Why Are We Really in Afghanistan?
I saw Robert Fowler from the University of Ottawa on the news recently stating the brilliant obvious: we need to identify why we are in Afghanistan. Are we there to put girls in schools, to save women from wearing burkas (while we fight for their right to wear them in Canada), to defend Afganistan from a Pakistan invasion, to destroy the Taliban who harboured the Al Qaeda who attacked our neighbour, to have a presence in a key oil and pipeline region . . .?
Fowler wrote a very interesting review of The Unexpected War by Stein et al at http://lrc.reviewcanada.ca/index.php?page=Alice-in-Afghanistan. In it he makes a good case between the lines for ending Canada's mission in Afghanistan but he also highlights very important facts, for example: NATO-trained Afghan troops, supposedly there to help perpetuate the Karzai government, number 22,000 while the private militias of warlords etc. number 120,000; “a UN source estimated that of the 249 newly elected deputies [of the Karzai government], 40 were commanders still associated with armed groups, 24 members belonged to criminal gangs, 17 were drug traffickers and 19 faced serious allegations of war crimes;” “after more than five years of increasingly intense warfare, the conflict in Afghanistan reached a grim milestone in the first half of this year: U.S. troops and their NATO allies killed more civilians than insurgents did, according to several independent tallies," and more. . .
We need to educate ourselves since Mr. H. and his minions can't and we need to let him know that listening to the voice of the people of Canada is the right thing to do and that he knows that from the polls, which he scorns as he does our voice.
Fowler wrote a very interesting review of The Unexpected War by Stein et al at http://lrc.reviewcanada.ca/index.php?page=Alice-in-Afghanistan. In it he makes a good case between the lines for ending Canada's mission in Afghanistan but he also highlights very important facts, for example: NATO-trained Afghan troops, supposedly there to help perpetuate the Karzai government, number 22,000 while the private militias of warlords etc. number 120,000; “a UN source estimated that of the 249 newly elected deputies [of the Karzai government], 40 were commanders still associated with armed groups, 24 members belonged to criminal gangs, 17 were drug traffickers and 19 faced serious allegations of war crimes;” “after more than five years of increasingly intense warfare, the conflict in Afghanistan reached a grim milestone in the first half of this year: U.S. troops and their NATO allies killed more civilians than insurgents did, according to several independent tallies," and more. . .
We need to educate ourselves since Mr. H. and his minions can't and we need to let him know that listening to the voice of the people of Canada is the right thing to do and that he knows that from the polls, which he scorns as he does our voice.
posted by Susan at 7:33 AM
1 Comments:
Hello. 'Why Are We In Afghanistan?'
Several years ago - I asked this same question. I don't know why Canada got involved but America ostensibly went there looking for Bin Laden. Of course no Bin Laden was found. Now, being an American and skeptical I asked myself what does Afghanistan have that anybody would want? There's only one answer. The opium poppies.
Multiple sources report Afghanistan produces 90% - or some such large percentage of the world's opium.
I did some hunting on the net and got my calculator out. It appears
the Afghan yearly Opium crop is worth MANY TIMES the Iraqi oil production, comparing price at the pump to street value of the opium.
The Taliban mullahs made the mistake of banning Opium on religious grounds - Imagine that,
priests not believing in drugs!
America enlisted the 'Northern Alliance', whipped the Taliban and
got the Opuim growing again. Back
to business as usual.
Of course, the Afghan opium farmers
are paid a pittance for their crops, the real money lies in distribution. How could drug dealers get America to whip the Taliban? They can't - but the big
international bankers - well connected politically - who launder the drug money for a large slice of the profits - can. When you also realize that drug profits are not taxed - then you see the enormous
amount of cash involved. Many people accept that America went to Iraq for oil. Do you think the oil companies have more political clout than international
bankers who launder drug money? The Largest business in the world is the arms business. The second largest business in the world, in cash terms, is drugs. Oil is probably third.
Of course
in a play this large, many players
are involved. Many industries make
extravagant profits from war and
are also politically connected.
Bin Laden did not knock down the buildings in New York - only people who watch TV believe that anymore - so why chase him to Afghanistan?
That was just a red herring. The last thing America wanted to do was catch him. (I believe he died many years ago) He and the largely imaginary Al Quaeda is America's excuse for doing whatever they want to do in the Middle East. Another part of America's strategy in the Middle East is to play all the Muslims off against one another, to keep the area destabilized. The last thing America wants is a unified Muslim world. All this talk about peace and stability is Orwellian Doublespeak.
The plan in
Iraq is to CAUSE civil war, to bring the population to it's knees,
so the people accept whatever their new masters have planned for them.
Puppet governments are installed, the oil contracts are signed, permanent bases are built. And, oh,
a million men women and CHILDREN die. (figures from the British Doctors Lancet study)
To understand these types of
maneuvers, all one has to do is study British history. The British controlled a huge empire with excellent profits and small troop losses by exploiting divisions in local populations, redrawing boundaries, co-opting local leaders, assassination and disinformation. Military and business in alliance. Notice the British rarely, after their empire got established, got involved in a real war with a worthy opponent. That's expensive and wasteful of resources. No, much more PROFITABLE to expolit less developed indigenous populations for resources and cheap labor. The Afghan Opium Farmers are just that:
CHEAP LABOR.
Humanity produces
a certain number of greedy and power hungry people. These psychos gravitate to government jobs. Once they get power it corrupts them - they become addicted to it - their
addiction is stronger than their humanity - if they had any in the first place. The majority of the
population does not care what the nuts in power do and long as there is bread, wine and circuses. It only takes a small number of nutcase 'leaders' to create a big mess. Look at the mess Hitler made.
Or Stalin. Or Mao. That is why power must be shared rather than concentrated.
Power in America used to be dispersed between the three branches of government and the 'fourth' branch - the media.
The big money players - only a handful of people - now control the American media. No politician can
get elected or keep office without
media support. The alliance between
big money and media is the root of
the concentration of power in America. This concentration of power is dangerous for America and dangerous for the world - as the
Afghans, Iraqis - and probably soon the Iranians - are finding out.
The American public is overwhelmingly
against these wars but the political process has broken down and any American politician who stands against the concentration of
power is slapped down. Democracy in America has broken down. The American people are not bad people, largely they are well intentioned,
like the Russians under communism, they have increasingly little say over what happens in their country.
They are largely ignorant of the rest of the world, politically naive, and DAILY MISINFORMED.
Sooner or later, the nuts in power
create war and lots of people die and many suffer and the economy heads south. That is the price the middle class pays for not being politically active.
Post a Comment
<< Home