Asian Fever

Middle-East, What is our war?

Vagabond007

Member
Feb 4, 2005
48
0
6
I start this thread off after talking with some friends about what our role is supposed to be fighting in the middle east. I think it is very hard to give a real opinion about unless you have a friend, family member, or somemone you know that is fighting there about.

I don't have either....and i thank God for.

But if i was in the army.....I would have to say that it is not a bad cause to be fighting in Afghanistan. I would like to think that we are fighting for individual rights, democracy, and the basic rights that every human being on this earth is born into; its not a bad cause. Now I understand that its is easy for me to say this since i have not lost a family member or good friend. But....... I would truly honor the greatest sacrifice that this person gave for a good cause. I think that we just have to continue to question our government one what is a good cause.

I truly would like some input on this.

I don't like to stir pots up.... and if there has been a thread on this already that has been beaten than i apoligize in advance. Its just that i have been discussing this with some friends already. One of my friends has already lost a friend of hers in this battle; and its a very toucy subject. I feel that our nation is divided on it, and i feel we our nation is divided on it.

If nothing else.
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS!

There is nothing like our troops knowing that our nation is behind them

Hey but this is just my 2 cents...quoted:)

Vaga

p.s. have to learn how to put up a survey:)
 

HankQuinlan

I dont re Member
Sep 7, 2002
1,744
6
0
victoria
"Support Our Troops!" has been used as a code word for "Support Our Political War Policies" for a long time now. There is a huge differerence.

Those who have lost loved ones in war are no more clear-thinking than anyone else; neither are those who fight in those wars and see their friends' lives lost. Humans hate to think their loss was in vain, a sacrifice to a stupid and meaningless conflict. They often feel that to give their loss a meaning, that the cause they were fighting for must have meaning..."He/she died protecting us/our nation/our way of life" is much more comforting than "He/she died as a pawn in a hair-brained scheme to protect our corporations' access to oil that could never have succeeded anyway." The truth, whatever it is, is then clouded with emotion. No one likes to think they were duped, or that their actions and beliefs are completely wrong.

As to our involvement in Afghanistan, I suspect that it is hopeless. The goverrnment we are propping up is a corrupt coalition of warlords and drug suppliers which may or may not be better than the other guys, but hardly an ideal that most of us would wish to die for. The best way to "Support Out Troops" might be to get them the hell out of there immediately.
 

Claptix

New member
Nov 23, 2003
255
3
0
Vancouver
historically, the west's wars in the east are nothing new, and, historically, these have been wars based on economics cloaked by other motivations. the holy wars were waged under the guise of christianity. the recent ones have been cloaked by the protection of democracy. however, at the heart of all of these wars, were the motivations of a wealthy class in the west having the desire to exploit these areas to increase their wealth and/or control their key resources.

i have found it very difficult to believe that the leaders who have waged these wars have any interest in the individual rights of those living in afghanistan or iraq. if they did, they probably would not have used methods of war that detroyed their homes and neighborhoods.

jc
 

Vagabond007

Member
Feb 4, 2005
48
0
6
I'm not to keen on what the natural resources are in Afghanistan, but i'm pretty sure there is not a heck of alot of oil there. If I am wrong, somebody please correct me.
 

Evolve

Hypo-serious
Jun 1, 2008
246
2
0
Location Location
I'm not to keen on what the natural resources are in Afghanistan, but i'm pretty sure there is not a heck of alot of oil there. If I am wrong, somebody please correct me.
From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afghanistan
According to the U.S. Geological Survey and the Afghan Ministry of Mines and Industry, Afghanistan may be possessing up to 36 trillion cubic feet (1,000 km3) of natural gas, 3.6 billion barrels (570,000,000 m3) of petroleum and up to 1,325 million barrels (2.107E+8 m3) of natural gas liquids. This could mark the turning point in Afghanistan’s reconstruction efforts. Energy exports could generate the revenue that Afghan officials need to modernize the country’s infrastructure and expand economic opportunities for the beleaguered and fractious population.[28] Other reports show that the country has huge amounts of gold, copper, coal, iron ore and other minerals.[25][29][92] The government of Afghanistan is in the process of extracting and exporting its copper reserves, which will be earning $1.2 billion US dollars in royalties and taxes every year for the next 30 years
Still though, I can't help liking the fact that Sadam is gone. Nasty piece of work, that guy. Here's hoping another dictator doesn't pop up in Iraq after the western troops are gone.
 

Krustee

Banned
Nov 9, 2007
1,567
11
0
I'm not to keen on what the natural resources are in Afghanistan, but i'm pretty sure there is not a heck of alot of oil there. If I am wrong, somebody please correct me.
Maybe not a lot of oil there but there is a ton of poppy fields & apparently we consume almost as much heroine here on the lower east side as most small countries do oil?

:rolleyes:

We need our troops there to keep the poppy fields producing or we might lose one of our national treasures!

This includes our rock bands by the way.

:rolleyes:
 

JustJess

New member
Jan 9, 2009
62
1
0
Vancouver
war

"Support Our Troops!" has been used as a code word for "Support Our Political War Policies" for a long time now. There is a huge differerence.
I do believe this statement gets to the root of people's conflict with the idea of us being over there....I do not support the reasons why we are there, however I have the utmost love, support and respect for the people are courageous enough to do so.

Jess

Ps...I personally am a lover not a fighter. ;)
 

Ray

Well-known member
Dec 21, 2005
1,235
313
83
vancouver
Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East.

Almost all wars are fought for economic reasons.

Support the troops? Hell ya, bring them home.

ps, the plans to invade Afghanistan were drawn up long before 9/11.
 

Shakerod

Active member
May 7, 2008
616
71
28
I'm not to keen on what the natural resources are in Afghanistan, but i'm pretty sure there is not a heck of alot of oil there. If I am wrong, somebody please correct me.
There are several logical reasons why Canada has been sucked in to supporting the America/British mission in Afghanistan. But I can tell you with certainty it was NOT to help the Afghan people. The main reason is indirectly related to oil, the intention of the West was to secure Afghanistan so they could build their Caspian sea pipeline through the area. The second reason was to secure the poppy fields to keep the flow of heroin going through the world market. It is really sad that our troops are fighting and dying because of a big lie.
 
Last edited:

Oldfart

Long Standing Member
Mar 31, 2003
4,645
2,869
113
Still lost in the '60s
Oil pipeline through Afghanistan?

Isn't there a plan to build an oil pipeline from Iraq through Afghanistan to Pakistan and India? I thought that was one of the primary reasons for wanting to control the region.
 

HeMadeMeDoIt

New member
Feb 12, 2004
2,029
2
0
Afghanistan isn't in the Middle East.

Almost all wars are fought for economic reasons.

ps, the plans to invade Afghanistan were drawn up long before 9/11.
Yep its not an ME country!

If Clinton had managed to keep his balls out of every fat/ugly ditch pig that walked the halls of the White House the OBL problem would've been addressed somewhere in between the bombing of the USS Cole in Aden harbour and the simuataneous bombings of the US Embassies in E. Africa (Dar elSalam and Nairobi if memory serves me right).

Within the Pentagon there are plans drawn for just about every military contingency anywhere in the world so its not unreasonable to assume that there were plans for Afghanistan.

Isolationism doesn't work in this big old global village we live in and getting rid of the likes of Saddam is a good thing. If the underlying reason for its execution (pardon the pun) is oil then so be it and if its not allowing Iran to possess nukes then I'm happy with that too; if thats what it will take to get rid of those mullah scumbags!
 

wet_suit_one

Rule by Fear!
May 19, 2004
244
2
0
The simple reason for why we are at war in Afghanistan is because our ally was attacked by enemies who were hiding there and who were not handed over by the then rulers of that place. We Canadians continue to be at war to deny the enemies of our ally that region to carry on their war against the U.S.

Simplistic, but basically true.

It's also true that no one wins in Afghanistan and that our ally is a collosal fuck-up and went and attacked Iraq instead (for reasons that have nothing to do with the attack against them, at least so far as I can tell...). We wisely decided not to involve ourselves in Iraq as it had nothing to do with the attack on our ally.

Every Canadian should be concerned and think about what countries we are at war with. One day, this whole place ,may be a nuclear wasteland (if things go bad) because of what our idiots in Ottawa decide on this file. No one can claim to seriously interested in the welfare and interest of their country if they don't pay attention to its military policy, who is a proper target and who isn't and for what reasons we are prepared to send our sons and daughters into harm's way. It's a deadly serious topic, with deadly serious consequences and one that has never and will never go away.

Canadians might be forgiven for living in a la-la-land where these questions never cross our thinking, because of our mighty ally who defends ours shores and our interests (for the most part, and which is one of the reasons we are at war in Afghanistan). That will not last forever. Canadians must ultimately be prepared (to whatever level of preparation we decide) to stand on guard for themselves. It's not a joke, it's a reality.
 

festealth

Resident Troll
Sep 8, 2005
277
0
0
Regime Change: How the CIA put Saddam's Party in Power
From Richard Sanders, 24 October 2002
http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/217.html

read that.
Didn't Nixon once mentioned one dictator as, "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's OUR son of a bitch"?

As for the US putting up puppet states, dictators and the such, we have to remember the context of which the world was at the time. Setting up some tinpot dictator in the Middle East, Latin America, etc is nothing compared to the threat the former USSR provided.


For the current conflicts happening, I just believe it's a righteous war, just fought incorrectly over wrong pretenses. The US was attacked by someone hiding behind the Taliban, so there's no reason why they shouldn't be in Afganistan. The Iraqi conflict.... if they used something non-terrorism related and instead prop up some resolution relating to the cease-fire after the 1st Gulf War, and after the Afghan theater was over, the war would have been more widely accepted.

It doesn't matter how advanced your technologies are or how well trained your troops are, in the end, it's still a battle of public opinion. If everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan is 100% supporting the Coalition forces, the insurgents wouldn't have any support and thus will cease to exist.
As what Gul Dukat from DS9 said, "A true victory is when you make your enemies realize it was wrong for them to oppose you in the first place". Basically that's what the USA did to Germany, Japan, Italy, etc during WW2.
 

godfather_77

New member
Jun 4, 2009
159
2
0
Didn't Nixon once mentioned one dictator as, "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's OUR son of a bitch"?

As for the US putting up puppet states, dictators and the such, we have to remember the context of which the world was at the time. Setting up some tinpot dictator in the Middle East, Latin America, etc is nothing compared to the threat the former USSR provided.


For the current conflicts happening, I just believe it's a righteous war, just fought incorrectly over wrong pretenses. The US was attacked by someone hiding behind the Taliban, so there's no reason why they shouldn't be in Afganistan. The Iraqi conflict.... if they used something non-terrorism related and instead prop up some resolution relating to the cease-fire after the 1st Gulf War, and after the Afghan theater was over, the war would have been more widely accepted.

It doesn't matter how advanced your technologies are or how well trained your troops are, in the end, it's still a battle of public opinion. If everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan is 100% supporting the Coalition forces, the insurgents wouldn't have any support and thus will cease to exist.
As what Gul Dukat from DS9 said, "A true victory is when you make your enemies realize it was wrong for them to oppose you in the first place". Basically that's what the USA did to Germany, Japan, Italy, etc during WW2.
I am not sure that I agree with you about the threat that the former USSR actually posed to the Western world. Superpowers tend to fight their wars indirectly e.g., Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia. By this i mean that one superpower may be directly involved but the other super power provides weapons, training, equipment etc to the opposing forces, look at at my previous examples and also think of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
One of the primary reasons that Superpowers avoid direct conflict is the fear of "mutually assured destruction". I aslo hear people saying well they got rid of a murderous dictator in Saddam, maybe so but what about the dictators running at least a third of Africa why are they not removed? I do think the fall of the USSR was not necessarily a good thing because the world lost a counter force to the US meaning that it can basically do what ti wants when it wants. The USSR would have done the same thing if the US had fallen and as will all future superpowers.
 

festealth

Resident Troll
Sep 8, 2005
277
0
0
I am not sure that I agree with you about the threat that the former USSR actually posed to the Western world. Superpowers tend to fight their wars indirectly e.g., Korea, Vietnam, Yugoslavia. By this i mean that one superpower may be directly involved but the other super power provides weapons, training, equipment etc to the opposing forces, look at at my previous examples and also think of the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.
One of the primary reasons that Superpowers avoid direct conflict is the fear of "mutually assured destruction". I aslo hear people saying well they got rid of a murderous dictator in Saddam, maybe so but what about the dictators running at least a third of Africa why are they not removed? I do think the fall of the USSR was not necessarily a good thing because the world lost a counter force to the US meaning that it can basically do what ti wants when it wants. The USSR would have done the same thing if the US had fallen and as will all future superpowers.
It's true that the rest of the world outside the former USSR and the USA would have been caught in the crossfire.

Most likely the world would be a bit more receptive for US/Western intervention if it was applied equally throughout the world. If the West jumped into Sudan and prevent the genocide in Darfur, then establish a more stable government in Somalia, forced Mugabe outta power and rebuild Zimbawae, and so on, the conflict in the Middle East wouldn't stick out like "American Imperialism". Of course, if the US started doing all that, people would claim that as direct evidence of the creation of the American Empire.
 

Krustee

Banned
Nov 9, 2007
1,567
11
0
It doesn't matter how advanced your technologies are or how well trained your troops are, in the end, it's still a battle of public opinion. If everyone in Iraq and Afghanistan is 100% supporting the Coalition forces, the insurgents wouldn't have any support and thus will cease to exist.
As what Gul Dukat from DS9 said, "A true victory is when you make your enemies realize it was wrong for them to oppose you in the first place". Basically that's what the USA did to Germany, Japan, Italy, etc during WW2.
Good post festealth.

I think now that I am older & hopefully a little more erudite, I have the ability to see what drives so much of what happens around the world in regard to "US intervention".

In the 50's & 60's when the rest of the world was less educated & there was the big bad USSR to deal with it was a much easier sell for the Gubment to send forces to fight the "Commies"!

After all the big friendly giant was just protecting the rest of the world from the threat of communism right?

The US would never do anything that is not in the best interests of the people it's trying to protect would they?

The leaders of the most powerful nation on earth would not allow personal agenda to interfere with something like basic human rights would they?

The leaders of that nation would never allow action to be taken to further the cause of any "special interest" groups would they?

Nah!!


Time to wake up folks!
This is the way the world works.

People do not go to war because they all of a sudden realize they hate those other people!

For thousands of years now what has driven war IS special interest!

Do you think the mighty US is impervious to this?

The only difference is that a King or Queen has been replaced with Capitalist's greed & the desires of The Affluent Society.

Conventional Wisdom is resistant to change & the affluent know this.

There needs to be a reason to embark on conquest of purpose.

The affluent know that to inspire a nation to rise up & take arms it must give that nation a compelling reason that would stir them from their nests.

The affluent must stir the patriotic passion of the masses in order to ensure they will act when needed.

It is not in the best interests of the Affluent to encourage education to the masses as this may cause undue self awareness & enlightenment of their place in the world.

It is best to keep the masses content & happy with something to hold their faith in.
Religion is good for that purpose.


Allow the illusion of democracy & local autocratic control by the masses & they will grow to be loyal minions ready to heed the call when their way of life is threatened.

If the masses were to ever discover that they are just pawns in a world scale chess game it would shake the foundations of their faith & cause their illusions of freedom to dim.

The best thing for all of the masses, if for the herders to keep tending the herd & lead the sheep to green pastures so that they may continue to graze.

If the sheep were to realize that they can lead themselves to those green pastures then the affluent herders would no longer be needed & the sheep may become less compliant to the call of the Shepard.

That is when it is time to scare the sheep into submission!

Place fear of the enemy or the unknown into the sheep & they will look to their Shepard for guidance & security.

After all -
that is what sheep do!


http://spendmoneyonline.net/2008/11/06/president-obama-t-shirts/















Now - KILL the messenger!

:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:

HankQuinlan

I dont re Member
Sep 7, 2002
1,744
6
0
victoria
An even more implicit meaning of "Support Our Troops" is "do not question our motives for fighting a war." The logic is that the troops will lose morale if there isn't 100% support for their mission.... and what if they start questioning their own involvement, based on that kind of treasonous thinking? That can only lead to FAILURE rather than VICTORY.

That is the line of thinking seen constantly in the US, and to a certain extent here as well.
 

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,655
839
113
Good post festealth.

I thinknow that I am older & hopefully a little more erudite, I have the ability to see what drives so much of what happens around the world in regard to "US intervention".

In the 50's & 60's when the rest of the world was less educated & there was the big bad USSR to deal with it was a much easier sell for the Gubment to send forces to fight the "Commies"!

After all the big friendly giant was just protecting the rest of the world from the threat of communism right?

The US would never do anything that is not in the best interests of the people it's trying to protect would they?

The leaders of the most powerful nation on earth would not allow personal agenda to interfere with something like basic human rights would they?

The leaders of that nation would never allow action to be taken to further the cause of any "special interest" groups would they?

Nah!!


Time to wake up folks!
This is the way the world works.

People do not go to war because they all of a sudden realize they hate those other people!

For thousands of years now what has driven war IS special interest!

Do you think the mighty US in impervious to this?

The only difference is that a King or Queen has been replaced with Capitalist's greed & the desires of The Affluent Society.

Conventional Wisdom is resistant to change & the affluent know this.

There needs to be a reason to embark on conquest of purpose.

The affluent know that to inspire a nation to rise up & take arms it must give that nation a compelling reason that would stir them from their nests.

The affluent must stir the patriotic passion of the masses in order to ensure they will act when needed.

It is not in the best interests of the Affluent to encourage education to the masses as this may cause undue self awareness & enlightenment of their place in the world.

It is best to keep the masses content & happy with something to hold their faith in.
Religion is good for that purpose.


Allow the illusion of democracy & local autocratic control by the masses & they will grow to be loyal minions ready to heed the call when their way of life is threatened.

If the masses were to ever discover that they are just pawns in a world scale chess game it would shake the foundations of their faith & cause their illusions of freedom to dim.

The best thing for all of the masses, if for the herders to keep tending the herd & lead the sheep to green pastures so that they may continue to graze.

If the sheep were to realize that they can lead themselves to those green pastures then the affluent herders would no longer be needed & the sheep may become less compliant to the call of the Shepard.

That is when it is time to scare the sheep into submission!

Place fear of the enemy or the unknown into the sheep & they will look to their Shepard for guidance & security.

After all -
that is what sheep do!


http://spendmoneyonline.net/2008/11/06/president-obama-t-shirts/















Now - KILL the messenger!

:rolleyes:

Jeeeeez, sounds like Krustee has become possessed by SilkyJohnson and Lightbearer.:eek:
 

Krustee

Banned
Nov 9, 2007
1,567
11
0
Jeeeeez, sounds like Krustee has become possessed by SilkyJohnson and Lightbearer.:eek:
Do you see it differently uncleg?

Do we really fight wars because we want to?


I assume you have inside knowledge that allows you to prove that there is nothing but the best interests of the people at heart when the government chooses to take military action.

There is no such thing as "politics".

Feel free to prove that what I have stated above is all tin hat hogwash.

I would caution you not to look up too much history though as much of what I stated is a matter of history.

What about Vietnam?
http://www.learnhistory.org.uk/vietnam/reasons.htm

Look up Operation Phoenix for example.

Read the following:

Fragging Bob:

Bob Kerrey, CIA War Crimes,
And The Need For A War Crimes Trial

by Douglas Valentine


By now everybody knows that former Senator Bob Kerrey led a seven-member team of Navy Seals into Thanh Phong village in February 1969, and murdered in cold blood more than a dozen women and children.

What hardly anyone knows, and what no one in the press is talking about (although many of them know), is that Kerrey was on a CIA mission, and its specific purpose was to kill those women and children. It was illegal, premeditated mass murder and it was a war crime.

And it's time to hold the CIA responsible. It's time for a war crimes tribunal to examine the CIA's illegal activities during and since the Vietnam War.


War Crimes As Policy

War crimes were a central was part of a CIA strategy for fighting the Vietnam War. The strategy was known as Contre Coup, and it was the manifestation of a belief that the war was essentially political, not military, in nature. The CIA theorized that it was being fought by opposing ideological factions, each one amounting to about five percent of the total population, while the remaining ninety percent was uncommitted and wanted the war to go away.

According to the CIA's mythology, on one side were communist insurgents, supported by comrades in Hanoi, Moscow and Peking. The communists fought for land reform, to rid Vietnam of foreign intervention, and to unite the north and south. The other faction was composed of capitalists, often Catholics relocated from North Vietnam in 1954 by the CIA. This faction was fighting to keep South Vietnam an independent nation, operating under the direction of quiet Americans.

Caught in the crossfire was the silent majority. The object shared by both factions was to win these undecided voters over to its side.

Contre Coup was the CIA's response to the realization that the Communists were winning the war for the hearts and minds of the people. It also was a response to the belief that they were winning through the use of psychological warfare, specifically, selective terror * the murder and mutilation of specific government officials.

In December 1963, Peer DeSilva arrived in Saigon as the CIA's station chief. He claims to have been shocked by what he saw. In his autobiography, SubRosa, DeSilva describes how the VC had "impaled a young boy, a village chief, and his pregnant wife on sharp poles. To make sure this horrible sight would remain with the villagers, one of the terror squad used his machete to disembowel the woman, spilling he fetus onto the ground."

"The Vietcong," DeSilva said, "were monstrous in the application of torture and murder to achieve the political and psychological impact they wanted."

But the methodology was successful and had tremendous intelligence potential, so DeSilva authorized the creation of small "counter-terror teams," designed "to bring danger and death to the Vietcong functionaries themselves, especially in areas where they felt secure."


How Counter-Terror Worked In Vietnam

Thanh Phong village was one of those areas where Vietcong functionaries felt secure. It was located in Kien Hoa Province, along the Mekong Delta. One of Vietnam's most densely populated provinces, Kien Hoa was precariously close to Saigon, and is criss-crossed with waterways and rice paddies. It was an important rice production area for the insurgents as well as the Government of Vietnam, and thus was one of the eight most heavily infiltrated provinces in Vietnam. The estimated 4700 VC functionaries in Kien Hoa accounted for more than five percent of the insurgency's total leadership. Operation Speedy Express, a Ninth Infantry sweep through Kien Hoa in the first six months of 1969, killed an estimated 11,000 civilians-supposedly VC sympathizers.

These functionaries formed what the CIA called the Vietcong Infrastructure (VCI). The VCI consisted of members of the People's Revolutionary Party, the National Liberation Front, and other Communist outfits like the Women's and Student's Liberation Associations. Its members were politicians and administrators managing committees for business, communications, security, intelligence, and military affairs. Among their main functions were the collection of taxes, the recruitment of young men and women into the insurgency, and the selective assassination of GVN officials.

As the CIA was well aware, Ho Chi Minh boasted that with two cadre in every hamlet, he could win the war, no matter how many soldiers the Americans threw at him.

So the CIA adopted the Ho's strategy-but on a grander and bloodier scale. The object of Contre Coup was to identify and terrorize each and every individual VCI and his/her family, friends and fellow villagers. To this end the CIA in 1964 launched a massive intelligence operation called the Provincial Interrogation Center Program. The CIA (employing the US company Pacific Architects and Engineers) built an interrogation center in each of South Vietnam's 44 provinces. Staffed by members of the brutal Special Police, who ran extensive informant networks, and advised by CIA officers, the purpose of the PICs was to identify, through the systematic "interrogation" (read torture) of VCI suspects, the membership of the VCI at every level of its organization; from its elusive headquarters somewhere along the Cambodian border, through the region, city, province, district, village and hamlet committees.

The "indispensable link" in the VCI was the District Party Secretary * the same individual Bob Kerrey's Seal team was out to assassinate in its mission in Thanh Phong.

Frankenstein's Monster

Initially the CIA had trouble finding people who were willing to murder and mutilate, so the Agency's original "counter-terror teams" were composed of ex-convicts, VC defectors, Chinese Nungs, Cambodians, Montagnards, and mercenaries. In a February 1970 article written for True Magazine, titled "The CIA's Hired Killers," Georgie-Anne Geyer compared "our boys" to "their boys" with the qualification that, "Their boys did it for faith; our boys did it for money."

The other big problem was security. The VC had infiltrated nearly every facet of the GVN-even the CIA's unilateral counter-terror program. So in an attempt to bring greater effectiveness to its secret war, the CIA started employing Navy Seals, US Army Special Forces, Force Recon Marines, and other highly trained Americans who, like Bob Kerrey, were "motivationally indoctrinated" by the military and turned into killing machines with all the social inhibitions and moral compunctions of a Timmy McVeigh. Except they were secure in the knowledge that what they were doing was, if not legal or moral, fraught with Old Testament-style justice, rationalizing that the Viet Cong did it first.

Eventually the irrepressible Americans added their own improvements. In his autobiography Soldier, Anthony Herbert describes arriving in Saigon in 1965, reporting to the CIA's Special Operations Group, and being asked to join a top-secret psywar program. What the CIA wanted Herbert to do, "was to take charge of execution teams that wiped out entire families."

By 1967, killing entire families had become an integral facet of the CIA's counter-terror program. Robert Slater was the chief of the CIA's Province Interrogation Center Program from June 1967 through 1969. In a March 1970 thesis for the Defense Intelligence School, titled "The History, Organization and Modus Operandi of the Viet Cong Infrastructure," Slater wrote, "the District Party Secretary usually does not sleep in the same house or even hamlet where his family lived, to preclude any injury to his family during assassination attempts."

But, Slater added, "the Allies have frequently found out where the District Party Secretaries live and raided their homes: in an ensuing fire fight the secretary's wife and children have been killed and injured."

This is the intellectual context in which the Kerrey atrocity took place. This CIA strategy of committing war crimes for psychological reasons * to terrorize the enemy's supporters into submission * also is what differentiates Kerrey's atrocity, in legal terms, from other popular methods of mass murdering civilians, such as bombs from the sky, or economic boycotts.

Yes, the CIA has a global, illegal strategy of terrorizing people, although in typical CIA lexicon it's called "anti-terrorism."

When you're waging illegal warfare, language is every bit as important as weaponry and the will to kill. As George Orwell or Noam Chomsky might explain, when you're deliberately killing innocent women and children, half the court-of-public-opinion battle is making it sound legal.

Three Old Vietnam Hands in particular stand out as examples of this incestuous relationship. Neil Sheehan, CIA-nik and author of the aptly titled Bright Shining Lie, recently confessed that in 1966 he saw US soldiers massacre as many as 600 Vietnamese civilians in five fishing villages. He'd been in Vietnam for three years by then, but it didn't occur to him that he had discovered a war crime. Now he realizes that the war crimes issue was always present, but still no mention of his friends in the CIA.

Former New York Times reporter and author of The Best and The Brightest, David Halberstam, defended Kerrey on behalf of the media establishment at the New School campus the week after the story broke. CIA flack Halberstam described the region around Thanh Phong as "the purest bandit country," adding that "by 1969 everyone who lived there would have been third-generation Vietcong." Which is CIA revisionism at its sickest.

Finally there's New York Times reporter James Lemoyne. Why did he never write any articles linking the CIA to war crimes in Vietnam?
Because his brother Charles, a Navy officer, was in charge of the CIA's counter-terror teams in the Delta in 1968.


Read more here:
http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine.html
What is the real mission of the CIA?

Who do they work for?

What is the CIA connection with drug trafficking?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIA_drug_trafficking

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/bQvbdiWgwsA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/bQvbdiWgwsA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>



Ask these questions yourself & do a little research unless you enjoy being like all the other sheep!

:rolleyes:

I expect this will be the end of uncleg's naive commentary.

.
 
Last edited:

uncleg

Well-known member
Jul 25, 2006
5,655
839
113
I expect this will be the end of uncleg's naive commentary.

.[/QUOTE]

Krustee, you are an idiot. However, let me tell you a story about Vietnam from personal experience, not something I read about. I was assigned to a Fire Base, and close to the base was a village, one we had set up as part of the campaign to win the hearts and minds of the people, also because we couldn't protect them where they originally were. One of the members of my squad, decided to win a bit more of the anatomy then hearts and minds and he ended up with a little hooch girl. About a week before he was to head home he went to see her. A bit later we heard him screaming and then we saw him coming up from the village, still screaming, trying to hold his dick together. She'd split it, length wise with a razor. He didn't make it. In the morning we hit that village, she was gone, but her family wasn't. I don't think you want the details of what we did to the family and to the village. The army airlifted in a dozer a few days later and buried what was left.

I note you mentioned in another thread about being in Gulf One with, I presume Canadian Forces. What did you do during the war Krustee, that makes you an expert ?
 
Ashley Madison
Vancouver Escorts