Comments on: Targeting the Taliban

By: พระเครื่อง

พระเครื่อง — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 03:13:02 +0000

I just like this data presented and it has provided me a few sort of desire to have success for some factor, so thank you.

By: Michael_Fowler

Michael_Fowler — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 10:09:50 +0000

Kazi, thank you for your post, everyone is welcome.

First, I will ignore your baseless claims and so we can discuss something of substance.
Explain to me how the U.S. profited from Tailban heroin during Soviet occupation?
Even, if the U.S. was profiting from the heroin trade my plan for eradication of opium poppies, would put everyone out of the drug
business, correct?

By: Kazi Mahmood

Kazi Mahmood — Thu, 04 Feb 2010 09:20:04 +0000

I know this is a purely American site. I also notice the concern regarding the strategies in the Afghan war. I feel I have the right to post an opinion too. First of all, the American writers, journalists, blogger are wrong on one very important aspect of Afghanistan: The Taliban does not profit or benefit from drug trade. Nato, UK, US and other Western armies are there to protect opium trade for pro-US drug warlords. Karzai family benefits from this trade, are enriching themselves with it and your 'opinion' masters are lying to the American people on the issue. Such lies will not help the US win such wars.

On the other hand, I find it incredible that the writer found 400,000 peope killed by Saddam Husein who was murdered thanks to US help to Shi'a elements in Iraq! The US murdered 1 million Iraqis and well how passionate are you about that? More lies will be spured by you and you are giving journalism, blogging and everything that is called writing a real big miss!

By: Michael_Fowler

Michael_Fowler — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:21:05 +0000

Well first off Gen. Butler's comments are 100 years old. Second, I do see any evidence that the U.S. Oil companies have profited from the Iraq war, as they do not have free access to that oil, Iraq does.

Second, Gen. Butler was speaking of dirty little wars, not eliminating genocide. Your comments are sounding as if you are trying to use Gen. Butler to promote an anti-American, anti-war agenda, which having read Gen. Butler's book, he was not in either of those camps. Because he believe there are legitimate reasons to go war, but he opposed the way veterans were treated and the profiteering of Big Business in the days of the "Fat Cats" which no-longer exist due to new regulations.

Lastly, I find your lack of compassion for the over 400,000 people murdered by Saddam appalling. They have every right to be free just as we have.

read:
http://www.veteransforacademicfreedom.org/2009/12...

By: Lisa

Lisa — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:20:22 +0000

General Butler's warnings is not so much that Big Business can or will influence DC. He is saying that they are the ones that control DC and have time & again led us to war under false pretense's.
He states "I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism."
At no time does he ever say he did anything on behalf of the American people or the citizens of the countries he invaded. On the contrary, he says ALL of it was to benefit Big Business.
Why are you so certain that Afghanistan is any different? Does the civilian death toll in Iraq not convince you that we were not there to free them from Saddam? Do you think that Big Oil may not have been the true driving force?

By: Lisa

Lisa — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 15:21:11 +0000

It may seem odd for me, a military man to adopt such a comparison. Truthfulness compels me to. I spent thirty- three years and four months in active military service as a member of this country's most agile military force, the Marine Corps. I served in all commissioned ranks from Second Lieutenant to Major-General. And during that period, I spent most of my time being a high class muscle- man for Big Business, for Wall Street and for the Bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism.
During those years, I had, as the boys in the back room would say, a swell racket. Looking back on it, I feel that I could have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents. "

~ Major General Smedley Butler, USMC

By: Michael_Fowler

Michael_Fowler — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:55:15 +0000

Thanks for the comment and the post from General Butler, one of my heroes, as I am a Marine. Gen. Butler is absolutely right that Big Business can and will influence the Washington, D.C and that in turn will lead the military to do its bidding. That is always going to be a constant pressure.

Yet, that does not answer the question of human rights and modern warfare. No country with the military might of the U.S. should stand by idle and watch genocide occur as did happen in Germany, Russia, Ukraine, China, Vietnam, Iraq, etc. We are compelled to act out of basic human respect for life.

Before WWII the U.S could sit back and watch Europe fight with itself with little worry that the war would effect us. But, with the advent of modern warfare things have changed greatly and we must be interventionist to the point of preventing large war machines such as the Nazi's or Saddam's from rising up.

So, we must be on guard against war profiteering, while balancing that with human rights and self-preservation.

However, we the people must be the rulers of our military might, not generals. I cannot find one good reason not to burn those fields in Afghanistan.

By: Lisa

Lisa — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:19:35 +0000

I suspected I was just part of a racket at the time. Now I am sure of it. Like all the members of the military profession, I never had a thought of my own until I left the service. My mental faculties remained in suspended animation while I obeyed the orders of higher-ups. This is typical with everyone in the military service.
I helped make Mexico, especially Tampico, safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefits of Wall Street. The record of racketeering is long. I helped purify Nicaragua for the international banking house of Brown Brothers in 1909-1912 (where have I heard that name before?). I brought light to the Dominican Republic for American sugar interests in 1916. In China I helped to see to it that Standard Oil went its way unmolested. (cont)

By: Lisa

Lisa — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:17:21 +0000

I believe in adequate defense at the coastline and nothing else. If a nation comes over here to fight, then we'll fight. The trouble with America is that when the dollar only earns 6 percent over here, then it gets restless and goes overseas to get 100 percent. Then the flag follows the dollar and the soldiers follow the flag.
I wouldn't go to war again as I have done to protect some lousy investment of the bankers. There are only two things we should fight for. One is the defense of our homes and the other is the Bill of Rights. War for any other reason is simply a racket.
There isn't a trick in the racketeering bag that the military gang is blind to. It has its "finger men" to point out enemies, its "muscle men" to destroy enemies, its "brain men" to plan war preparations, and a "Big Boss" Super-Nationalistic-Capitalism. (cont)

By: Lisa

Lisa — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 08:15:53 +0000

The commentary on this article is right on the mark and as Mr. Fowler states himself "Pressure, Pressure, and more Pressure" is what is needed to get the govt working for the people. But if we are in agreement that our Presidents or Military leaders are unwilling to act it begs the question why?
I believe the following statement from the experience of a Major General with 34 years of service in the Marines and awarded 16 medals states the position of our current and past leadership clearly: (His statement is long so I had to break it up into multiple posts)

"War is just a racket. A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of people. Only a small inside group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few at the expense of the masses.(cont)