General Wesley Clark

Gen. Wesley Clark calls for exit from Afghanistan

John Byrne

Raw Story

Wednesday, November 18, 2009

Retired Gen. Wesley Clark � the onetime Democratic candidate for president � told Congress Tuesday in little-reported remarks that the United States should begin planning for an exit from Afghanistan, breaking ranks with Obama�s current Afghan commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal.

The former Supreme Allied Commander of US forces Europe reminded Congress of the �legacy of Vietnam� in considering the US strategy in Afghanistan. Obama�s commanders have called for an increase of as many as 60,000 troops in the war-torn country.

You�ve got to �figure out where you�re going,� Clark told the House Armed Services subcommittee on oversight and investigations. �How do we get out of here? Because our presence long term there is not a good thing. We�re playing into the hands of people who don�t like foreigners in a country that�s not tolerant of diversity. And that�s not going to change.�

Clark pressed Congress to begin devising an exit strategy from the country. He said that the US should strengthen its relationship with Pakistan and work with the Pakistani government to target al Qaeda, while diminishing its presence in neighboring Afghanistan. He also argued that economic development in Afghanistan was important.

If the US were to increase its forces in Afghanistan, Clark said, a exit strategy should be in place first.

�The legacy of Vietnam really looms over these discussions,� Clark said. �It�s particularly painful for me to see where we are in Afghanistan.�

Clark commanded an infantry battalion during the Vietnam War and was shot four times. He was awarded a Silver Star for his efforts in battle.

The retired general said he preferred a �minimalist� approach that would subvert Afghan terrorism, as some Democrats, including Vice President Joe Biden, have argued. Biden has asserted that the US should draw down its Afghan military presence and focus on the Taliban, while taking the fight to al Qaeda.

A Committee Democrat criticized Clark�s approach, saying a focus on rebuilding Afghanistan was akin to former Vice President Dick Cheney�s approach to Iraq.

Clark replied: �I�m not sure what the Cheney solution was to Iraq, but I can�t associate myself with it.�

�The primary issue,� Clark said, �is get the stategy exactly right.�

Military men, with different ideas on how to move forward or what the mission should be. Maybe that is why Obama is carefully considering how to proceed in this mess.

unfortunately his current approach is escalation of troops. hopefully he will dither a bit longer and change his mind.

I have never thought much of Clark and he was wrong on Iraq. But his opinion that without a consistent strategy and mission we should just get out and go back on defense. I would think Obama agrees 100% with Clark. Because I don't think Obama has his heart in this fight I would hope that for the good of the military he should declare defeat and leave. He would rather fight them somewhere else. A bad mission will cause more problems.

[quote=6863m]

I have never thought much of Clark and he was wrong on Iraq. But his opinion that without a consistent strategy and mission we should just get out and go back on defense. I would think Obama agrees 100% with Clark. Because I don't think Obama has his heart in this fight I would hope that for the good of the military he should declare defeat and leave. He would rather fight them somewhere else. A bad mission will cause more problems.[/quote]

Richard in another post you said the MISSION was accomplished. What is it exactly that there is left to do? How do you define a win? How come its been 8 years of spinning wheels and nothing has been accomplished? Who exactly are we fighting? Afghani's?

Did Bush have the heart to fight when he threw in a handful of resources, only to divert all his attention to a country that:

1) had no WMDs

2) No ties to 911

3) No ties to Al CIADUH

4) No mobile weapons labs

5) no imminent threat

6) no yellowcake and aluminum tubes

7) no threat to its neighbors

8) no reconstituted nuclear programs..

Richard, its like Clark has been looking for work since he retired. Nothing he has done, has stuck.

Maybe Obama doesn't have the heart to send our boys to their deaths for no good reason,if only Bush/Cheney had the same...............................

I think what I said was the first Bush mission in Aghanistan was accomplished. He overthrew the Taliban. He had a secondary mission in place to find Osama Bin Laden. He then left Afghanistan to the NATO forces and set new missions in Iraq. Bush and Cheney then passed on to Obama prior to Jan 20 2009 the mission and goals they had for Afghanistan and Obama and his team asked Bush to not announce what that mission was until Obama could take office and come out with his mission. He did so in March of 2009 and made a speech. That is the mission he is now changing. It is his 1st mission not Bush.

[quote=6863m]

I think what I said was the first Bush mission in Aghanistan was accomplished. He overthrew the Taliban. He had a secondary mission in place to find Osama Bin Laden. He then left Afghanistan to the NATO forces and set new missions in Iraq. Bush and Cheney then passed on to Obama prior to Jan 20 2009 the mission and goals they had for Afghanistan and Obama and his team asked Bush to not announce what that mission was until Obama could take office and come out with his mission. He did so in March of 2009 and made a speech. That is the mission he is now changing. It is his 1st mission not Bush.[/quote]

Richard are you revising history? The first goal of the invasion was to find the CIA asset and Al CIAduh in Afghanistan. That mission was not accomplished. Your first mission you state was to overthrow the Taliban, who has more control today the Karzai US Puppet govt or the Taliban. Outside of Kabul the Taliban runs the show.. Mission accomplished? Bush had 7 years to complete the mission, he didnt he failed. Time to accept that.

New missions in Iraq based on what? Oh yeah fabrications. The Iraqis were no threat, werent involved in 911, had no WMDs.

[quote=6863m]

I think what I said was the first Bush mission in Aghanistan was accomplished. He overthrew the Taliban. He had a secondary mission in place to find Osama Bin Laden. He then left Afghanistan to the NATO forces and set new missions in Iraq. Bush and Cheney then passed on to Obama prior to Jan 20 2009 the mission and goals they had for Afghanistan and Obama and his team asked Bush to not announce what that mission was until Obama could take office and come out with his mission. He did so in March of 2009 and made a speech. That is the mission he is now changing. It is his 1st mission not Bush.[/quote]

If our mission was to overthrow the Taliban, and we succeeded, why are we still there? And Bush never thought of OBL too much, according to himself, so not sure if that was ever a secondary mission.

Richard, you attack Obama for his plan, or lack of plan in Afghanistan. If you were in charge, if you were president, what would you do? What would your Afghanistan plan look like? You know my feelings, I'm not sure we know yours.

Joe, read the post. The first mission was to overthrow the Taliban government who supported an harbored Osama Bin Laden. They did that. A secondary mission was to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. The next mission was a US NATO mission and is to help the Karzi Government gain control of the tribal areas. That mission has not been accomplished and was turned over to Obama. He is about to tell us what his new mission is.

What is unclear about that.

[quote=6863m]

I think what I said was the first Bush mission in Aghanistan was accomplished. He overthrew the Taliban. He had a secondary mission in place to find Osama Bin Laden. He then left Afghanistan to the NATO forces and set new missions in Iraq. Bush and Cheney then passed on to Obama prior to Jan 20 2009 the mission and goals they had for Afghanistan and Obama and his team asked Bush to not announce what that mission was until Obama could take office and come out with his mission. He did so in March of 2009 and made a speech. That is the mission he is now changing. It is his 1st mission not Bush.[/quote]

In the mind of the American people, they were one and the same, taliban and Bin Laden. Mission accomplished had nothing to do with Afganistan, it was desert storm 2, you confuse the issue by using that statement.

Of course the mission changed in Afganistan when Bin Laden escaped. .

Oh so our first mission wasnt to get the terrorist who alledgedly attacked us on 911, but to overthrow the govt in Afghanistan?

I thought we werent naiton building? That it was a war on tuuurrrruuuuh.

[quote=6863m]

Joe, read the post. The first mission was to overthrow the Taliban government who supported an harbored Osama Bin Laden. They did that. A secondary mission was to capture or kill Osama Bin Laden. The next mission was a US NATO mission and is to help the Karzi Government gain control of the tribal areas. That mission has not been accomplished and was turned over to Obama. He is about to tell us what his new mission is.

What is unclear about that.[/quote]

that's a great recap, thanks

but what I'm asking is what you would do. would you escalate with more troops? keep the same, withdraw? what would your plan be if you were in charge?

Joe, If I was President I would give the General whatever he needed with a new mission to push the taliban out of the towns and into the hills. Once I had the towns and villages secure I would then used my technical superiority to kill every one who sticks their head out of a cave. There would not be a living soul in he mountains I would not consider and enemy of the free world. I would also be training the Afghans to protect themselves and I would be in for the long haul. I would tell the Iranians that if we find a missle or a long range weapon in Afghanistan we will take action against them. I would not allow a proxy war by anyone. If you sell weapons to a fighter in Afghanistan we will take action. The killing of innocent civilians has to stop. We can not have worthwhile negotiations with terror underway.

Don't be confused with Taliban who was a Government of Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden. Bush in his state of the Union address changed the American response and told the Taliban Government he was going to remove them. That was our Government to the Afghan Government. Osama Bin Laden was a person and we don't assasinate individuals since the Carter Administration. As a secondary mission Bush got authority from Congress to assinate Bin Laden and that was a secondary mission.

Had Clinton or Obama been in charge they would have sent the FBI and CIA with troops to catch the perp and would have called the Taliban a bunch of names and bombed some buildings.. That is what Obama will do in the future if he pulls out of Afghanistan. If we are attacked in the future what does he do then. He will not do what Bush did. He will do what Carter, Reagan and Clinton did. And that got us where we are today.

We are trading with Vietnam so I guess we won that war1

Pat, that might not be a bad analogy which is why the mission is so important. In Viet Nam we went from advisors to support of a Govenment tying to fight a war to fighting on behalf of the Government. It seems like we are in that phase two. We can now do what they did not do in Viet Nam and fight a war to win by defeating the other side. In Viet Nam we allowed China and Russia to fight a proxy war. We chose to not cut off the supply from the North by going to the North. So you are correct we can allow it to become Viet Nam but we don't need to and still do the right thing. Another difference is that Viet Nam was not projecting their carnage to America.

Richard, that faulty logic got 500,000 troops into a losing cause in Viet Nam. No General should ever have carte blanche to fight a war.

[quote=cstrong45]

Richard, that faulty logic got 500,000 troops into a losing cause in Viet Nam. No General should ever have carte blanche to fight a war.[/quote]

Just one correction.. The general is asking for more troops (and a fixed number of troops at that).... if it were "carte blanche" he wouldn't be asking.

Chuck, as was said I don't think the Army is asking for carte blanc. You have to go back four months. The General was responding to Obama giving him a mission in Mar of 09. McChrystal then reviews his theater of command and decides what he needs to fulfill the Obama mission. He delivers it four months ago. Obama then changes his mind and says he is going to think about and leaks that he is going to change the mission.

[quote=cfrantz]

[quote=cstrong45]

Richard, that faulty logic got 500,000 troops into a losing cause in Viet Nam. No General should ever have carte blanche to fight a war.[/quote]

Just one correction.. The general is asking for more troops (and a fixed number of troops at that).... if it were "carte blanche" he wouldn't be asking.[/quote]

At least you didnt argue the 500 K troops in Viet Nam. Civilian control over the armed forces is key component of our democracy.

[quote=cstrong45]

[quote=cfrantz]

[quote=cstrong45]

Richard, that faulty logic got 500,000 troops into a losing cause in Viet Nam. No General should ever have carte blanche to fight a war.[/quote]

Just one correction.. The general is asking for more troops (and a fixed number of troops at that).... if it were "carte blanche" he wouldn't be asking.[/quote]

At least you didnt argue the 500 K troops in Viet Nam. Civilian control over the armed forces is key component of our democracy.[/quote]

No argument, just stating if you have to ask you don't have "carte blanche". I do not know the number of troops that were in Nam, however I would guess that it wasn't a round number.

Chris it was around 489 thousand in country at one time

[quote=6863m]

Joe, If I was President I would give the General whatever he needed with a new mission to push the taliban out of the towns and into the hills. Once I had the towns and villages secure I would then used my technical superiority to kill every one who sticks their head out of a cave. There would not be a living soul in he mountains I would not consider and enemy of the free world. I would also be training the Afghans to protect themselves and I would be in for the long haul. I would tell the Iranians that if we find a missle or a long range weapon in Afghanistan we will take action against them. I would not allow a proxy war by anyone. If you sell weapons to a fighter in Afghanistan we will take action. The killing of innocent civilians has to stop. We can not have worthwhile negotiations with terror underway.

Don't be confused with Taliban who was a Government of Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden. Bush in his state of the Union address changed the American response and told the Taliban Government he was going to remove them. That was our Government to the Afghan Government. Osama Bin Laden was a person and we don't assasinate individuals since the Carter Administration. As a secondary mission Bush got authority from Congress to assinate Bin Laden and that was a secondary mission.

Had Clinton or Obama been in charge they would have sent the FBI and CIA with troops to catch the perp and would have called the Taliban a bunch of names and bombed some buildings.. That is what Obama will do in the future if he pulls out of Afghanistan. If we are attacked in the future what does he do then. He will not do what Bush did. He will do what Carter, Reagan and Clinton did. And that got us where we are today.[/quote]

The killing of innocent civilians has to stop, yes of course it does Richard. How many Afghanis were involved in 911? NONE.

Bush told the Taliban, he wanted them to hand over Bin Laden, the Taliban asked for proof he was involved in 911, that proof was never provided to the Taliban. The mission was never to get Al CIAduh, or the taliban it is for an oil pipeline..

Richard you do know the US govt gave millions to the Taliban in 2000 and 2001 in aid right, You do know we had entertained Taliban officials here in the USA in the months leading up to 911 right. You do know we were hell bent on building a pipeline from the Caspian sea region, and we told them of our plans..

Unocal... Karzai is a puppet.

7 years of Bush screwing up, and lying us into another war, and you push the shovel of shit at Obama.. Bush did not accomplish anything in Afghanistan aside from allowing the poppy crops to flourish..Get real Richard, take your neocon blinders off, and think.

7 years of Bush screwing up, and lying us into another war, and you push the shovel of shit at Obama.. Bush did not accomplish anything in Afghanistan aside from allowing the poppy crops to flourish..Get real Richard, take your neocon blinders off, and think.

While I do agree that Bush screwed the whole thing up, I don't see the hallowed ONE making it any better. Too bad the GI's are just pawns in scheme of Washington Politics.

IM curious as to what Obie is going to do about the poppy production. Probably legalize drugs along with illegal aliens?:thumbsup:

[quote=6863m]

Joe, If I was President I would give the General whatever he needed with a new mission to push the taliban out of the towns and into the hills. Once I had the towns and villages secure I would then used my technical superiority to kill every one who sticks their head out of a cave. There would not be a living soul in he mountains I would not consider and enemy of the free world. I would also be training the Afghans to protect themselves and I would be in for the long haul. I would tell the Iranians that if we find a missle or a long range weapon in Afghanistan we will take action against them. I would not allow a proxy war by anyone. If you sell weapons to a fighter in Afghanistan we will take action. The killing of innocent civilians has to stop. We can not have worthwhile negotiations with terror underway.

Don't be confused with Taliban who was a Government of Afghanistan and Osama Bin Laden. Bush in his state of the Union address changed the American response and told the Taliban Government he was going to remove them. That was our Government to the Afghan Government. Osama Bin Laden was a person and we don't assasinate individuals since the Carter Administration. As a secondary mission Bush got authority from Congress to assinate Bin Laden and that was a secondary mission.

Had Clinton or Obama been in charge they would have sent the FBI and CIA with troops to catch the perp and would have called the Taliban a bunch of names and bombed some buildings.. That is what Obama will do in the future if he pulls out of Afghanistan. If we are attacked in the future what does he do then. He will not do what Bush did. He will do what Carter, Reagan and Clinton did. And that got us where we are today.[/quote]

Richard, those are some pretty aggressive plans. Since you're a budget/numbers kinda guy, how would you pay for all this?

http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/282238

at $1 million per soldier per year, you're looking at some hefty numbers to support your plans. Since you are deficit henny penny kinda guy, how would all this work out for America? Surely you have a plan to pay for your increased aggression in Afghanistan. Would you raise taxes? Cut services? maybe medicare? maybe social security?? how would you pay for this Richard?

Joe, you didnt answer the poppy question

legalization of drugs. that answers the poppy question.

I would kill the health care abomination on the table right now that saves over a $trillion dollars over 10 years. I would then cut depreciation ot 1 year for all equipment and capital expenditure. All business expenses are deductable in the year they are incurred. I would cut corporate income tax to 12% and capital gains to 10%. Take the Union orgainizing legislation off the table and put cap and trade on hold indefinately. The economy would explode and create new revenues for the Government. I would then cut the cost of Government by 20%. Lay off as many public employees as possible and put them into the private sector. That would balance the deficit and allow payment on the debt. Wars are always fought with debt. I would control that debt to be no more than $200 billion a year during a war.

Creating revenue is not the problem cutting cost is the issue. We cant' function with debt at greater than GDP.

[quote=6863m]

I would kill the health care abomination on the table right now that saves over a $trillion dollars over 10 years. I would then cut depreciation ot 1 year for all equipment and capital expenditure. All business expenses are deductable in the year they are incurred. I would cut corporate income tax to 12% and capital gains to 10%. Take the Union orgainizing legislation off the table and put cap and trade on hold indefinately. The economy would explode and create new revenues for the Government. I would then cut the cost of Government by 20%. Lay off as many public employees as possible and put them into the private sector. That would balance the deficit and allow payment on the debt. Wars are always fought with debt. I would control that debt to be no more than $200 billion a year during a war.

Creating revenue is not the problem cutting cost is the issue. We cant' function with debt at greater than GDP.[/quote]

SO how many layoffs Richard will you make, and where are the public sectors jobs that you think are available? A million jobs would you lay off? How many?

They are job transfers from the public sector to the private sector. For years we have heard how the public employee has been underpaid in their government job. I would grant their wish and lay them off. The private sector can hire them at the salary based on the worth of the job. Everyone wins. I would set a goal of 20%. When something can't be done a decision will have to be made whether to continue the service or eliminate it. If we suspend the civil service rules for the process we will get rid of the right ones. Everyone wins again. They just changed employers.

[quote=6863m]

They are job transfers from the public sector to the private sector. For years we have heard how the public employee has been underpaid in their government job. I would grant their wish and lay them off. The private sector can hire them at the salary based on the worth of the job. Everyone wins. I would set a goal of 20%. When something can't be done a decision will have to be made whether to continue the service or eliminate it. If we suspend the civil service rules for the process we will get rid of the right ones. Everyone wins again. They just changed employers.[/quote]

I am for small govt Richard, but there arent any jobs available for anyone to take, not in my area anyway. Walmart Jobs maybe.. but nothing else.

I dont think anyone wishes to be laid off.

Why is a government job any more important than a private sector job. If the job is not productive and necessary why shouild they be supported when a private sector job is not.

I was having a debate a few years ago with Senator Boxer. She was making a big speech in a BRAC meeting about how we should save public sector jobss which would require that I lay off hundreds of my employees. I asked her the same question. She got so mad at me she stood up and walked out of the meeting and left the building. Her and I had been differing for a long time.

shouldn't your goal be to eliminate unnecessary government jobs? and not eliminate 20% of all government jobs?

seems like you have the wrong goal

Joe do you work? Vacation?

Joe, read the original post. I started with the belief that 20% are unecessary from the start. I have spent many years working in the system and with them. It is my view but only my view and should not be taken personally by any Public employee.. It is not their fault. It is the fault of the organization requirements and civil service system.

Al-Queda was the 9-11 organizers, and why we went into Afganistan, not the Taliban. Al-Queda is now dispersed with more in Pakistan than Afghanistan.

I haven't heard anyone propose a way to "win" in Afghanistan or Pakistan. The Soviets tried excessive force and failed. Unless we are up for genocide, so would we.

No government has never controlled Afghanistan, and we think we can?

Footster we did not know for sure where Osama was but we went in to remove the Taliban and secondary target was Osama. I don't think the McChyristal plan is to fight lke the Russians did. He does not plan to chase them through the caves with helicopters and tanks. I thought the plan was to control the towns and villages first by providing the support to the Afghan Army and police. He will then use special ops to go after the leadership and any bands who make themselves available to kill.

The Biden and Obama dream is that they could just do the special ops and forget trying to nation build or help the towns and cities. They would hunker down into well protected bumkers and wait for targets of opportunity. That is what is causing Obama so much ditthering and why he was so mad about the leak of the plan. He just wanted to morph into the Biden Obama plan.

So Richard, our first goal was to topple a govt, and then go after the alledged 911 mastermind?

Friday, November 20, 2009

Not content with savaging American taxpayers with two huge new financial burdens during an economic recession, in the form of health care reform and cap and trade, close allies of Barack Obama have proposed a new war surtax that will force Americans to foot the bill for the cost of protecting opium fields in Afghanistan, paying off drug lords, and bribing the Taliban.

Warning that the cost of occupying Afghanistan is a threat to the Democrats� plan to overhaul health care, lawmakers have announced their plan to make Americans pay an additional war tax that will be taken directly from their income, never mind the fact that around 36 per cent of federal taxes already go to paying for national defense.

�Regardless of whether one favors the war or not, if it is to be fought, it ought to be paid for,� the lawmakers, all prominent Democratic allies of Obama, said in a joint statement on the �Share The Sacrifice Act of 2010 (PDF),� reports AFP.

The move is being led by the appropriately named House Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, Representative John Murtha, who chairs that panel�s defense subcommittee; and House Financial Services Committee Chairman Barney Frank.

The tax would apply to anyone earning as little as $22,600 per year in 2011.

The proposal is described as �heavily symbolic� with little chance of passing, but it once again illustrates the hypocrisy of an administration that swept to power on the promise of �change� to the Neo-Con imperial agenda and a resolve to reduce U.S. military involvement overseas. In reality, there are more troops in Iraq and Afghanistan now under Obama that at any time during the Bush administration.

At the height of the Bush administration�s 2007 �surge� in Iraq, there were 26,000 US troops in Afghanistan and 160,000 in Iraq, a total of 186,000.

According to DoD figures cited by The Washington Post last month, there are now around 189,000 and rising deployed in total. There are now 68,000 troops in Afghanistan, over double the amount deployed there when Bush left office.

What precisely would this extra tax be used to pay for? Namely, bribing the Taliban, paying off CIA drug lords, and protecting heroin-producing opium fields.

Numerous reports over the past two weeks have confirmed that the U.S. military is paying off the Taliban with bags of gold to prevent them from attacking vehicle convoys, proving that there is no real �war� in Afghanistan, merely a business agreement that allows the occupiers to continue their lucrative control of record opium exports while they finalize construction of dozens of new military bases from which to launch new wars.

The Afghan opium trade has exploded since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, following a lull after the Taliban had imposed a crackdown. According to the U.N., the drug trade is now worth $65 billion. Afghanistan produces 92 per cent of the world�s opium, with the equivalent of at least 3,500 tonnes leaving the country each year.

This racket is secured by drug kingpins like the brother of disputed president Hamid Karzai. As a New York Times report revealed last month, Ahmed Wali Karzai, a Mafia-like figure who expanded his influence over the drug trade with the aid of U.S. efforts to eliminate his competitors, is on the CIA payroll.

As Professor Michel Chossudovsky has highlighted in a series of essays, the explosion of opium production after the invasion was about the CIA�s drive to restore the lucrative Golden Crescent opium trade that was in place during the time when the Agency were funding the Mujahideen rebels to fight the Soviets, and flood the streets of America and Britain with cheap heroin, destroying lives while making obscene profits.

Any war surtax will merely go straight to maintaining the agenda that Obama inherited from Bush, the continued looting of Afghanistan under the pretext of a �war on terror� that, as revelations about bribing the Taliban prove, doesn�t even exist.

This is why we are there..

The firtst part would be a bad precedent for the future. Obama should fix the cost and spending first.

The second part is drivel as to the conclusion.

[quote=6863m]

The firtst part would be a bad precedent for the future. Obama should fix the cost and spending first.

The second part is drivel as to the conclusion.[/quote]

Drivel Richard? The poppy crops are booming year over year since our occupation. This is a fact. How does heroin find its way here? Goat and wagon?

Do you deny the CIA is in the drug business? You do remember Ollie North right?

Don't be confused by words. "drivel as to conclusion" which means the conclusion is wrong based on the facts or allegation they made.

[quote=6863m]

Don't be confused by words. "drivel as to conclusion" which means the conclusion is wrong based on the facts or allegation they made.[/quote]

And you know this how?

Will you agree that Poppy production has exploded since 2001?

Also, how do you think the poppy arrives here in the states? Goat and wagon?

Will you deny Ollie North?

Most rational people do not believe this conclusion. I am not surprised that you would or your reference base would but it is drivel.

As Professor Michel Chossudovsky has highlighted in a series of essays, the explosion of opium production after the invasion was about the CIA�s drive to restore the lucrative Golden Crescent opium trade that was in place during the time when the Agency were funding the Mujahideen rebels to fight the Soviets, and flood the streets of America and Britain with cheap heroin, destroying lives while making obscene profits.

Any war surtax will merely go straight to maintaining the agenda that Obama inherited from Bush, the continued looting of Afghanistan under the pretext of a �war on terror� that, as revelations about bribing the Taliban prove, doesn�t even exist.

[quote=6863m]

Most rational people do not believe this conclusion. I am not surprised that you would or your reference base would but it is drivel.

As Professor Michel Chossudovsky has highlighted in a series of essays, the explosion of opium production after the invasion was about the CIA�s drive to restore the lucrative Golden Crescent opium trade that was in place during the time when the Agency were funding the Mujahideen rebels to fight the Soviets, and flood the streets of America and Britain with cheap heroin, destroying lives while making obscene profits.

Any war surtax will merely go straight to maintaining the agenda that Obama inherited from Bush, the continued looting of Afghanistan under the pretext of a �war on terror� that, as revelations about bribing the Taliban prove, doesn�t even exist.[/quote]

Richard, explain then how this crop year over year is exploding, and how it finds its way here.. Heroin is a multi billion dollar business.

Your ignoring history, the CIA has been involved in drugs... See Ollie North.. or continue to deny.

You can go to middle schools and get heroin.. its everywhere. Again, I ask, how did the crop explode, and how does it arrive here. And where do your opiate based pain relievers get their opium bases from?

Just stick to the post. I am not justifying drug trade.

It is sticking to the post.. this is happening in Afghanistan where we are currently engaged in a war..

[quote=6863m]

Most rational people do not believe this conclusion. I am not surprised that you would or your reference base would but it is drivel.

As Professor Michel Chossudovsky has highlighted in a series of essays, the explosion of opium production after the invasion was about the CIA�s drive to restore the lucrative Golden Crescent opium trade that was in place during the time when the Agency were funding the Mujahideen rebels to fight the Soviets, and flood the streets of America and Britain with cheap heroin, destroying lives while making obscene profits.

Any war surtax will merely go straight to maintaining the agenda that Obama inherited from Bush, the continued looting of Afghanistan under the pretext of a �war on terror� that, as revelations about bribing the Taliban prove, doesn�t even exist.

Richard, explain then how this crop year over year is exploding, and how it finds its way here.. Heroin is a multi billion dollar business.

Your ignoring history, the CIA has been involved in drugs... See Ollie North.. or continue to deny.

You can go to middle schools and get heroin.. its everywhere. Again, I ask, how did the crop explode, and how does it arrive here. And where do your opiate based pain relievers get their opium bases from?[/quote]

Do you have a linky to the claim you can get H at middle school? No doubt you can, but it isnt likely to be the norm, a can of beer you bet.

[quote=cstrong45]

[quote=6863m]

Most rational people do not believe this conclusion. I am not surprised that you would or your reference base would but it is drivel.

As Professor Michel Chossudovsky has highlighted in a series of essays, the explosion of opium production after the invasion was about the CIA�s drive to restore the lucrative Golden Crescent opium trade that was in place during the time when the Agency were funding the Mujahideen rebels to fight the Soviets, and flood the streets of America and Britain with cheap heroin, destroying lives while making obscene profits.

Any war surtax will merely go straight to maintaining the agenda that Obama inherited from Bush, the continued looting of Afghanistan under the pretext of a �war on terror� that, as revelations about bribing the Taliban prove, doesn�t even exist.

Richard, explain then how this crop year over year is exploding, and how it finds its way here.. Heroin is a multi billion dollar business.

Your ignoring history, the CIA has been involved in drugs... See Ollie North.. or continue to deny.

You can go to middle schools and get heroin.. its everywhere. Again, I ask, how did the crop explode, and how does it arrive here. And where do your opiate based pain relievers get their opium bases from?[/quote]

Do you have a linky to the claim you can get H at middle school? No doubt you can, but it isnt likely to be the norm, a can of beer you bet.[/quote]

My father was the head of guidance for our school district. Mulitple times officers were called in to our 2 middle schools to confiscate H. I dont know if its the norm, but it is readily available. There is a bus station in my city, that is known for H. You see the needles, you see the abusers sitting on the bench high as kites, its not hiden.

Links

http://fieldnotes.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/09/458349.aspx

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/06/12/cheese.heroin/

http://parentingteens.suite101.com/article.cfm/a_new_drug_in_middle_and_high_schools

[quote=cstrong45]

[quote=6863m]

Most rational people do not believe this conclusion. I am not surprised that you would or your reference base would but it is drivel.

As Professor Michel Chossudovsky has highlighted in a series of essays, the explosion of opium production after the invasion was about the CIA�s drive to restore the lucrative Golden Crescent opium trade that was in place during the time when the Agency were funding the Mujahideen rebels to fight the Soviets, and flood the streets of America and Britain with cheap heroin, destroying lives while making obscene profits.

Any war surtax will merely go straight to maintaining the agenda that Obama inherited from Bush, the continued looting of Afghanistan under the pretext of a �war on terror� that, as revelations about bribing the Taliban prove, doesn�t even exist.

Richard, explain then how this crop year over year is exploding, and how it finds its way here.. Heroin is a multi billion dollar business.

Your ignoring history, the CIA has been involved in drugs... See Ollie North.. or continue to deny.

You can go to middle schools and get heroin.. its everywhere. Again, I ask, how did the crop explode, and how does it arrive here. And where do your opiate based pain relievers get their opium bases from?[/quote]

Do you have a linky to the claim you can get H at middle school? No doubt you can, but it isnt likely to be the norm, a can of beer you bet.[/quote]

it is actually easier for kids to get marijuana than it is alcohol, due to the restrictions on buying alcohol.

[quote=walshja]

[quote=cstrong45]

[quote=6863m]

Most rational people do not believe this conclusion. I am not surprised that you would or your reference base would but it is drivel.

As Professor Michel Chossudovsky has highlighted in a series of essays, the explosion of opium production after the invasion was about the CIA�s drive to restore the lucrative Golden Crescent opium trade that was in place during the time when the Agency were funding the Mujahideen rebels to fight the Soviets, and flood the streets of America and Britain with cheap heroin, destroying lives while making obscene profits.

Any war surtax will merely go straight to maintaining the agenda that Obama inherited from Bush, the continued looting of Afghanistan under the pretext of a �war on terror� that, as revelations about bribing the Taliban prove, doesn�t even exist.

Richard, explain then how this crop year over year is exploding, and how it finds its way here.. Heroin is a multi billion dollar business.

Your ignoring history, the CIA has been involved in drugs... See Ollie North.. or continue to deny.

You can go to middle schools and get heroin.. its everywhere. Again, I ask, how did the crop explode, and how does it arrive here. And where do your opiate based pain relievers get their opium bases from?[/quote]

Do you have a linky to the claim you can get H at middle school? No doubt you can, but it isnt likely to be the norm, a can of beer you bet.[/quote]

it is actually easier for kids to get marijuana than it is alcohol, due to the restrictions on buying alcohol.[/quote]

yeah and they just reach into mommies baggy...daddy's too.

[quote=cstrong45]

[quote=walshja]

[quote=cstrong45]

[quote=6863m]

Most rational people do not believe this conclusion. I am not surprised that you would or your reference base would but it is drivel.

As Professor Michel Chossudovsky has highlighted in a series of essays, the explosion of opium production after the invasion was about the CIA�s drive to restore the lucrative Golden Crescent opium trade that was in place during the time when the Agency were funding the Mujahideen rebels to fight the Soviets, and flood the streets of America and Britain with cheap heroin, destroying lives while making obscene profits.

Any war surtax will merely go straight to maintaining the agenda that Obama inherited from Bush, the continued looting of Afghanistan under the pretext of a �war on terror� that, as revelations about bribing the Taliban prove, doesn�t even exist.

Richard, explain then how this crop year over year is exploding, and how it finds its way here.. Heroin is a multi billion dollar business.

Your ignoring history, the CIA has been involved in drugs... See Ollie North.. or continue to deny.

You can go to middle schools and get heroin.. its everywhere. Again, I ask, how did the crop explode, and how does it arrive here. And where do your opiate based pain relievers get their opium bases from?[/quote]

Do you have a linky to the claim you can get H at middle school? No doubt you can, but it isnt likely to be the norm, a can of beer you bet.[/quote]

it is actually easier for kids to get marijuana than it is alcohol, due to the restrictions on buying alcohol.[/quote]

yeah and they just reach into mommies baggy...daddy's too.[/quote]

how old are you Chuck?? :D pot comes in nice plastic containers now !!!! lol