right now back in WW2 because he would have been able to walk all over Europe and then could have helped Japan with the US....
So what language do you lefties want us to speak? Chinese? Arabic? I'd just like to know because if we keep growing up children that are pu*sies, we might as well start learning our enemy's language!
"And when there is no military and every other country in the world decides to walk over us"
Who exactly are you worried about? Do you think Canada is gong to invade us?
"Every war has had a purpose and a reason."
Are you arguing every war is good no matter who carries it out or just ever war the US has engaged in was for a good reason?
"Hitler would have loved to have all the lefties in the US and worldwide right now back in WW2..."
From what I remember it was the US right that kept the US out of the war until after Perl Harbour. FDR (a center-left leader) wanted to defend the UK against Hitler but you righties wouldnt let him until teh US got attacked.
"So what language do you lefties want us to speak? Chinese? Arabic?"
Are you really crazy enough to believe that if the US hadnt invaded Iraq (which we now know for a facts didnt have WMD) Hussein would have marched his weak little army across the ocean and force AMericans to speak Arabic?
"I'd just like to know because if we keep growing up children that are pu*sies, we might as well start learning our enemy's language!"
A lot of poeple in the US army are learnning Arabic since they are stuck in the quagmire that is Iraq. It would be nice if the US educational system were good enough that more Americans could speak more languages but instead of educating our youth educational debates tend to focus on worthless "no child left behind" type stuff and debates over whether its ok to teach about genetics/evolution since Christians get offended by science.
Who exactly are you worried about? Do you think Canada is gong to invade us?
"Every war has had a purpose and a reason."
Are you arguing every war is good no matter who carries it out or just ever war the US has engaged in was for a good reason?
"Hitler would have loved to have all the lefties in the US and worldwide right now back in WW2..."
From what I remember it was the US right that kept the US out of the war until after Perl Harbour. FDR (a center-left leader) wanted to defend the UK against Hitler but you righties wouldnt let him until teh US got attacked.
"So what language do you lefties want us to speak? Chinese? Arabic?"
Are you really crazy enough to believe that if the US hadnt invaded Iraq (which we now know for a facts didnt have WMD) Hussein would have marched his weak little army across the ocean and force AMericans to speak Arabic?
"I'd just like to know because if we keep growing up children that are pu*sies, we might as well start learning our enemy's language!"
A lot of poeple in the US army are learnning Arabic since they are stuck in the quagmire that is Iraq. It would be nice if the US educational system were good enough that more Americans could speak more languages but instead of educating our youth educational debates tend to focus on worthless "no child left behind" type stuff and debates over whether its ok to teach about genetics/evolution since Christians get offended by science.
Here's a summary of the "justifications" for America's wars. I'm sorry if this is cursory and opinionated, but I don't have all day. :-) This information is all widely available online, or in any good university library.
American Revolution (1775-1783)-The cause is disputed by historians (and probably always will be), as really the war was caused by many things, but the leadership of the revolution were mainly concerned about paying taxes closer to those of people in Britain proper, as they owned a large amount of land. Idealists like Thomas Paine (who was actually from Thetford, Norfolk, England) and Samuel Adams believed that the war was their chance to put their democratic ideology, experimental and radical at the time, into practice. In the end, the ruling classes won, and the world has had resulting problems ever since. (Gee, I'm getting opinionated already. :-))
War of 1812 (1812-1815)-Fought to drive British soldiers and agents out of the territory between the Appalachians and the Mississippi River, ceded to the U.S. in the Treaty of Paris (1783) but not actually vacated by British forces. The primary reason the U.S. government wanted the British out, in spite of there being few U.S. citizens or business interests in the territory, was the desire to commit genocide against the Native Americans who the British were protecting (albeit for imperialist reasons), and extend U.S. settlements into the territory. The Southerners were particularly enthusiastic, as they wanted to extend slavery and gain more influence in Congress to keep slavery legal.
Mexican War (1848)-Fought to extend slavery westward into Texas, which had recently been taken over by American extremists. The process, the U.S. also acquired most of what is now the Southwestern U.S. through the Mexican Cession, which was part of the peace treaty following the U.S. victory.
Civil War (1861-1865)-Fought to establish Federal Supremacy over State power, or "State's rights." It is often assumed that this war was fought to end slavery, and this was a positive side effect. Nevertheless, President Lincoln made it clear that the war was to "preserve the union," in other words to preserve the power of the federal government. He made it very clear that he was indifferent to the issue of slavery when it came to the issue of unity, considering unity and federal power to be far more important, and only signed the Emancipation Proclamation as a way of punishing the South, after the war had already been going on for three years.
Spanish-American War (1898)-Fought to extend the American Empire and break the back of the Spanish Empire, seen as a rival in the New World. The pretext was the misrepresentation of an accidental explosion on the U.S.S. Maine as a terrorist attack, even though several independent enquiries into the matter since, plus one Navy investigation headed by Admiral Hyman Rickover (apologies if I misspelled his name), have concluded that it was an accident, and that there had never been any real evidence of a bomb. American History textbooks in American high schools often still give the original "official" version.
War in the Phillipines (1898-1902[some sources would argue it only ended with independence in 1932])-Fought to maintain American control of the Phillipines following the Spanish-American War
Haiti (1915-1932, 1994, and 2004)-The first U.S. occupation of Haiti was from 1919-1944, and accomplished little. The hope was to control Haitian trade, and to "protect American and foreign interests." Eventually, after numerous human rights violations committed by U.S. authorities, President Franklin Roosevelt pulled out U.S. troops to save face. The second U.S. invasion, in 1994, was fought to reinstall Jean Bertrand-Aristide, an American puppet, as president. Although the military dictatorship removed by the invasion was brutal, Aristide has a number of human rights violations that he's been accused of as well, equally if not more brutal than those of Cedras, the previous dictator. His one saving grace is that, at least allegedly, he was legitimately elected. Like Noriega, the U.S. government eventually tired of him, and kidnapped him (according to Aristide and his supporters anyway) in 2004, exiling him to South Africa. A U.S.-backed dictatorship now holds power, and the country has descended back into chaos.
World War I (1917-1918[dates indicate American involvement])-Fought to support the British Empire over the German Empire, with a frightful cost in American lives to protect British interests. This war was also intended to curtail German imperial power, but backfired by provoking the Germans (mainly because of the Versailles Treaty, which admittedly the U.S. opposed) into supporting Hitler in the 1932 election, leading to his subsequent aggression that led to World War II and all of its carnage, not to mention the millions of civilians slaughtered in the Holocaust, which many American businesses collaborated in. Franklin Roosevelt was also reponsible for ordering a refugee ship full of Jews back to Germany, where they were subsequently gassed, so it can hardly be said that the interwar U.S. administrations did much to oppose Hitler. In the end, it was Hitler who declared war on the U.S., and not the other way around.
Russian Civil War (1917-1921[I may have the end date wrong])-A futile, unprovoked, conflict fought against the Bolsheviks by American soldiers already traumatised by World War I.
World War II (1941-1945)-The only war mentioned above which was justified, as the interests of the rich and the poor coincided, and the United States was attacked by a foreign power, Japan, while Germany declared war soon after.
Korea (1949-1954[with American forces still on the border between the North and the South])-Fought to maintain American power in Asia, and to "contain" Communism. The only real justification for this war, perhaps, was that it was to protect Japan, who had agreed to remain a marginal power (in order not to threaten the U.S. ever again) in exchange for American protection.
Vietnam (1958-1975 [officially 1964-1974, not counting covert ops])-Another war of containment, in which the U.S. was backing a dictatorship installed by the CIA, after a UN-brokered election to unite the divided country (Communist North and non-Communist South, as in Korea) was blocked by the U.S. because of an electorate hostile to U.S. interests. Dissidents were subsequently tortured and murdered in large numbers, and a Communist insurgency (the Viet Cong) began in South Vietnam to attempt annexation of the Southern zone to the Northern zone by force. Given that this was a war against democracy, human rights, and American ideals, it's anti-Communist pretext became irrelevent, and, like Russia and the Phillipines, was a humiliating, lost conflict. Vietnam, still an undemocratic, Communist regime, is now the second fastest growing economic power in the world, after equally undemocratic and Communist China.
Grenada (1983)-Fought to bring the mighty island of Grenada to its knees after Ronald Reagan accused them of nuclear ambitions. Ha, ha, ha. Could it really have been that THIS dictator, Maurice Bishop, was a Communist friendly to Fidel Castro, and not a fascist friendly to American businesses? Nah, seems unlikely. :-)
Panama (1989)-Fought to remove a U.S.-backed dictator, Manuel Noriega, who the U.S. government had a falling out with over the handover of the Panama Canal according to some people, and the drug trade according to others. I have read an estimate that 5,000 civilians were killed in this brutal, unprovoked war in which the primary targets were civilians, and now the media and history books largely ignore it.
The Gulf War (1991)-A.k.a the War for Oil. Fought to regain influence over Kuwait, one of the most oil-rich countries in the world, and to draw Iraqi forces into battle in order to eliminate them as a regional force. Naturally, this was achieved by the U.S. insinuating to the Iraq regime (That was Saddam Hussein, guy! :-)) that it would be alright to invade Kuwait (Saddam had every reason to assume to the U.S. was being sincere, as they had been his allies since 1968), and then changing their minds after it happened. In the end, most of the Iraqi forces refused to fight, and U.S. forces spent several weeks blowing up empty, outdated 1950s-era tanks and acting as if U.S. soldiers and weapons were therefore invincible.
Ongoing bombing of Iraq, combined with economic sanctions 1991-2003)-This killed far more people than the Gulf War, and ranks among the greatest war crimes of the 20th Century. In spite of this, it was underreported in the U.S. media. Some estimates put the death toll at over 2,000,000, although the number is so high, and the causes of death so varied, that it will probably never been known.
Somalia (1993)-An indiscriminate slaughter of over 1,000 Somali civilians for oil (sound familiar?) which ended in humiliating defeat for the U.S. and anarchy for Somalia. Order has yet to be fully restored, although some reports from inside the country have lately been reporting relative calm.
The Balkans (1992-1999)-It started with a genocidal war by local racist thugs, backed on all sides by the U.S. government in order to destabilise and fragment Yugoslavia, in order to eliminate it as a rival, and ended with the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Kosovo, Montenegro, and Serbia. Whew! That was a long sentence. Sounds convoluted and stupid, doesn't it? Well, considering that tiny Serbia managed to defeat the U.S. yet again, in yet another war that damaged the moral authority of the U.S., I would tend to agree. How was a small country like Yugoslavia going to challenge the economic might of the U.S. anyway? It's ridiculous. As for the genocide committed in the Balkans by everybody against everybody, in Kosovo alone there were anywhere from 3,200-11,000 civilians killed, mostly by NATO bombing, and the remainder by Slobodan Milosevic, America's ally until the bombing. 250,000 Albanian men were also reported missing. However, the figures for the Balkans, both in the first half of the war (fought in Bosnia and Croatia) and the second half (fought in Kosovo, Montenegro, and Serbia) are far from clear, as many on all sides have accused the other sides of exaggerating.
The bombing of the Sudan and Afghanistan (1998)-Bill Clinton was facing a massive political scandal in the U.S., a rather puritanical country by western standards, for getting a b---job from a woman other than his wife. That this wasn't illegal didn't matter, as damage control was a necessity. Knowing that American voters love wars, Clinton couldn't resist a bombing run on a medicine factory in the Sudan, and an empty desert in Afghanistan. The official justification? Blame Bin Ladin, of course! That medicine factory COULD have been used to make WMD for him, even though he didn't own it, never did, and never has had any control over it then or since. CIA intelligence was fabricated and/or distorted to support his position, although, of course, the specifics can be neither confirmed nor denied. Sound familiar? :-)
Afghanistan II (2001-present)-Obviously, following the attacks of September 11th, somebody had to go get Bin Ladin. Bin Ladin was believed to be in Afghanistan, so when Bush's old buddies the Taliban refused to arrest him, he was "Wanted Dead or Alive." YEEEEEEHAW!!! Let's go git im' boys!!! Actually, most people agreed. There was one problem, though, and that was that, as usual, the primary targets of the subsequent invasion were civilians, who were rounded up and tortured by the thousands, or murdered outright, and now, 4 years later, there's still no sign of Bin Ladin, and over 1,000 people are still being detained without trial, charge, or access to legal counsel. Some of them are aid workers or journalists, and some of them are children, but since random U.S. officials and soldiers accuse them of terrorism, this is taken to be enough reason to detain them, without any regard to facts or common sense.
The Iraq War (2003-present)-Once it was clear that the conflict in Afghanistan wasn't going well, George Bush turned to damage control, and got to do what he (and Clinton) had wanted to do all along: invade Iraq and plunder it for oil. He knew that the American people would be ignorant enough to believe anything, so he made up a story, with the cooperation of his cabinet, Tony Blair and his cabinet, and the news media, to claim that Iraq was a grave threat to U.S. (and British) security, possessed WMD (I actually believed this, but didn't consider WMDs to be relevent since the U.S. had them too.) and somehow was collaborating with Bin Ladin, even though Saddam wanted him dead. The CIA strongly took issue with these assertions, but Bush followed his time-honoured tactic in such a situation: tell such a whopper that people actually believe it, in other words claim that he got his information from the CIA!!! After it became obvious, 1,000 dead American soldiers and 20,000 dead civilians later, that it was all b.s., Bush and his buddy Tony Blair changed the subject to the evil of Saddam Hussein and how much better off Iraq was without him. The problem is, surveys of Iraqis don't agree with them anymore, true democracy has not taken root in Iraq as promised (because the U.S. government banned large numbers of electoral candidates and allowed the U.S. military to murder demonstrators), and Iraq is in worse shape now than at any time in the past several hundred years. Not even the basics like running water and electricity are flowing yet, due to Bush's insistance on using corrupt private contractors (paid for with your tax dollars) to provide all services in the face of overwhelming local opposition to their presence. Now there are over 1,600 dead U.S. soldiers, and some estimates claim 100,000 dead civilians, and the numbers continue to climb daily. Meanwhile, from the conservative's perspective, this war is also a fiasco in that Saddam has yet to face the executioner. He continues to be allowed to live, even though many of his countrymen, women and children have been brutally murdered by the U.S. regime, many of them with absolutely no provocation or reason, other than that they're Iraqis, and are equated with him. It would be hard not to conclude from this that Saddam Hussein, one of the most brutal dictators since Pol Pot, is considered by the Bush administration to be worth more than the thousands of Iraqi civilians and children slaughtered in the name of bringing him to justice.
So, aside from World War II, maybe Korea, and maybe Afghanistan, how are these wars justified again? I don't get it. Obviously, wars fought against civilians, for the sake of the ruling class's greed, are immoral, but if one is completely amoral (like a satanist or a fascist), then one could at least argue that one should not go into a war one cannot win. If someone is a Nationalist, the same argument applies, as the empire one is supporting or aspiring to should appear invincible so that others cower before it. Of the 21 wars I've mentioned (I've actually merged a few that were related) 10 failed to achieve the desired effect, 6 were resounding defeats, and 3 led to further wars (which may or may not be a bad thing, depending on which satanist you're talking to). Although more than half were successful, this is still a poor performance even by amoral standards. So Flaws, where's YOUR rational argument to support your point? Your argument sounds...well...flawed?
American Revolution (1775-1783)-The cause is disputed by historians (and probably always will be), as really the war was caused by many things, but the leadership of the revolution were mainly concerned about paying taxes closer to those of people in Britain proper, as they owned a large amount of land. Idealists like Thomas Paine (who was actually from Thetford, Norfolk, England) and Samuel Adams believed that the war was their chance to put their democratic ideology, experimental and radical at the time, into practice. In the end, the ruling classes won, and the world has had resulting problems ever since. (Gee, I'm getting opinionated already. :-))
War of 1812 (1812-1815)-Fought to drive British soldiers and agents out of the territory between the Appalachians and the Mississippi River, ceded to the U.S. in the Treaty of Paris (1783) but not actually vacated by British forces. The primary reason the U.S. government wanted the British out, in spite of there being few U.S. citizens or business interests in the territory, was the desire to commit genocide against the Native Americans who the British were protecting (albeit for imperialist reasons), and extend U.S. settlements into the territory. The Southerners were particularly enthusiastic, as they wanted to extend slavery and gain more influence in Congress to keep slavery legal.
Mexican War (1848)-Fought to extend slavery westward into Texas, which had recently been taken over by American extremists. The process, the U.S. also acquired most of what is now the Southwestern U.S. through the Mexican Cession, which was part of the peace treaty following the U.S. victory.
Civil War (1861-1865)-Fought to establish Federal Supremacy over State power, or "State's rights." It is often assumed that this war was fought to end slavery, and this was a positive side effect. Nevertheless, President Lincoln made it clear that the war was to "preserve the union," in other words to preserve the power of the federal government. He made it very clear that he was indifferent to the issue of slavery when it came to the issue of unity, considering unity and federal power to be far more important, and only signed the Emancipation Proclamation as a way of punishing the South, after the war had already been going on for three years.
Spanish-American War (1898)-Fought to extend the American Empire and break the back of the Spanish Empire, seen as a rival in the New World. The pretext was the misrepresentation of an accidental explosion on the U.S.S. Maine as a terrorist attack, even though several independent enquiries into the matter since, plus one Navy investigation headed by Admiral Hyman Rickover (apologies if I misspelled his name), have concluded that it was an accident, and that there had never been any real evidence of a bomb. American History textbooks in American high schools often still give the original "official" version.
War in the Phillipines (1898-1902[some sources would argue it only ended with independence in 1932])-Fought to maintain American control of the Phillipines following the Spanish-American War
Haiti (1915-1932, 1994, and 2004)-The first U.S. occupation of Haiti was from 1919-1944, and accomplished little. The hope was to control Haitian trade, and to "protect American and foreign interests." Eventually, after numerous human rights violations committed by U.S. authorities, President Franklin Roosevelt pulled out U.S. troops to save face. The second U.S. invasion, in 1994, was fought to reinstall Jean Bertrand-Aristide, an American puppet, as president. Although the military dictatorship removed by the invasion was brutal, Aristide has a number of human rights violations that he's been accused of as well, equally if not more brutal than those of Cedras, the previous dictator. His one saving grace is that, at least allegedly, he was legitimately elected. Like Noriega, the U.S. government eventually tired of him, and kidnapped him (according to Aristide and his supporters anyway) in 2004, exiling him to South Africa. A U.S.-backed dictatorship now holds power, and the country has descended back into chaos.
World War I (1917-1918[dates indicate American involvement])-Fought to support the British Empire over the German Empire, with a frightful cost in American lives to protect British interests. This war was also intended to curtail German imperial power, but backfired by provoking the Germans (mainly because of the Versailles Treaty, which admittedly the U.S. opposed) into supporting Hitler in the 1932 election, leading to his subsequent aggression that led to World War II and all of its carnage, not to mention the millions of civilians slaughtered in the Holocaust, which many American businesses collaborated in. Franklin Roosevelt was also reponsible for ordering a refugee ship full of Jews back to Germany, where they were subsequently gassed, so it can hardly be said that the interwar U.S. administrations did much to oppose Hitler. In the end, it was Hitler who declared war on the U.S., and not the other way around.
Russian Civil War (1917-1921[I may have the end date wrong])-A futile, unprovoked, conflict fought against the Bolsheviks by American soldiers already traumatised by World War I.
World War II (1941-1945)-The only war mentioned above which was justified, as the interests of the rich and the poor coincided, and the United States was attacked by a foreign power, Japan, while Germany declared war soon after.
Korea (1949-1954[with American forces still on the border between the North and the South])-Fought to maintain American power in Asia, and to "contain" Communism. The only real justification for this war, perhaps, was that it was to protect Japan, who had agreed to remain a marginal power (in order not to threaten the U.S. ever again) in exchange for American protection.
Vietnam (1958-1975 [officially 1964-1974, not counting covert ops])-Another war of containment, in which the U.S. was backing a dictatorship installed by the CIA, after a UN-brokered election to unite the divided country (Communist North and non-Communist South, as in Korea) was blocked by the U.S. because of an electorate hostile to U.S. interests. Dissidents were subsequently tortured and murdered in large numbers, and a Communist insurgency (the Viet Cong) began in South Vietnam to attempt annexation of the Southern zone to the Northern zone by force. Given that this was a war against democracy, human rights, and American ideals, it's anti-Communist pretext became irrelevent, and, like Russia and the Phillipines, was a humiliating, lost conflict. Vietnam, still an undemocratic, Communist regime, is now the second fastest growing economic power in the world, after equally undemocratic and Communist China.
Grenada (1983)-Fought to bring the mighty island of Grenada to its knees after Ronald Reagan accused them of nuclear ambitions. Ha, ha, ha. Could it really have been that THIS dictator, Maurice Bishop, was a Communist friendly to Fidel Castro, and not a fascist friendly to American businesses? Nah, seems unlikely. :-)
Panama (1989)-Fought to remove a U.S.-backed dictator, Manuel Noriega, who the U.S. government had a falling out with over the handover of the Panama Canal according to some people, and the drug trade according to others. I have read an estimate that 5,000 civilians were killed in this brutal, unprovoked war in which the primary targets were civilians, and now the media and history books largely ignore it.
The Gulf War (1991)-A.k.a the War for Oil. Fought to regain influence over Kuwait, one of the most oil-rich countries in the world, and to draw Iraqi forces into battle in order to eliminate them as a regional force. Naturally, this was achieved by the U.S. insinuating to the Iraq regime (That was Saddam Hussein, guy! :-)) that it would be alright to invade Kuwait (Saddam had every reason to assume to the U.S. was being sincere, as they had been his allies since 1968), and then changing their minds after it happened. In the end, most of the Iraqi forces refused to fight, and U.S. forces spent several weeks blowing up empty, outdated 1950s-era tanks and acting as if U.S. soldiers and weapons were therefore invincible.
Ongoing bombing of Iraq, combined with economic sanctions 1991-2003)-This killed far more people than the Gulf War, and ranks among the greatest war crimes of the 20th Century. In spite of this, it was underreported in the U.S. media. Some estimates put the death toll at over 2,000,000, although the number is so high, and the causes of death so varied, that it will probably never been known.
Somalia (1993)-An indiscriminate slaughter of over 1,000 Somali civilians for oil (sound familiar?) which ended in humiliating defeat for the U.S. and anarchy for Somalia. Order has yet to be fully restored, although some reports from inside the country have lately been reporting relative calm.
The Balkans (1992-1999)-It started with a genocidal war by local racist thugs, backed on all sides by the U.S. government in order to destabilise and fragment Yugoslavia, in order to eliminate it as a rival, and ended with the indiscriminate bombing of civilians in Kosovo, Montenegro, and Serbia. Whew! That was a long sentence. Sounds convoluted and stupid, doesn't it? Well, considering that tiny Serbia managed to defeat the U.S. yet again, in yet another war that damaged the moral authority of the U.S., I would tend to agree. How was a small country like Yugoslavia going to challenge the economic might of the U.S. anyway? It's ridiculous. As for the genocide committed in the Balkans by everybody against everybody, in Kosovo alone there were anywhere from 3,200-11,000 civilians killed, mostly by NATO bombing, and the remainder by Slobodan Milosevic, America's ally until the bombing. 250,000 Albanian men were also reported missing. However, the figures for the Balkans, both in the first half of the war (fought in Bosnia and Croatia) and the second half (fought in Kosovo, Montenegro, and Serbia) are far from clear, as many on all sides have accused the other sides of exaggerating.
The bombing of the Sudan and Afghanistan (1998)-Bill Clinton was facing a massive political scandal in the U.S., a rather puritanical country by western standards, for getting a b---job from a woman other than his wife. That this wasn't illegal didn't matter, as damage control was a necessity. Knowing that American voters love wars, Clinton couldn't resist a bombing run on a medicine factory in the Sudan, and an empty desert in Afghanistan. The official justification? Blame Bin Ladin, of course! That medicine factory COULD have been used to make WMD for him, even though he didn't own it, never did, and never has had any control over it then or since. CIA intelligence was fabricated and/or distorted to support his position, although, of course, the specifics can be neither confirmed nor denied. Sound familiar? :-)
Afghanistan II (2001-present)-Obviously, following the attacks of September 11th, somebody had to go get Bin Ladin. Bin Ladin was believed to be in Afghanistan, so when Bush's old buddies the Taliban refused to arrest him, he was "Wanted Dead or Alive." YEEEEEEHAW!!! Let's go git im' boys!!! Actually, most people agreed. There was one problem, though, and that was that, as usual, the primary targets of the subsequent invasion were civilians, who were rounded up and tortured by the thousands, or murdered outright, and now, 4 years later, there's still no sign of Bin Ladin, and over 1,000 people are still being detained without trial, charge, or access to legal counsel. Some of them are aid workers or journalists, and some of them are children, but since random U.S. officials and soldiers accuse them of terrorism, this is taken to be enough reason to detain them, without any regard to facts or common sense.
The Iraq War (2003-present)-Once it was clear that the conflict in Afghanistan wasn't going well, George Bush turned to damage control, and got to do what he (and Clinton) had wanted to do all along: invade Iraq and plunder it for oil. He knew that the American people would be ignorant enough to believe anything, so he made up a story, with the cooperation of his cabinet, Tony Blair and his cabinet, and the news media, to claim that Iraq was a grave threat to U.S. (and British) security, possessed WMD (I actually believed this, but didn't consider WMDs to be relevent since the U.S. had them too.) and somehow was collaborating with Bin Ladin, even though Saddam wanted him dead. The CIA strongly took issue with these assertions, but Bush followed his time-honoured tactic in such a situation: tell such a whopper that people actually believe it, in other words claim that he got his information from the CIA!!! After it became obvious, 1,000 dead American soldiers and 20,000 dead civilians later, that it was all b.s., Bush and his buddy Tony Blair changed the subject to the evil of Saddam Hussein and how much better off Iraq was without him. The problem is, surveys of Iraqis don't agree with them anymore, true democracy has not taken root in Iraq as promised (because the U.S. government banned large numbers of electoral candidates and allowed the U.S. military to murder demonstrators), and Iraq is in worse shape now than at any time in the past several hundred years. Not even the basics like running water and electricity are flowing yet, due to Bush's insistance on using corrupt private contractors (paid for with your tax dollars) to provide all services in the face of overwhelming local opposition to their presence. Now there are over 1,600 dead U.S. soldiers, and some estimates claim 100,000 dead civilians, and the numbers continue to climb daily. Meanwhile, from the conservative's perspective, this war is also a fiasco in that Saddam has yet to face the executioner. He continues to be allowed to live, even though many of his countrymen, women and children have been brutally murdered by the U.S. regime, many of them with absolutely no provocation or reason, other than that they're Iraqis, and are equated with him. It would be hard not to conclude from this that Saddam Hussein, one of the most brutal dictators since Pol Pot, is considered by the Bush administration to be worth more than the thousands of Iraqi civilians and children slaughtered in the name of bringing him to justice.
So, aside from World War II, maybe Korea, and maybe Afghanistan, how are these wars justified again? I don't get it. Obviously, wars fought against civilians, for the sake of the ruling class's greed, are immoral, but if one is completely amoral (like a satanist or a fascist), then one could at least argue that one should not go into a war one cannot win. If someone is a Nationalist, the same argument applies, as the empire one is supporting or aspiring to should appear invincible so that others cower before it. Of the 21 wars I've mentioned (I've actually merged a few that were related) 10 failed to achieve the desired effect, 6 were resounding defeats, and 3 led to further wars (which may or may not be a bad thing, depending on which satanist you're talking to). Although more than half were successful, this is still a poor performance even by amoral standards. So Flaws, where's YOUR rational argument to support your point? Your argument sounds...well...flawed?
Flaw writes:
"And when there is no military and every other country in the world decides to walk over us and our allies the communist lefties in this country will be real happy, but what about us Americans that love America????"
Err, if you look who is in charge in the White House, they are anything but Americans who love this country. In fact, the neo-cons are nothing but old Trotskyites (Harper's magazine did a story on this) who are doing their best to destroy America. Ask yourself, Does America look good to anybody in the world today? We are also bankrupt and on the verge of a police state.
"Every war has had a purpose and a reason. Give me one war without a valid cause."
Yes, your right, every war has a purpose but only the wise know it is not about giving Iraqis "Freedom" or "Democracy". It is about the empire consolidating assets, stealing oil and other resources and positioning itself to further reap the windfall.
"All had purposes and through history there has always been idiot objectors... Hitler would have loved to have all the lefties in the US and worldwide right now back in WW2 because he would have been able to walk all over Europe and then could have helped Japan with the US.... "
The "idiot objectors" were the true patriots. The only Hitler we have to worry about today is the one in the White House and his Nazi/NeoCon advisors.
"So what language do you lefties want us to speak? Chinese? Arabic? I'd just like to know because if we keep growing up children that are pu*sies, we might as well start learning our enemy's language!"
No comment.
"And when there is no military and every other country in the world decides to walk over us and our allies the communist lefties in this country will be real happy, but what about us Americans that love America????"
Err, if you look who is in charge in the White House, they are anything but Americans who love this country. In fact, the neo-cons are nothing but old Trotskyites (Harper's magazine did a story on this) who are doing their best to destroy America. Ask yourself, Does America look good to anybody in the world today? We are also bankrupt and on the verge of a police state.
"Every war has had a purpose and a reason. Give me one war without a valid cause."
Yes, your right, every war has a purpose but only the wise know it is not about giving Iraqis "Freedom" or "Democracy". It is about the empire consolidating assets, stealing oil and other resources and positioning itself to further reap the windfall.
"All had purposes and through history there has always been idiot objectors... Hitler would have loved to have all the lefties in the US and worldwide right now back in WW2 because he would have been able to walk all over Europe and then could have helped Japan with the US.... "
The "idiot objectors" were the true patriots. The only Hitler we have to worry about today is the one in the White House and his Nazi/NeoCon advisors.
"So what language do you lefties want us to speak? Chinese? Arabic? I'd just like to know because if we keep growing up children that are pu*sies, we might as well start learning our enemy's language!"
No comment.
It's objectionable and highly expected that you would use the term "Pussies" to describe anyone who didn't want to go and kill someone that they had never met. I am a professor who has taught many returning soldiers and the first thing that they learn in boot camp is that any kind of empathy or compassion shown is equated with the one thing our culture is most afraid of i.e. women and "fags". Whereby, the language used to indoctriante these young men into becoming extactly what they became in AbU Ghraid and throughtout the country, was the language used above. They are debased and insulted in the same way, dehumanizing them with sexist and homophobic language, to make them become "non-pussy" non female, i.e. men, i.e. sadists, i.e. killers. Is that the world you want to live in? God help us all.
i'm not a big fan of war, but it happens. I was in Iraq in 2004 and am in Afghanistan now. There is nothing I have done there or here that violates my moral compass. There are things that do bring about a sense of outrage. Not actions of US troops. Just the individuals that feel they have the right to shit on everyone else.
As of today all demining operations in Afghanistan are cancelled due to 3 teams being targeted and attacked by persons unknown. 3 demining teams that were hit by IEDs trying to make this country a safer place.
Should we just get out of here and let this place fall into chaos again?
Iraq is another animal all together. Just a big shit sandwich. I don't think quitting is the answer. I do wish there was some end point in sight. I can see no real viable answer until the current iraqi govt can keep it's citizens from getting blown up. The bad guys there hope to incite sectarian civil war. I don't think it's there yet, but it's possible.
Sorry if this does not fit in with the all americans are nazis diatribe, but I don't think that's true.
As of today all demining operations in Afghanistan are cancelled due to 3 teams being targeted and attacked by persons unknown. 3 demining teams that were hit by IEDs trying to make this country a safer place.
Should we just get out of here and let this place fall into chaos again?
Iraq is another animal all together. Just a big shit sandwich. I don't think quitting is the answer. I do wish there was some end point in sight. I can see no real viable answer until the current iraqi govt can keep it's citizens from getting blown up. The bad guys there hope to incite sectarian civil war. I don't think it's there yet, but it's possible.
Sorry if this does not fit in with the all americans are nazis diatribe, but I don't think that's true.
Most US soldiers dont feel like they are doing anything wrong but thats partly becasue of lies being told to them by the military.
In Iraq most of the bombings and random killings would end if the US left. Iraq probably would split up because of Kurdish desires but there is quite a bit of unity between antiAmerican Ahias (like Sadr) and the Resistance so its unlikely there owuld be a major Sunni Shia split. Interrogators and some Army officers engage in horrible acts to get information or out of racism but with 100,000+ US solders over there its pretty understandable that many US soldiers wont see much of such behavior. The thing is that anger against the US and the real hardship emposed on Iraqi by Americans isnt really from the acts tha ta solider would see as obviously wrong. Innocent people getting thrown in jail, raids on houses of suspected insurgents, dangerous checkpoints, and the like causes a lot of hardship on Iraqi civilians but most US sooliders wont notice that this is such a huge hardship since it doesnt always involved things that look like abuse (even if it is an invadsion of an innocent persons house or the jailing of someone on bad information). In terms of the Nazi comparison that everyone loves to throw around there is one aspect in whcih it is apt; most Nazi soldiers engaged in the Occupation of France and other countries may not have seen themselves as doing aything wrong either because when one is issolated from the overall political objectives and stuck doing mundane tasks that are required for occupation its hard to see the big picture.
In Afghanistan the US and UN troops are not providing much security, the stability of the country is a result of alliances between various warlords. For a solider stationed over there with some sense of whats going on, ask yourself what you think about US military support for Dostum and Ismail Khan (who arguably have more power than Karzai). The US thinks its using them to track Bin Laden and Taliban leaders but in reality the warlords (who now sell a very large percentage of the worlds heroin sypply) and drug lords are using the US to fight battles against each other. Many of the "accidental" massacres of Afghan civilians a few years ago turned out to be bad information given to the US so that air strikes could be carried out against traditional rivals (I think http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/07/01/afghanistan.bombing/ turned out to be one such case and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1725559.stm was an obvious case of this) Human rights conditions in some of the major Afghan cities are better than under the Taliban but its less obvious in most other parts of the country ( see http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/01/1712768.php and http://www.rawa.org/ai-wom05.htm) The US and UN claim to be tryting to change things and make things better but are pretty out of touch with local norms and whats seen by Westerners as helping can often just make things worse. Demining definitely seems liek a good cause but whenit comes to attacks on aid workers and the like in Afghanistan (as in Iraq) the motives could be quite different from what one thinks at first glance (perhaps a mine field was useful in protecting an Opium field). The US war on drugs in Afghanistan is something that likely to make more enemies than friends since its the main source of income for a large portion of the country (either directly or indirectly) and cracking down on one of the only exports bringing money into the country isnt going to make the US and UN many friends.
In Iraq most of the bombings and random killings would end if the US left. Iraq probably would split up because of Kurdish desires but there is quite a bit of unity between antiAmerican Ahias (like Sadr) and the Resistance so its unlikely there owuld be a major Sunni Shia split. Interrogators and some Army officers engage in horrible acts to get information or out of racism but with 100,000+ US solders over there its pretty understandable that many US soldiers wont see much of such behavior. The thing is that anger against the US and the real hardship emposed on Iraqi by Americans isnt really from the acts tha ta solider would see as obviously wrong. Innocent people getting thrown in jail, raids on houses of suspected insurgents, dangerous checkpoints, and the like causes a lot of hardship on Iraqi civilians but most US sooliders wont notice that this is such a huge hardship since it doesnt always involved things that look like abuse (even if it is an invadsion of an innocent persons house or the jailing of someone on bad information). In terms of the Nazi comparison that everyone loves to throw around there is one aspect in whcih it is apt; most Nazi soldiers engaged in the Occupation of France and other countries may not have seen themselves as doing aything wrong either because when one is issolated from the overall political objectives and stuck doing mundane tasks that are required for occupation its hard to see the big picture.
In Afghanistan the US and UN troops are not providing much security, the stability of the country is a result of alliances between various warlords. For a solider stationed over there with some sense of whats going on, ask yourself what you think about US military support for Dostum and Ismail Khan (who arguably have more power than Karzai). The US thinks its using them to track Bin Laden and Taliban leaders but in reality the warlords (who now sell a very large percentage of the worlds heroin sypply) and drug lords are using the US to fight battles against each other. Many of the "accidental" massacres of Afghan civilians a few years ago turned out to be bad information given to the US so that air strikes could be carried out against traditional rivals (I think http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/asiapcf/central/07/01/afghanistan.bombing/ turned out to be one such case and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/1725559.stm was an obvious case of this) Human rights conditions in some of the major Afghan cities are better than under the Taliban but its less obvious in most other parts of the country ( see http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/01/1712768.php and http://www.rawa.org/ai-wom05.htm) The US and UN claim to be tryting to change things and make things better but are pretty out of touch with local norms and whats seen by Westerners as helping can often just make things worse. Demining definitely seems liek a good cause but whenit comes to attacks on aid workers and the like in Afghanistan (as in Iraq) the motives could be quite different from what one thinks at first glance (perhaps a mine field was useful in protecting an Opium field). The US war on drugs in Afghanistan is something that likely to make more enemies than friends since its the main source of income for a large portion of the country (either directly or indirectly) and cracking down on one of the only exports bringing money into the country isnt going to make the US and UN many friends.
The question is of course who placed the mines to begin with? If it wasn't us, then it was the Soviets, who we basically encouraged the Muhadeen (which became the Taliban and aided Osama after we helped train him) to revolt against to see if the Soviets could be challenged by a rogue state. Prior to our meddling in the affairs in Afghanistan, their ecomony and standard of living was higher and more advanced than any other Muslim country int he Middle East save for Turkey. We essentially aided in leveling the country and abandoned it against our promise, thereby allowing the Taliban to sieze control, which is precisly why we are terrified to leave Iraq, because we know that once again our meddling has caused a power vaccum which most likely will be filled with even greater extremists. In addition, we will never leave Iraq because we want to maintain a standing military base by which to bully the Middle East into keeping the oil prices down and pumping West. We have growing competition with China as an emerging oil guzzler and we need to maintain control (or believe we do) over an incresingly depleted energy source. We would rather blow up the world then save it.
There are a lot of reasons and people to blame for the disaster that is going on in Iraq, but one thing we can establish is that the Iraqis did nothing to deserve the hellish world they are now living in. The only reason we are there is because this administration lied to us — lied about WMDs, Saddam's non-existent Al Queda connections and 9/11, and enough Americans bought that lie to fight and die in this "War on Terrorism".
The questions any soldiers who are reading this website should be asking themselves is why are you willing to fight and die for a lie? And, why would you want to kill innocent people who had nothing to do with 9/11 -- the ostensible reason we went to war. There is nothing heroic about these actions. This war is about rampant profiteering, resource stealing and empire building. Wake up before it's too late!
The questions any soldiers who are reading this website should be asking themselves is why are you willing to fight and die for a lie? And, why would you want to kill innocent people who had nothing to do with 9/11 -- the ostensible reason we went to war. There is nothing heroic about these actions. This war is about rampant profiteering, resource stealing and empire building. Wake up before it's too late!
To honor ALL those killed, maimed and suffering as a result
of the actions of our "leaders", and the lack of action by many
of our "representatives", I urge all concerned to contact their
elected officials and ask them to support Reps John Conyers,
Lynn Woolsey and others in their courageous efforts to get at
the truth, also contact the Media to follow up and report.
For more info start at >afterdowningstreet.com<
>johnconyers.campaignoffice<
"...to the best of my recollection..." Watergate started with
much less apparent cause.
Peace. Monk.
of the actions of our "leaders", and the lack of action by many
of our "representatives", I urge all concerned to contact their
elected officials and ask them to support Reps John Conyers,
Lynn Woolsey and others in their courageous efforts to get at
the truth, also contact the Media to follow up and report.
For more info start at >afterdowningstreet.com<
>johnconyers.campaignoffice<
"...to the best of my recollection..." Watergate started with
much less apparent cause.
Peace. Monk.
Joel:
"I was in Iraq in 2004 and am in Afghanistan now. There is nothing I have done there or here that violates my moral compass."
Joel is a mercenary in the employ of Dynacorp. In the past, he has bragged about how much money he makes. Coming from his mouth, the phrase "my moral compass" is a form of oxymoronia.
"I was in Iraq in 2004 and am in Afghanistan now. There is nothing I have done there or here that violates my moral compass."
Joel is a mercenary in the employ of Dynacorp. In the past, he has bragged about how much money he makes. Coming from his mouth, the phrase "my moral compass" is a form of oxymoronia.
I was an infantryman in the US Army from 1983-1991 and had the thrill of going to Grenada way back when. Was also a police officer for awhile. In 2003 was contacted about working for Triple Canopy, but that deal fell through. Went to work for MPRI and was actually driving up MSR Tampa the day that the KBR convoys caught serious hell. Later switched to EODT.
I am now working for Dyncorp. Dyncorp has 3 missions here, Poppy Eradication,Police training and Karzai's Protection.My main mission is to protect people. After this year is done, may got back to being a cop or.. something useful.
Who put the land mines out? Taliban or drug lord. The war lords are losing their stockpiles of weapons, but very slowly. The central govt. has no way of controlling the country as long as there exists a multitude of tribal armies. Tribalism is the big thing here and overcomes all other idealogy. The locals are also very gullible. They still believe we kill virgin,grind them up and make shampoo out of them.
The UN is unarmed and does not provide any security. ISAF a NATO..subsidiary does that but mainly in Kabul with a few PRTs around the country. The Germans run the PRTs in the North.
The South is where the US operates. Everything along the Pakistan border South of Kabul is mainly US forces.
Leaving these countries won't make the killing stop anymore than our leaving Cambodia did in 1975.
Killing innocents? Every person I ever saw dead from direct US fire was holding a weapon. I have seen more bodies from IEDs. 2 weeks ago in Kabul an IED aimed at the Swedes took out no Swedes, but a crowd of civilians. This was after the Italian aid worker was kidnapped. Iraq is much worse and the target now is to kill off as much of the govt and security forces as they can. If they get an American, that's a special joygasm for them. Believe it or not, this does look like Vietnam.
Maybe I can't see the big picture you have back in the bay area. Maybe I'm just a greedy, money grubbing, capitalist bastard. but why lie to you about what I see and what I know? It's not like I have anything to gain from doing this.
I am now working for Dyncorp. Dyncorp has 3 missions here, Poppy Eradication,Police training and Karzai's Protection.My main mission is to protect people. After this year is done, may got back to being a cop or.. something useful.
Who put the land mines out? Taliban or drug lord. The war lords are losing their stockpiles of weapons, but very slowly. The central govt. has no way of controlling the country as long as there exists a multitude of tribal armies. Tribalism is the big thing here and overcomes all other idealogy. The locals are also very gullible. They still believe we kill virgin,grind them up and make shampoo out of them.
The UN is unarmed and does not provide any security. ISAF a NATO..subsidiary does that but mainly in Kabul with a few PRTs around the country. The Germans run the PRTs in the North.
The South is where the US operates. Everything along the Pakistan border South of Kabul is mainly US forces.
Leaving these countries won't make the killing stop anymore than our leaving Cambodia did in 1975.
Killing innocents? Every person I ever saw dead from direct US fire was holding a weapon. I have seen more bodies from IEDs. 2 weeks ago in Kabul an IED aimed at the Swedes took out no Swedes, but a crowd of civilians. This was after the Italian aid worker was kidnapped. Iraq is much worse and the target now is to kill off as much of the govt and security forces as they can. If they get an American, that's a special joygasm for them. Believe it or not, this does look like Vietnam.
Maybe I can't see the big picture you have back in the bay area. Maybe I'm just a greedy, money grubbing, capitalist bastard. but why lie to you about what I see and what I know? It's not like I have anything to gain from doing this.
"Dyncorp has 3 missions here, Poppy Eradication,Police training and Karzai's Protection."
"Poppy Eradication"
means taking away from Afghanistan its only real source of income.
"Police training"
means helping take away people's freedom
"Karzai's Protection"
means taking away people's dignity (as well as their money). Karazi is a joke. Aside from being a puppet and only really controlling Kabul hes not the sharpest pencil in the box (which is probably why the US helped get him chosen). I wonder what Bush and Kazai talk about when they meet (Im pretty sure it has nothing to do with Afghanistan's economy or security situation since neither man knows anything about either)
If the Dynacorp guy posting has actually had to protect Karzai in the past Im sure he has plenty of humorous stories about the Dubyah of Central Asia.
"Poppy Eradication"
means taking away from Afghanistan its only real source of income.
"Police training"
means helping take away people's freedom
"Karzai's Protection"
means taking away people's dignity (as well as their money). Karazi is a joke. Aside from being a puppet and only really controlling Kabul hes not the sharpest pencil in the box (which is probably why the US helped get him chosen). I wonder what Bush and Kazai talk about when they meet (Im pretty sure it has nothing to do with Afghanistan's economy or security situation since neither man knows anything about either)
If the Dynacorp guy posting has actually had to protect Karzai in the past Im sure he has plenty of humorous stories about the Dubyah of Central Asia.
Massoud would have been pres here if Al qaeda had not blown him up.
The only source of income for the peole is bullshit. The people making the bucks off of opium are the warlords. The current way of getting rid of it, is to go to an area/province and talk to the tribal leaders and tell them why we are doing it, and we will be in the neighborhod. We don't say which fields will be hit. The farmers planting it get about $50 for their efforts.
If enforcing laws is taking away freedom, then cops are supposed to do that. The cops here are not like cops in the US or any european country you can think of. I'll leave it at that.
Karzai, I know nothing about him. He's the big boss of the moment.
The ANA is fairly organized and professional. The display a better military bearing than the earlier mobs and the warlords bands. I can't give you a number on them, but there needs to be more.
I can not give you a break down of every province that has problems, but it's pretty much everything that borders Pakistan. Things are heating up here. Not out of local rage. The locals actually see that they can do better. So far the suicide bombers have been foreign volunteers. The Afghans are not that dedicated to blow themselves up intentionaly. The guy that killed the police chief of Kabul tackled him in the mosque and detonated his device. Not believed to be a local.
sorry that my profession seems to get some of y'alls undies in a twist. Would have been in the NG except, get this, I'm medically disqualifed from further service. They won't let me back in the Army due to my being a 50% disabled vet. But really felt I had to be involved in some way, so here I am.
Love you guys
Joel
The only source of income for the peole is bullshit. The people making the bucks off of opium are the warlords. The current way of getting rid of it, is to go to an area/province and talk to the tribal leaders and tell them why we are doing it, and we will be in the neighborhod. We don't say which fields will be hit. The farmers planting it get about $50 for their efforts.
If enforcing laws is taking away freedom, then cops are supposed to do that. The cops here are not like cops in the US or any european country you can think of. I'll leave it at that.
Karzai, I know nothing about him. He's the big boss of the moment.
The ANA is fairly organized and professional. The display a better military bearing than the earlier mobs and the warlords bands. I can't give you a number on them, but there needs to be more.
I can not give you a break down of every province that has problems, but it's pretty much everything that borders Pakistan. Things are heating up here. Not out of local rage. The locals actually see that they can do better. So far the suicide bombers have been foreign volunteers. The Afghans are not that dedicated to blow themselves up intentionaly. The guy that killed the police chief of Kabul tackled him in the mosque and detonated his device. Not believed to be a local.
sorry that my profession seems to get some of y'alls undies in a twist. Would have been in the NG except, get this, I'm medically disqualifed from further service. They won't let me back in the Army due to my being a 50% disabled vet. But really felt I had to be involved in some way, so here I am.
Love you guys
Joel
I won't reply to the other 2, but the only folks making any money off the opium are the warlords
If a farmer chooses to grow something else, he's in defiance of the local warlord, which is usualy fatal. I do see some progress in disarming them. I don't know how long that will take as this is a tribal society, more so than Iraq.
if we are in Iraq for oil, why are we in Afghanistan? If all of this is about money, what money do we make here? If we should pack up and go home, is'nt that why this place turned into a shithole back in the 90's?
If a farmer chooses to grow something else, he's in defiance of the local warlord, which is usualy fatal. I do see some progress in disarming them. I don't know how long that will take as this is a tribal society, more so than Iraq.
if we are in Iraq for oil, why are we in Afghanistan? If all of this is about money, what money do we make here? If we should pack up and go home, is'nt that why this place turned into a shithole back in the 90's?
Joel,
I promise you those mines weren't made by your war lords or Taliban. I guarentee they are either Soviet issue or U.S. because they definitly do not and never had the factories or the ability to construct such sophisticated hardwear in Afghanistan. Look at the landscape, you know where you are and the technology available in the region. These are medievel sheep herders your dealing with. All the weaponery is Soviet Issue too, most of the guns you are encountering are twenty years old, right? Local trip mines yes, they can construct, but land mines, no way. I'm sure you've never gotten close enough to actual read its label and for your sake I hope you don't have to.
I promise you those mines weren't made by your war lords or Taliban. I guarentee they are either Soviet issue or U.S. because they definitly do not and never had the factories or the ability to construct such sophisticated hardwear in Afghanistan. Look at the landscape, you know where you are and the technology available in the region. These are medievel sheep herders your dealing with. All the weaponery is Soviet Issue too, most of the guns you are encountering are twenty years old, right? Local trip mines yes, they can construct, but land mines, no way. I'm sure you've never gotten close enough to actual read its label and for your sake I hope you don't have to.
Joel, I really think your moral compass is seriously out of wack. You worked for Dyncorp?! That is the company that had their senior employees encourage other employees to have their own personal sex slaves, mostly underaged girls. See: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2002/08/06/dyncorp/
You know the problem with you mercenaries is that it seems like your only sets of values are money, sex and self glory. The larger picture -- fighting for truth and justice is just lost on you people.
You know the problem with you mercenaries is that it seems like your only sets of values are money, sex and self glory. The larger picture -- fighting for truth and justice is just lost on you people.
i had to sign an agreement that says if i engage in any of the above actions, i'm fired. you do have one thing wrong about our motivation. there is no sex. you do have lots of time to exercise between missions. i'm here to pay off the fucking credit card bills, med bills and make sure the kids have a fucking college fund. for that i'm giving up 1 year of my life. the same can be said for every civilian here. the assholes that get a kick out of killing people are too unstable and get shitcanned right away. what you are talking about was in bosnia.
who makes the mines? mainly russian stuff, but every body makes it. italy,china, serbia. i was telling you who emplaces the mines.
who makes the mines? mainly russian stuff, but every body makes it. italy,china, serbia. i was telling you who emplaces the mines.
"I won't reply to the other 2, but the only folks making any money off the opium are the warlords "
You do mention that farmers get paid a little so even you admit that this isnt exactly true. The huge amount of money comming into Afghanistan from Opium sales dwarfs all other money comming into the country and it ends up somewhere. The rich drug lords hire body guards, hire people to move product, and spend money on themselves. Since Afghanistan has no other real source of income Opium essentiall supports everyone but its not always direct support. While a few people in Kabul with other sources of income and perhaps religious leaders (like the Taliban) moight care more about the moraility of the drug trade than about getting by off the drug sales, most of the country isnt going to bite the hand that feeds them and is going to be pretty upset if the US starts going in and destroying their only real source of income.
Here is what a right-wing US newspaper has to say:
" Drug Enforcement Agency veterans, with worldwide experience, say the extent to which drugs have gnawed the country's still fragile institutions makes Colombia look clean.
Poppy cultivation keeps Afghanistan from joining the failed or failing states. It generates 12 times more income than wheat in the same acreage. Opium — the raw material for heroin — accounts for well more than half of Afghanistan's GDP.
Ministers or their deputies are on the take. Police cars carry opium through roadblocks. Karzai spokesman Jawed Ludin acknowledged criminals in national police ranks get cover from senior government officials. Gangsterism is on the rise too.
Last September, Mr. Karzai removed Ismail Khan from the governorship of Heart and gave him Cabinet rank in Kabul. But warlord Ismail Khan still controls his domain from the capital.
The eradication program is in British hands. They concede it is mission impossible without additional billions earmarked for crop substitution. The illicit traffic from Afghanistan to Europe moves via Iran, Iraq, Turkey and/or Jordan, and supplies 90 percent of Europe's heroin consumption."
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050601-100146-9235r.htm
You do mention that farmers get paid a little so even you admit that this isnt exactly true. The huge amount of money comming into Afghanistan from Opium sales dwarfs all other money comming into the country and it ends up somewhere. The rich drug lords hire body guards, hire people to move product, and spend money on themselves. Since Afghanistan has no other real source of income Opium essentiall supports everyone but its not always direct support. While a few people in Kabul with other sources of income and perhaps religious leaders (like the Taliban) moight care more about the moraility of the drug trade than about getting by off the drug sales, most of the country isnt going to bite the hand that feeds them and is going to be pretty upset if the US starts going in and destroying their only real source of income.
Here is what a right-wing US newspaper has to say:
" Drug Enforcement Agency veterans, with worldwide experience, say the extent to which drugs have gnawed the country's still fragile institutions makes Colombia look clean.
Poppy cultivation keeps Afghanistan from joining the failed or failing states. It generates 12 times more income than wheat in the same acreage. Opium — the raw material for heroin — accounts for well more than half of Afghanistan's GDP.
Ministers or their deputies are on the take. Police cars carry opium through roadblocks. Karzai spokesman Jawed Ludin acknowledged criminals in national police ranks get cover from senior government officials. Gangsterism is on the rise too.
Last September, Mr. Karzai removed Ismail Khan from the governorship of Heart and gave him Cabinet rank in Kabul. But warlord Ismail Khan still controls his domain from the capital.
The eradication program is in British hands. They concede it is mission impossible without additional billions earmarked for crop substitution. The illicit traffic from Afghanistan to Europe moves via Iran, Iraq, Turkey and/or Jordan, and supplies 90 percent of Europe's heroin consumption."
http://washingtontimes.com/commentary/20050601-100146-9235r.htm
Three and a half years after the United States led an invasion of Afghanistan to oust the Taliban regime, the United Nations and the U.S. government warn that the country is in danger of becoming a narco-state controlled by traffickers. The State Department recently called the Afghan drug trade "an enormous threat to world stability." The United Nations estimates that Afghanistan produces 87% of the world's opium.
For decades, poor farmers trying to make a living in Afghanistan's mountain valleys have harvested the opium poppies that feed the world's drug pipeline. Now the trade is booming, partly the result of the U.S. strategy for overthrowing the Taliban and stabilizing the country after two decades of war.
U.S. troops forged alliances with warlords, who provided ground forces in the battle against the Taliban. Some of those allies are suspected of being among Afghanistan's biggest drug traffickers, controlling networks that include producers, criminal gangs and even members of the counter-narcotics police force. They are willing to make deals with remnants of the Taliban if the price is right.
The U.S.-backed Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, has brought some of those warlords into his popularly elected government, a recognition of their political clout and a calculated risk that keeping them close might make it easier to control them.
"Drug money is absolutely supporting terrorist groups," said Alexandre Schmidt, deputy head of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime in Afghanistan. And regardless of their allegiance, Schmidt said, most suspects are released within 48 hours because of intervention by higher authorities.
...
In late 2001, U.S. Special Forces and Central Intelligence Agency operatives worked with the Northern Alliance rebel group to besiege thousands of Taliban soldiers in Kunduz. The fight to take the city helped form close ties between U.S. forces and warlord Daoud, who had been finance secretary to Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance leader who was assassinated two days before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Before the attacks and the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, State Department officials had often cited Northern Alliance drug trafficking as one reason the U.S. should not publicly support the anti-Taliban militia.
But police and traffickers interviewed in Kunduz said Daoud did more than use narcotics to help fund the fight against the Taliban: He made drug smuggling a family business. They said he continued to profit from the opium and heroin trade even after Karzai brought him into the central government last August.
Nyamat, a former intelligence agent who has been on the police force for 25 years, accused Daoud's brother, Haji Agha, of handling the family drug business for Daoud, and he said that when his men arrested small-scale smugglers, the deputy minister had them released.
...
For decades, poor farmers trying to make a living in Afghanistan's mountain valleys have harvested the opium poppies that feed the world's drug pipeline. Now the trade is booming, partly the result of the U.S. strategy for overthrowing the Taliban and stabilizing the country after two decades of war.
U.S. troops forged alliances with warlords, who provided ground forces in the battle against the Taliban. Some of those allies are suspected of being among Afghanistan's biggest drug traffickers, controlling networks that include producers, criminal gangs and even members of the counter-narcotics police force. They are willing to make deals with remnants of the Taliban if the price is right.
The U.S.-backed Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, has brought some of those warlords into his popularly elected government, a recognition of their political clout and a calculated risk that keeping them close might make it easier to control them.
"Drug money is absolutely supporting terrorist groups," said Alexandre Schmidt, deputy head of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime in Afghanistan. And regardless of their allegiance, Schmidt said, most suspects are released within 48 hours because of intervention by higher authorities.
...
In late 2001, U.S. Special Forces and Central Intelligence Agency operatives worked with the Northern Alliance rebel group to besiege thousands of Taliban soldiers in Kunduz. The fight to take the city helped form close ties between U.S. forces and warlord Daoud, who had been finance secretary to Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance leader who was assassinated two days before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Before the attacks and the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, State Department officials had often cited Northern Alliance drug trafficking as one reason the U.S. should not publicly support the anti-Taliban militia.
But police and traffickers interviewed in Kunduz said Daoud did more than use narcotics to help fund the fight against the Taliban: He made drug smuggling a family business. They said he continued to profit from the opium and heroin trade even after Karzai brought him into the central government last August.
Nyamat, a former intelligence agent who has been on the police force for 25 years, accused Daoud's brother, Haji Agha, of handling the family drug business for Daoud, and he said that when his men arrested small-scale smugglers, the deputy minister had them released.
...
For more information:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/wo...
"...the only folks making any money off the opium are the warlords..." and the CIA. Shit, people, know your history! The American/English Establishment (old money) have been making money in the drug trade (and slaver) for centuries.
http://www.voxfux.com/features/scull_bones_opium.html
http://www.voxfux.com/features/scull_bones_opium.html
http://www.addictedtowar.com/
discusses militarism
maybe this link will give you a little insight
http://www.truthandhope.org/Funny.mov
discusses militarism
maybe this link will give you a little insight
http://www.truthandhope.org/Funny.mov
what's your answer? We are here, now what. My current scope is to protect individuals here. Make an environment in which they can safely(for the moment) do their job.
Yes other people do make money off of the opium, other than the warlord. Just to put it in perspective, an Afghan cop makes $50 a month, if he gets paid. A farmer growing opium gets about that, sometimes more sometimes less. Same goes for everybody else in the pipeline. Say 10 people other than the big boss are involved in shipping 5,000lbs of it. Who gets the rest of the money?
The guy making the big money does not want the farmers to grow anything else. We have lost people doing operations to cut the plants down before harvest.. This is no bullshit, life and death stuff.
No matter what company is doing the work, it's work that needs to be done.
BTW, the Taliban did discourage opium growth, but if it needed money was not adverse to harvesting it
The CIA is here as is USSF, but they are not all powerful or pervasive. There is also a French SF unit nearby. The Dutch and Roumanians and Brits are also in this AO.
Yes other people do make money off of the opium, other than the warlord. Just to put it in perspective, an Afghan cop makes $50 a month, if he gets paid. A farmer growing opium gets about that, sometimes more sometimes less. Same goes for everybody else in the pipeline. Say 10 people other than the big boss are involved in shipping 5,000lbs of it. Who gets the rest of the money?
The guy making the big money does not want the farmers to grow anything else. We have lost people doing operations to cut the plants down before harvest.. This is no bullshit, life and death stuff.
No matter what company is doing the work, it's work that needs to be done.
BTW, the Taliban did discourage opium growth, but if it needed money was not adverse to harvesting it
The CIA is here as is USSF, but they are not all powerful or pervasive. There is also a French SF unit nearby. The Dutch and Roumanians and Brits are also in this AO.
"We are here, now what"
"No matter what company is doing the work, it's work that needs to be done"
This is the rationale of people who sell crack--"Hey, if I don't do it, someone else will, so I'm gonna get my money"
No amount of money is worth being a pawn in a diseased system
http://www.addictedtowar.com/
discusses militarism ---the disease that it is
maybe this link will give you a little insight
http://www.truthandhope.org/Funny.mov
"No matter what company is doing the work, it's work that needs to be done"
This is the rationale of people who sell crack--"Hey, if I don't do it, someone else will, so I'm gonna get my money"
No amount of money is worth being a pawn in a diseased system
http://www.addictedtowar.com/
discusses militarism ---the disease that it is
maybe this link will give you a little insight
http://www.truthandhope.org/Funny.mov
People usually assume that the CIA druge allegations involved CIA agents personally selling drugs. Thats not what was alleged:
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm
The allegations mentioned in the Dark Aliance articles ( http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/DARKALLIANCE/ ) are very similar to what is going on now in Afghanistan. The CIA didnt have enough money to fund the Contras directly so they enabled the Contras to raise money through drug trafficking. In Afghanistan warlords are selling 85%+ of the worlds Opium by playing the same game of making the US think they are needed to prop up Karzai and look for Bin Laden and the US lets them sell most of their opium without any problems. Most of the giant busts that have happened have been smaller drug lords who havent been as friendly towards the US and hwo have gotten in the way of the larger war lords (ie the busts were more to help the other drug lords than to reduce trafficking)
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB2/nsaebb2.htm
The allegations mentioned in the Dark Aliance articles ( http://www.lycaeum.org/drugwar/DARKALLIANCE/ ) are very similar to what is going on now in Afghanistan. The CIA didnt have enough money to fund the Contras directly so they enabled the Contras to raise money through drug trafficking. In Afghanistan warlords are selling 85%+ of the worlds Opium by playing the same game of making the US think they are needed to prop up Karzai and look for Bin Laden and the US lets them sell most of their opium without any problems. Most of the giant busts that have happened have been smaller drug lords who havent been as friendly towards the US and hwo have gotten in the way of the larger war lords (ie the busts were more to help the other drug lords than to reduce trafficking)
My rationale is to do my part to get rid of the stuff. If that increases the price of your habit..all apologies.
If you think I'm just pulling this out of my ass, there are positions available here. just go to one of the websites and 3-4 weeks later you'll be here.
If you think I'm just pulling this out of my ass, there are positions available here. just go to one of the websites and 3-4 weeks later you'll be here.
"My rationale is to do my part to get rid of the stuff. If that increases the price of your habit..all apologies. "
Afghanistan produces so much Heroin all the busts barely make a dent. In terms of the price of Heroin and the effect of the US backed drug war, production has dreopped a bit lately in the last1/2 year but its mainly due toa market thats so oversatured the drug lords cant get rid of product at any cost (so instead of lowerig prices, production has to drop). While Afghan heroin is the overwhelmig majority of the world supply I doubt it makes up a large percent of what comes in the US since its much easier to get the opium to Russia and Europe from Afghansitan (except for the ocassional military contractor from the US who wants to make money on the side)
Afghanistan produces so much Heroin all the busts barely make a dent. In terms of the price of Heroin and the effect of the US backed drug war, production has dreopped a bit lately in the last1/2 year but its mainly due toa market thats so oversatured the drug lords cant get rid of product at any cost (so instead of lowerig prices, production has to drop). While Afghan heroin is the overwhelmig majority of the world supply I doubt it makes up a large percent of what comes in the US since its much easier to get the opium to Russia and Europe from Afghansitan (except for the ocassional military contractor from the US who wants to make money on the side)
Joel,
After all you've said about the hell you are experiencing you honestly think anyone is foolish enough to want to join you? Very few people either have that much desperation or brain washing to actual take one of those contractor jobs.. At a certain point most people who are non sociopaths have realized that life is not a simple video game where you get to simply keep shooting those "bad guys" and most folks as well realize that they are being horribly manipulated by the media and government whereby understanding that the indigenous people of the region DON'T WANT US THERE. You are not helping anyone but our own governments narrow perverse economic interests, and evidently your own. You are a mercinary. And frankly your end will not be a pleasant one. I pray for you and hope you and the rest od\f the recruits and economic draftees will wake up and do the right thing for yourself, your family and the world. Resist!
After all you've said about the hell you are experiencing you honestly think anyone is foolish enough to want to join you? Very few people either have that much desperation or brain washing to actual take one of those contractor jobs.. At a certain point most people who are non sociopaths have realized that life is not a simple video game where you get to simply keep shooting those "bad guys" and most folks as well realize that they are being horribly manipulated by the media and government whereby understanding that the indigenous people of the region DON'T WANT US THERE. You are not helping anyone but our own governments narrow perverse economic interests, and evidently your own. You are a mercinary. And frankly your end will not be a pleasant one. I pray for you and hope you and the rest od\f the recruits and economic draftees will wake up and do the right thing for yourself, your family and the world. Resist!
Who? Resist what? I'm putting all my shit on to go bake in the sun and make sure nobody blows up the Afghan Police recruits at my compound. We found out that we are specifically targeted by the Taliban and even the Afghans take this threat seriously, especially after the Kabul police chief bit it here.
You're telling me that's a bad thing? I should turn my back and let these semi educated young kids get blown to bits because you don't like GW Bush? Dude you're pretty warped.
You're telling me that's a bad thing? I should turn my back and let these semi educated young kids get blown to bits because you don't like GW Bush? Dude you're pretty warped.
We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!
Donate
$110.00 donated
in the past month
Get Involved
If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.
Publish
Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.
Topics
More
Search Indybay's Archives
Advanced Search
►
▼
IMC Network