Obama’s Speech at West Point on Afghanistan: What He Dare Not Tell Us

Panameno718

Potential Star
Registered
During his address before the U.S. Military Academy at West Point on Tuesday, December 1, expect President Obama to ask the American people to support his sending an additional 34,000 U.S. troops to fight for freedom in Afganistan so that we do not have to fight radical, militiant Islamic terrorism in the American homeland in coming years. He will probably refer to the shootings at Camp Hood allegedly commited by an Islamic military officer and psychiarist with al-Queda connections earlier this month this month to convince us that al-Queda based terrorism constitutes a genuine threat to the safety of Americans, even those living in the homeland.



Obama will probably go on to say that the heroic Amercan military troops fighting for freedom in Afghanistan since shortly after 9/11, have significantly reduced the numbers of al-Queda and Taliban insurgents fighting there and add that, nevertheless, the still pose of significant threat to the security of the people of that nation and so must be eliminated. Furthermore, he will likely add that to honor the American who died fighting there, he intends to finish the job started by President Bush shortly after the 9/11, which is to rid Afghanistan of al-Queda and Taliban fighters and then train Afghanistant troops to defend their own homeland.



That’s sweet Obama rhetoric. Let the violins play. But how does all of it square with the assertions General James Jones, Obama’s national security advisor, made on October 4 concerning the current strength of Taliban and al-Queda forces in Afghanistan and their danger to American troops and that nation’s people? According to an article published that day in the Washington Times, General Jones said that Afghanistan is not imminent danger of falling to the Taliban. Furthermore, he estimated total al-queda presence in Afghanistan at 100, a drop in a bucket.



What Obama will not tell us is that additional troops are needed to guard the opium poppy fields because of record yields now achieved each year and expansion of growing area and that the opium industry there was designed by the United States over thirty years ago.



The opium trade is big business there and worldwide and revenues are comparable with energy industry levels. Professor writes in a 2006 article titled, Who benefits from the Afghan Opium Trade?, published by GlobalResearch.ca, “…what distinguishes narcotics from legal commodity trade is that narcotics constitutes a major source of wealth formation not only for organized crime but also for the US intelligence apparatus, which increasingly constitutes a powerful actor in the spheres of finance and banking. This relationship has been documented by several studies including the writings of Alfred McCoy.”



What Obama will also not tell us is that the growing presence of the U.S. is all consistent with Zbigniew Brzezinski’s master plan for America’s securing control of Central Asia and Caspian Sea gas and oil producing nations. Brzezinski, elistist master stategist and founder of the Trilateral Commission along with George Soros and David Rockefeller and well as former national security advisor to President Carter, see control of that corridor, which includes the old Silk Route, is the key to control of the world’s commerce. His plan was laid out in masterful detail in his 1997 book, The Grand Chessboard, which may be read free online at Scribd.



The presence of the U.S.military in Afghanistan is pivotal to execution of this plan. Whoever controls Afghanistan controls access to all of the major gas and oil pipelines in this region. It also serves from a logistical standpoint as the perfect staging area for U.S. miliary troop foreays into Pakistan and neighboring countries in Central Asia and into the oil and gas rich Caspian Sea Region.



According to historian and author Webster Tarpley, Brzezinski met Obama when he was a student at Columbia University, became his political mentor and was responsible for Obama’s winning the U.S. presidency. Brzezinski still serves as Obama’s unnamed strategist and advisor. During the 2008 presidential campaign season, Obama’s focus on what he believe was a vital need of the U.S. to switch its military focus from Iraq to Afghanistan. This lends credibility to Tarpley’s contention that Brzezinski is guiding if no specifying Obama policy decisions in Afghanistan and Pakistan and, if fact, all of Cenral Asia, South Caucusus and the Caspian basin.

http://www.libertycalling.com/Ron-LC-ObamaSpeechWP120109.htm
 
Now that the President has spoken; perhaps the OP will now compare what the President "actually said" with the the what the author of the article "thought he would say". At first blush, seems to me there are substantial, substantive differences.

QueEx
 
Now that the President has spoken; perhaps the OP will now compare what the President "actually said" with the the what the author of the article "thought he would say". At first blush, seems to me there are substantial, substantive differences.

QueEx

I give you props Que. You have kept this politics board going even though "intelligent' discord died here a long time ago. Seems like every time I log in (which ain't often these days) some wingnut is posting his latest doomsday theory or copying and pasting some unsubstatiated BS from some unreliable source.
 
What Obama will not tell us is that additional troops are needed to guard the opium poppy fields because of record yields now achieved each year and expansion of growing area and that the opium industry there was designed by the United States over thirty years ago.



The opium trade is big business there and worldwide and revenues are comparable with energy industry levels. Professor writes in a 2006 article titled, Who benefits from the Afghan Opium Trade?, published by GlobalResearch.ca, “…what distinguishes narcotics from legal commodity trade is that narcotics constitutes a major source of wealth formation not only for organized crime but also for the US intelligence apparatus, which increasingly constitutes a powerful actor in the spheres of finance and banking. This relationship has been documented by several studies including the writings of Alfred McCoy.”


I'm glad he didn't say this. It would not have gone over very well. But the sad thing is it is true in part. Our troops won't be guarding poppy fields but they will be protecting warlods who own the fields. In exchange the warlords will ban terrorist in their regions so in effect the U.S. is being extorted by organized crime. This isn't the first time its happened the govt used the mafia to protect the docks and shipyards during WWII. It used them to break unions in the 30's and 40's and the mob prolly played a big part in JFK's election and assassination. This is just another chapter in a long messed up story.
 
Now that the President has spoken; perhaps the OP will now compare what the President "actually said" with the the what the author of the article "thought he would say". At first blush, seems to me there are substantial, substantive differences.

QueEx



Text here:
Code:
[url]http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/remarks-president-address-nation-way-forward-afghanistan-and-pakistan[/url]

I found his analogy of Afghanistan lacking:
First, there are those who suggest that Afghanistan is another Vietnam. They argue that it cannot be stabilized, and we're better off cutting our losses and rapidly withdrawing. I believe this argument depends on a false reading of history. Unlike Vietnam, we are joined by a broad coalition of 43 nations that recognizes the legitimacy of our action. Unlike Vietnam, we are not facing a broad-based popular insurgency. And most importantly, unlike Vietnam, the American people were viciously attacked from Afghanistan, and remain a target for those same extremists who are plotting along its border. To abandon this area now -- and to rely only on efforts against al Qaeda from a distance -- would significantly hamper our ability to keep the pressure on al Qaeda, and create an unacceptable risk of additional attacks on our homeland and our allies.

Second, there are those who acknowledge that we can't leave Afghanistan in its current state, but suggest that we go forward with the troops that we already have. But this would simply maintain a status quo in which we muddle through, and permit a slow deterioration of conditions there. It would ultimately prove more costly and prolong our stay in Afghanistan, because we would never be able to generate the conditions needed to train Afghan security forces and give them the space to take over.

One think he does not realize in that Vietnam distinction is that in Afghanistan, just like in Vietnam, the security forces are not being trained properly and seem to lack motivation to fight militants, instead leaving it to the US troops.

Case point, check this article in the China View on the situation:

HARSH REALITY OF AFGHAN FORCES

However, the harsh reality of Afghan security forces may be disappointing to Obama, or anyone who pins hope on them to take over security responsibility in the near future.

In the insurgency-hit country, security situation has deteriorated in recent years, with Taliban insurgents now active in most parts of the country, especially in the south and the east. The mountainous areas along the about 2,500-kilometer-long Afghan-Pakistan border provide hideouts for Taliban militants, requiring a large number of troops and tremendous efforts to eradicate them.

However, the fledging Afghan army now has only about 86,000 soldiers, according to media reports. A new NATO training mission is reportedly working to expand the Afghan army to 134,000 soldiers by October 2010, which still fall short of a goal of some200,000 troops needed to fight Taliban insurgents.

Afghan soldiers are poorly equipped, making them difficult to gain an advantage over the Taliban. Take air force for example, Afghan security forces now reportedly have only about a dozen old helicopters and no jet fighters. To win over the Taliban, a strong air force is almost a must.

To make the problem worse, Afghan security forces are currently far from being a professional army due to their poor quality, according to media reports. Afghan security forces can hardly recruit literate people due to low wages. Especially, training is a weak link in Afghan security forces. Newly recruited solders are usually trained for only 12 weeks at maximum, which is insufficient for them to learn discipline and military skills.
 
Last edited:
CIA drug trafficking

It has been alleged[citation needed] that the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) is involved in drug smuggling, specifically in at least three significant episodes. Congress has investigated some allegations and found that CIA assets were involved in trafficking cocaine, though the question of whether or not they specifically aided is unlikely to be proved conclusive, due to an unwillingness to cooperate by the CIA. The issue of the CIA being involved with alleged malfeasance and corruption remains controversial.

Vietnam Era
It was widely alleged among various veterans that the Central Intelligence Agency was involved in smuggling opium produced in Western Vietnam and Eastern Cambodia to heroin producers in the United States at considerable[clarification needed] profit. In the book The Politics of Heroin in Southeast Asia, Alfred W. McCoy, a professor at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, provides evidence of the use of opium by agents of the U.S. Government to fund covert operations in Vietnam. McCoy discusses the use of opium to fund covert operations done by the CIA in Vietnam and provides prolific testimony from interviews with many of the principals involved.[1] According to Dr. McCoy, the agency intimidated his sources and tried to keep the book from being published.[2]

There is also an article in Peace Magazine containing similar allegations.[3]

Afghanistan and Iraq along with Vietnam could very well be about drugs. We might never know the truth about 9-11. Our govt is not about freedom and justice it is about power and money.
 
I'm glad he didn't say this. It would not have gone over very well. But the sad thing is it is true in part. Our troops won't be guarding poppy fields but they will be protecting warlods who own the fields. In exchange the warlords will ban terrorist in their regions so in effect the U.S. is being extorted by organized crime. This isn't the first time its happened the govt used the mafia to protect the docks and shipyards during WWII. It used them to break unions in the 30's and 40's and the mob prolly played a big part in JFK's election and assassination. This is just another chapter in a long messed up story.

Wasn't the first missions of the marines dropped into Iraq to protect and secure oil fields? And they had many of us believing that the goal of invading Iraq was to secure weapons of mass destruction... incredulously some people still believe this.

Drugs are vital to the U.S. economy...as is oil. So there is no need to really ask is the support of drug dealers a consequence or trade off of security and suppression of "terror". That's just a ruse. There is STILL to this day little credible evidence that bin laden or al qaeda had anything to do with 9/11.
 
I give you props Que. You have kept this politics board going even though "intelligent' discord died here a long time ago. Seems like every time I log in (which ain't often these days) some wingnut is posting his latest doomsday theory or copying and pasting some unsubstatiated BS from some unreliable source.

:lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
Back
Top