Hillary Clinton ADMITS

[poncho]

The Mujahideen were a collection of various opposition groups that rebelled against Soviet backed "Democratic Republic" and then ended up fighting against each other. We certainly did provide support to the opposition of Soviet intervention in Afghanistan but certainly did not and does not constitute support for Al-Qaeda which didn't even come into existence until a couple of decades after the Soviet defeat. Let's get the facts right even if Clinton doesn't! To say otherwise implies that we created an enemy just to have one to fight - I don't think that's impossible in a corrupt world but I don't think it was the case with this war. I think times have changed and not all "friends" we make can be trusted forever - we know that from personal relationships don't we? We fall for smiles a lot!

Does this mean I think we should sink our fortunes and lives into Afghanistan's future without limits? No, it does not! But, remember, according to all the naysayers of the war in Iraq this one - Afghanistan - is the one we should be fighting. Consistency in policy would be nice for the poor dumb you know what that has to go fight these wars. Either we should be in or be out. That's my beef with our so-called leaders in Washington and it's not much different that the previous great war I fought in as a poor dumb you know what. They - Congress and the Executive - are all a bunch of talkers without integrity, selflessness, or guts to carry through what they start. They just want to play politics with it. I don't expect Obama, and his little henchwoman Clinton, to do better. If we're not going to do what's necessary then I say go home and shut up about it.

And, by the way, I agree we should be much more wary of "entangling alliances" that can lead to events we didn't expect. We need some risk evaluation up front before we pick sides and commit to things we may not have the will to support.

This is the problem with having a foreign power or powers in control of our foreign policy. By foreign powers I mean the internationalist organizations like the CFR and Tri Laterals.

You may view this differently than I do big D but I'm about sick and tired of these internationalists using our kids as pawns in their grand chess games.

“Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." Zbigniew Brzeznski

These "entangling alliances" we've formed with the so called "international community" are some we could do a whole lot better without. We should have Americans that are loyal first and foremost to the USA in charge of our foreign policy not a cabal of transnational criminals that are loyal only to their own lust for power and the NWO aka the "international community".

As far as using terrorists as part of our "foreign policy", well we've been doing that for quite some time. We used them to topple the Iranian government in 1953 and a slew of other "unfriendly" governments in countries all around the world since. Some things never seem to change, there's your consistancy in policy. That's why I view this whole "war on terror" thing to be the ultimate hypocrisy on our part.


Care to sum up for us just what we've gained since WW2 by supporting this (dangerous) policy of using terrorists or opposition forces if you prefer to do our bidding one day then fighting against them the next big D?

 

[Twizzler]

I thought everyone knew this to be true. We backed the Mujahaddin to fight the Russians. This is really old news.

It is an old, old story in Afghanistan. The British tried the same thing in their misadventures there a century or two ago. It always came back to bite them.

Amazingly enough, I agree with CTB on this one.

 

[NiteShift]

The above is what I was refering too. Ya think this is what the founders of the USA had in mind when they warned us about forming entangling alliances?

If governments have been doing this for years you'd think any sane person would ask them why they still continue on with policies that are doomed from the start to fail.

We need a sane foreign policy. One that has been formulated by people who are loyal to the United States of America instead of international organizations like the CFR, United Nations and the Tri Laterals.

Well Poncho, it sounds like you should move to Switzerland. Or maybe Mauritania. Everyone else has been up to their hips in foreign entanglements.

 

[poncho]

Well Poncho, it sounds like you should move to Switzerland. Or maybe Mauritania. Everyone else has been up to their hips in foreign entanglements.

Yeah and just look at what we and everyone else has accomplished.

Actually you may have a point NS. Compared to Switzerland the USA is a police state now. Does Switzerland have an interventionist foreign policy that supports terrorism?

Little sumthin from the past.

Mr Bush has signed an official document endorsing CIA plans for a propaganda and disinformation campaign intended to destabilise, and eventually topple, the theocratic rule of the mullahs.

<snip>

However, the CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan.

SOURCE

Deja vu?

 

[NiteShift]

Yeah and just look at what we and everyone else has accomplished.

You mean like a Europe not ruled by NAZI Germany, or an Eastern Europe not ruled by the Soviets? A Republic of Korea that wasn't overrun by China and N. Korea? Or sea lanes patrolled by NATO for the last 60 years so that shipping can travel safely? Those sorts of things?

However, the CIA is giving arms-length support, supplying money and weapons, to an Iranian militant group, Jundullah, which has conducted raids into Iran from bases in Pakistan.

If the average Iranian had his/her way, the mullahs would have been toppled by now. Remember how the leaders of the Green Revolution asked the world, "Are you with us or with them?" Maybe you prefer the theocracy that hangs 16 year old girls, and buries women up to their neck to be stoned.

 

[poncho]

You mean like a Europe not ruled by NAZI Germany, or an Eastern Europe not ruled by the Soviets? A Republic of Korea that wasn't overrun by China and N. Korea? Or sea lanes patrolled by NATO for the last 60 years so that shipping can travel safely? Those sorts of things?

The Nazis would likely not posed much of a threat to Europe had it not been for the European and American financiers that helped make AH's rise to power possible. The SOVIET threat? You mean like the "domino effect" and all that? (chuckle) The SOVIET empire burned itself out. It's arrogant on our part to assume we defeated it.

Old Russian proverb. "The fish rots from the head"

Korea? Our first UN intervention. Also our first (official) undeclared war. Worked out so well we never bothered to declare war on another nation since. Now we only declare "war" on ideas and inanimate objects. Example, the failed war on drugs.

Communism? It is still alive and well and is headquartered in NYC. We pay very large dues to be one with it. And we dare not even go off on an intervention of our own without first asking it's permission.

If the average Iranian had his/her way, the mullahs would have been toppled by now. Remember how the leaders of the Green Revolution asked the world, "Are you with us or with them?" Maybe you prefer the theocracy that hangs 16 year old girls, and buries women up to their neck to be stoned.

Recall Iran prior to 1953 and how we overthrew the government to replace it with a "friendly government" and how the Iranians loved us after that.

Maybe it's you who "prefer the theocracy that hangs 16 year old girls, and buries women up to their neck to be stoned." You do seem to be a rather ardent supporter of the interventionist policy that helped to make it all possible.

I'm just sayin.

 

[NiteShift]

The Nazis would likely not posed much of a threat to Europe had it not been for the European and American financiers that helped make AH's rise to power possible. The SOVIET threat? You mean like the "domino effect" and all that? (chuckle) The SOVIET empire burned itself out. It's arrogant on our part to assume we defeated it.

Yeah those American financiers really did the trick. Really, this type of talk is exactly the same as the far left uses. Howard Zinn, Ward Churchill types. It's always ultimately America's fault.

The Soviet Union collapsed because we (the West ) opposed them everywhere. In central America, in E. Europe, in a dozen Muslim countries in Asia, including Afghanistan. Mostly by proxy or covert action. The good thing about it? Managed to do so while avoiding outright war with them.

Korea? Our first UN intervention. Also our first (official) undeclared war. Worked out so well we never bothered to declare war on another nation since. Now we only declare "war" on ideas and inanimate objects. Example, the failed war on drugs.

That's your takeaway from Korea? Howsabout the fact that S. Koreans are prosperous and peaceful, and haven't had to live under the rule of maniacs like Kim Jong Il.

Communism? It is still alive and well and is headquartered in NYC. We pay very large dues to be one with it. And we dare not even go off on an intervention of our own without first asking it's permission.

Don't try to make me a defender of the UN. I am not.

Recall Iran prior to 1953 and how we overthrew the government to replace it with a "friendly government" and how the Iranians loved us after that.

Yes 1953 in Iran, the ultimate trump card. 'We' didn't overthrow Irans government. We supported a faction in Iran that was attempting to return the Pahlavi's to power. It would not have succeeded without a significant number of Iranians who wanted that very thing.

Maybe it's you who "prefer the theocracy that hangs 16 year old girls, and buries women up to their neck to be stoned." You do seem to be a rather ardent supporter of the interventionist policy that helped to make it all possible.

Well that's just goofy. Muslim clerics do that sort of thing when they rule by Sharia because that's what they do. They don't do it because of some CIA plot from 57 years ago. But nice try.


All that said, I realize that we have too many foreign commitments and are passing out money to too many groups who shouldn't have it. In that we can probably agree

 

[poncho]

Yeah those American financiers really did the trick. Really, this type of talk is exactly the same as the far left uses. Howard Zinn, Ward Churchill types. It's always ultimately America's fault.

Is it even possible to have a discussion without falling into the false left vs right paradigm? We're discussing this in another thread right now. Evidently, you are one of those who prefers the collectivism of the right.

To me collectivism is collectivism. Rightie leftie rightie leftie, blah blah blah. Collectivists all.

The Soviet Union collapsed because we (the West ) opposed them everywhere. In central America, in E. Europe, in a dozen Muslim countries in Asia, including Afghanistan. Mostly by proxy or covert action. The good thing about it? Managed to do so while avoiding outright war with them.

Balogna. The USSR over extended itself and collapsed under it's own weight. Much the same as we're doing today.

That's your takeaway from Korea? Howsabout the fact that S. Koreans are prosperous and peaceful, and haven't had to live under the rule of maniacs like Kim Jong Il.

Uh, this particular conflict never ended. It's a bit too soon to declare a "winner" yet.

Don't try to make me a defender of the UN. I am not.

Excuse me NS. The way you consistantly defend undeclared global interventions (most under false pretenses) must have confused me.

Yes 1953 in Iran, the ultimate trump card. 'We' didn't overthrow Irans government. We supported a faction in Iran that was attempting to return the Pahlavi's to power. It would not have succeeded without a significant number of Iranians who wanted that very thing.

Sounds like you need more study in this area. What we did was to use a group of Iranians who pretended to be something they were not that went around shooting people and blowing things up. That's called state sponsored false flag terrorism. The fact that it was a such a surprising sucess caused much jubilation among the intell types. Google Kermit Roosevelt.

Why did we use a terror campaign against the Iranians? Because Iran wanted to nationalize it's own resourses. British and American oil interests wouldn't have any of it. So...

History is history. "You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig."

Well that's just goofy. Muslim clerics do that sort of thing when they rule by Sharia because that's what they do. They don't do it because of some CIA plot from 57 years ago. But nice try.

It's called "blowback" even the CIA admits this. We aren't making any friends by using a policy of state sponsored false flag terrorism. Besides it's being ultra hypocritical on our part it turns the very people we claim to be helping against us. It didn't stop in 1953. Ten years later the Joint Chiefs got together and planned another state sponsored false flag attack this time against the American people themselves called Operation Northwoods. Why would the JC plan such a sick thing? They wanted a war with Cuba and they almost got it. Which proves that our "leaders" have already considered killing innocent Americans to start more wars.

In a word it's insanity. But this is the crux of our foreign policy.

All that said, I realize that we have too many foreign commitments and are passing out money to too many groups who shouldn't have it. In that we can probably agree

Right, so the question then becomes . . . cui bono? Does the USA as a whole benefit from all this or just the top one or two percent that now controls 90 +/-% of the wealth of the entire nation?

 

[NiteShift]

Is it even possible to have a discussion without falling into the false left vs right paradigm?

You and some others say the left/right paradigm is false, but that doesn't make it so. When most of the rhetoric coming from anarchist folks sounds exactly like the far left, then that's what it is. Even Lew Rockwell said that his readers should "look to the Left".

Balogna. The USSR over extended itself and collapsed under it's own weight.

But when the Soviets had to protect their gains with more aid and more troops and weapons it forced them to over-extend.

Uh, this particular conflict never ended. It's a bit too soon to declare a "winner" yet.

It kept the peace 57 years. ROK is a sovereign stable nation with a democratically elected government.

Excuse me NS. The way you consistantly defend undeclared global interventions (most under false pretenses) must have confused me.

Sorry to confuse you friend. But the UN mostly consists of failed states who continually have their hand out while condemning the US, Israel, and the UK.

Sounds like you need more study in this area. What we did was to use a group of Iranians who pretended to be something they were not that went around shooting people and blowing things up. That's called state sponsored false flag terrorism. The fact that it was a such a surprising sucess caused much jubilation among the intell types. Google Kermit Roosevelt. Why did we use a terror campaign against the Iranians? Because Iran wanted to nationalize it's own resourses. British and American oil interests wouldn't have any of it. So...History is history. "You can put lipstick on a pig but it's still a pig."

The 1953 action provided 25 years of stability and moderization in Iran. Today there are still Iranian expatriots (I know a couple of them) who blame the US for not supporting the Shah during the revolution. Instead, our administration at the time praised Ayatollah Khomeini and called him a "modern day saint". And look what we have now in Iran. So which caused the most harm?

Ten years later the Joint Chiefs got together and planned another state sponsored false flag attack this time against the American people themselves called Operation Northwoods.

The Northwoods operation didn't happen. The guy who suggested it was fired.