US War Architect Brzezinski on Afghanistan

[MASTERBAKER]

<object width="450" height="370"><param name="movie" value="http://www.liveleak.com/e/717_1255782882"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.liveleak.com/e/717_1255782882" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="450" height="370"></embed></object>

As Barack Obama weighs whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan, there are questions as to whether the US approach in the war-ravaged country is actually working. US involvement in Afghanistan dates back to 1979. That is when then-president Jimmy Carter approved a series of covert operations to support local fighters against the Soviet invasion. One of the architects of that programme was More.. national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski. Al Jazeera's Josh Rushing sat down with him to get his take on the war, and why he thinks the United States made a grave error during the Afghan elections

 

[Cristar Mymine]

Doesn't Al Quaeda exist because of U.S. support of the Mujahideen against the Soviets?

Wasn't Brzezinski part of this?

[FLASH]http://www.youtube.com/v/uhFleLinwEM&hl=en&fs=1&[/FLASH]

 

[Spectrum]

excellent

 

[NnubianN]

He's gotten even wiser as the years passed. Who am I to sit in judgement of Mr Z, but from where I'm sitting his breakdown of the current situation in Afghanistan seems much more thoughtful than what I'm hearing from these so called 'analysts' on CNN. Even the BBC people haven't broken it down to this degree. It has me revisiting some things I was thinking just a few weeks ago, especially about sending in more troops. If what Brzezinski said comes close to the truth, whoever the architect is of this foreign policy quagmire (coerced elections American style, westernizing what passes for Afghan politics) needs to be held accountable be it the State Department and/or their military counterparts if this blows up. If I am reading Zeb right this is nation building gone wrong. Afghanistan is no longer Bush's war. Prez Obama owns it lock, stock and poppy fields. Even after 8 years it's still early in the game for him. Bam has -some- time to consider and reconsider. His next move is critical. He's got his own political quagmire to navigate. With radicals from the left and the right yelling in his head phones he'd better consider things carefully

 

[thismybgolname]

Good drop folks.

 

[QueEx]

He's gotten even wiser as the years passed. Who am I to sit in judgement of Mr Z, but from where I'm sitting his breakdown of the current situation in Afghanistan seems much more thoughtful than what I'm hearing from these so called 'analysts' on CNN. Even the BBC people haven't broken it down to this degree. It has me revisiting some things I was thinking just a few weeks ago, especially about sending in more troops. If what Brzezinski said comes close to the truth, whoever the architect is of this foreign policy quagmire (coerced elections American style, westernizing what passes for Afghan politics) needs to be held accountable be it the State Department and/or their military counterparts if this blows up. If I am reading Zeb right this is nation building gone wrong. Afghanistan is no longer Bush's war. Prez Obama owns it lock, stock and poppy fields. Even after 8 years it's still early in the game for him. Bam has -some- time to consider and reconsider. His next move is critical. He's got his own political quagmire to navigate. With radicals from the left and the right yelling in his head phones he'd better consider things carefully

Good points, all.

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

Doesn't Al Quaeda exist because of U.S. support of the Mujahideen against the Soviets?

Is that completely accurate ? ? ?

That we assisted the Mujahideen is without question. But, saying the movement would not have existed without our assistance is a different question. Did we invent it; or did we largely take advantage of its existence of an available proxy to confront and consume Soviet resources ???

QueEx

 

[NnubianN]

Is that completely accurate ? ? ?

That we assisted the Mujahideen is without question. But, saying the movement would not have existed without our assistance is a different question. Did we invent it; or did we largely take advantage of its existence of an available proxy to confront and consume Soviet resources ???

QueEx

And then abandoned them when the Soviets were run out. In the vacuum created by the Cold War the seeds of jihad were planted in Afghanistan, right next to the poppy seeds. Both grew in the fervent soil of enriched chaos watered with the blood of insurgency and lawlessness. Al Quaida is an outgrowth born of hatred for western foreign policy, constant struggle for rule in the lesser Middle East nations, oil money, and the weapons industry arm in arm with opportunistic politicians looking for investments that would keep on paying off over the years (The Buildup of Saudi Arabia's military comes to mind, selling them planes and missles, etc. along with parts and maintenance)

 

[Cristar Mymine]

Is that completely accurate ? ? ?

That we assisted the Mujahideen is without question. But, saying the movement would not have existed without our assistance is a different question. Did we invent it; or did we largely take advantage of its existence of an available proxy to confront and consume Soviet resources ???

QueEx

I'll try to answer this.

Brzezinski in his own words:

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Source

 

[QueEx]

I'll try to answer this.

Brzezinski in his own words:

Q: And neither do you regret having supported the Islamic fundamentalism, having given arms and advice to future terrorists?

B: What is most important to the history of the world? The Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Source

Exactly what I said. No?

QueEx

 

[QueEx]

And then abandoned them when the Soviets were run out. In the vacuum created by the Cold War the seeds of jihad were planted in Afghanistan, right next to the poppy seeds. Both grew in the fervent soil of enriched chaos watered with the blood of insurgency and lawlessness.

You're right, we did abandon the movement after it had served its intended purpose. Perhaps, the vision was too short-term and ignored the long-term implications.

Al Quaida is an outgrowth born of hatred for western foreign policy, constant struggle for rule in the lesser Middle East nations, oil money, and the weapons industry arm in arm with opportunistic politicians looking for investments that would keep on paying off over the years (The Buildup of Saudi Arabia's military comes to mind, selling them planes and missles, etc. along with parts and maintenance)

I would agree with some of this and some I believe might be an oversimplification. For example, "hatred for western foreign policy" might better be characterized as distain for certain aspects of western culture (NOTE: I am not making the case for G.W.'s "they hate our freedoms" incantations, but there are elements of truth to the phrase, as well), especially certain of its Christian values which clashed/contrasted with a lot of the tenets and ideas of A.Q.'s Islamic fundamentalism.

Also, the Saudi build-up may have served the designs of the West (both of western governments and western capitalists/business interests), but it cannot be overlooked that it served the designs of the Saudi government which desired the build-up, as well. That is, the benefits were mutual. While A.Q., may have disliked the West's arming of the Saudis, I have to believe the distain was more because the Saudi government saw that A.Q., sought its demise and the weapons were tools that could be used to that end -- rather than a mere distaste for the West's profit motives.

QueEx

 

[Cristar Mymine]

Exactly what I said. No?

QueEx

Mujahideen already existed, but that, according to Brzezinski himself, gave way for the terrorists that are around today. I think this is all blow back from our constant mingling over there.

 

[BigUnc]

There was no single cause for where we find ourselves today. I see it as every point that has been said in here has validity, add in the Pakistan Intelligence Services funding, nurturing and protection of the Taliban when it was in it's infancy and reportly continuing today as a major reason why we are at this point.

Taken the above as a aggregate plus information that has yet to be made public is the reason we find ourselves on the cusp of a geopolitical catastrophe. Obama has several challenges facing him with the single most important being that his background,training and experience leaves him ill prepared to respond quickly to changing dynamics on the ground. Deliberating this long about a strategy is not a good look in my book. With the lead time it will take to deploy any additional combat troops with related support elements to Afghanistan the Taliban will have gone through their OODA loop several times leaving the U.S. attempting to change strategies and tactics in the middle of implementing whatever is finally decided upon in the coming days.

 

[QueEx]

There was no single cause for where we find ourselves today. I see it as every point that has been said in here has validity, add in the Pakistan Intelligence Services funding, nurturing and protection of the Taliban when it was in it's infancy and reportly continuing today as a major reason why we are at this point.

Agreed.

Taken the above as a aggregate plus information that has yet to be made public is the reason we find ourselves on the cusp of a geopolitical catastrophe. Obama has several challenges facing him with the single most important being that his background,training and experience leaves him ill prepared to respond quickly to changing dynamics on the ground.

I wish you had elaborated on this point.

• What is that "right background", ???

• What is Obama lacking in his background that makes you come to the conclusion that he doesn't have it; ???

• Who in the past has had that "right background", ??? and

• Which ones on the political scene right-now do you contend have that "right background" ? ? ?

Deliberating this long about a strategy is not a good look in my book.

Which is he deliberating? - a new policy which might be aimed at re-defining the objectives of the war, i.e., to more clearly focus on what the U.S. will be satisfied with as a result of its efforts: a political solution among Afghans; or, new tactics to redefine our rules of engagement or our tactical approach to fighting Afghans ???

With the lead time it will take to deploy any additional combat troops with related support elements to Afghanistan the Taliban will have gone through their OODA loop several times leaving the U.S. attempting to change strategies and tactics in the middle of implementing whatever is finally decided upon in the coming days.

Doesn't the statement above contemplate just battling it out with the Taliban to see who is the last one standing ??? Do you think that is a 'winning strategy' ???

QueEx

 

[BigUnc]

I wish you had elaborated on this point.

• What is that "right background", ???

I would have preferred that someone who has to make life and death decisions on a grand scale would at least have some experience on a smaller scale. Prior military and/or diplomatic background maybe? Having said experience would enable the decision maker to quickly identify bullshit from viable information given to him/her from advisors.

• What is Obama lacking in his background that makes you come to the conclusion that he doesn't have it; ???

See above

• Who in the past has had that "right background", ??? and

• Which ones on the political scene right-now do you contend have that "right background" ? ? ?

These 2 questions are diversions. Fact is, Obama is in the hot seat right now. The buck stops with him.

Which is he deliberating? - a new policy which might be aimed at re-defining the objectives of the war, i.e., to more clearly focus on what the U.S. will be satisfied with as a result of its efforts: a political solution among Afghans; or, new tactics to redefine our rules of engagement or our tactical approach to fighting Afghans ???

Shouldn't defeating your declared enemy be your objective? If not, then why are we there? Hold up!....even asking this question 8 years later.. why are we there? means we shouldn't be there.

There will not be a negotiated political solution among Afghans. Karzai has no credibility and the Taliban ,at this time in the conflict, has seized the initiative. Why should they negotiate now?

Tactics should be left up to Brigade Commanders and below within their areas of responsibility with overall objectives, timetables and ROE promulgated from U.S. Central Command and National Command Authorities. Please don't tell me Obama is trying to micromanage from the White House ala Johnson in Vietnam.

Doesn't the statement above contemplate just battling it out with the Taliban to see who is the last one standing ??? Do you think that is a 'winning strategy' ???

The Taliban apparently have a different strategy which they think is a winning strategy. The one you mention here "battling it out" until one side is defeated. What is the appropriate response to that? Just because one side in a conflict comes up with a plan that appears would work within their pre defined framework doesn't mean the opposition has to cooperate with it. Classic tunnel vision based on domestic political concerns instead of warfighting,furthermore, the thinking of someone trying to find a way out of a fight and save face at the same time.

 

[Spectrum]

 

[BigUnc]

<IFRAME SRC="http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KJ23Df02.html" WIDTH=780 HEIGHT=1500>
<A HREF="">link</A>

</IFRAME>

 

[QueEx]

<font size="5"><center>
Eikenberry memos echo Obama's
own concerns about Afghanistan</font size><font size="4">

The US ambassador to Afghanistan, Karl Eikenberry,
has cautioned Obama against sending more troops
to the country, saying the government of
President Hamid Karzai is too corrupt</font size></center>

In this Oct. 14 file photo,
US Ambassador to Afghan-
istan Karl Eikenberry is
pictured in Kabul


The Christian Science Monitor
By Gordon Lubold | Staff writer
November 12, 2009 edition


Washington - Two classified cables sent to the White House by US Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry last week are bringing a new wrinkle to the already protracted debate over how the US should proceed in Afghanistan.

The missives, first reported by The Washington Post, express Ambassador Eikenberry's serious reservations about deploying more troops to Afghanistan in the face of widespread corruption in Afghan President Hamid Karzai's government.

On one hand, they reinforce the doubts that many in the administration and at the Pentagon have had for some time. Moreover, they threaten to undermine the already limited options that the White House has to force the Karzai government to mend its ways.

President Obama, who left on a eight-day trip to Asia Thursday, has had eight meetings of his war council. But he has not made a decision about whether to deploy up to 40,000 additional troops to the eight-year-old mission there, and deliberations may continue into December.

The length of the debate has opened Mr. Obama to criticism that he can't make up his mind, but concerns about corruption in the Afghan government are shared by the Pentagon. The counterinsurgency strategy advocated by Gen. Stanely McChrystal, the top commander in Afghanistan, intends to use thousands of troops to extend "good governance" across the country. But that requires a capable partner, and the US is increasingly concerned that the Karzai government isn't reliable enough. For instance, it is widely seen as having used corruption to bully its way to another, five-year term in August presidential elections.

Eikenberry's fears appear to play into Obama's own.

Pentagon officials have expressed similar concerns. But they don't seem to see the problem as one that should prevent the deployment of more troops to Afghanistan.

Reports indicate that the White House is considering a number of options – though none, apparently, yet appeal to Obama. All include sending more troops to Afghanistan as combat forces and trainers, though the numbers vary from 15,000 to 40,000.

Recent leaks to the press about the debate on Afghanistan as well as the Fort Hood shootings have so angered Defense Secretary Robert Gates that said Thursday that he would fire anyone discovered leaking sensitive information.

Such leaks are not in the best interests of the country, said Mr. Gates, as he visited a factory producing new bomb-resistant trucks in Wisconsin.

"Everybody out there ought to just shut up," he said.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1113/p02s09-usmi.html

 

[lerri]

YEAH HE MIGHT HAVE TO EAT SOME OF HIS WORDS.CAUSE KARMA LOOK LIKE IT'S ABOUT TO BE A BITCH.

 

[QueEx]

What are you saying; and why are you saying it so loudly [all caps] ? ? ?

 

[lerri]

What are you saying; and why are you saying it so loudly [all caps] ? ? ?

the same scenerio looks like it is playing out now in afghanistan for the us and nato.remember what brezenski did to the soviets.that is what im talking about.

 

[rNubb]

There are a millions of people in Chicago. Blacks, Mexicans, Poles, Irishs, Italians and several other ethnic groups. They are all Chicagoans. Are they 1 group of people with 1 aim, 1 goal and 1 destiny?

No.

They are all difference folks that only share the same regional area.

Consider the blacks.

There are 2 distinct and predominate gangs with each having several splinter affiliates. They are armed and dangerous but they probably won't join forces to combat a common enemy.

Consider this.

None of the various groups in Chicago will accept direction from some Canadian Province. If an army came down from O Canada to structure a government, the various groups will revolt and seek to protect themselves. The Polish and Mexican won't unite to fight the Canadian army, but each group will fight to maintain their area. But the Canadian propaganda machine will state that they are being attacked by all the citizen of Chicago.

There wouldn't be a real army in Chicago, just like there is no real resistance Afghan army.

In Afghan, there are a bunch of local militias protecting their turf. Their turf represents their ancestral homeland. When the US forces attack a particular area, they are attacking a big ass family. These folks have a blood lust to avenge their slaughtered kinfolk. Those folks are honor bound to resist the invaders and to support their own. Furthermore, none of these groups will feel compelled to provide aid or assistance to the US forces.

The US is fucking with the American people. There was never a war with the Taliban. The Taliban is not real. Al Quaeda is not real. It like saying that you are having a war with the Jazz community or the Hip Hop community.

Those folks don't identify with Western labels. They don't fight against american freedom, democracy or christian values. They fight to be.

Pres. Obama can send 5 Million troops to Afghan and the people will still resist.

Have the Palestinians accepted the invasion of Israel after 60 years of occupation? Do you realize that every healthy Israeli citizens has to join the military. The Israelis can't control Palestine as a military state, how can the US refashion Afghan with a 150,000, 250,000 or 500,000 troops?

It's not going to happen.

This is a fight that can't be won.

 

[nittie]

Islam is not similar to anything else, including religions such as Christianity. As far as the Koran having any outdated ethical concepts, that is impossible. According to Islamic doctrine, the Koran is perfect, eternal and universal. It does not contain the slightest error since contains the exact words of Allah. Hence, it can never be outdated.

Also, the Koran is a derivative book. Every idea in the Koran, with two exceptions, can be traced to earlier works. The two novel ideas in the Koran are that Mohammed is the last prophet of god and that violent force, jihad, can be used to harm those who don't agree with Mohammed. Violence against kafirs (unbelievers) is systemic in all of Islam's texts and forms a central theme.
The Old Testament has violence, but there is no real parallel to the Koran and Islam. Look at the numbers. The violence in the Old Testament is limited to a few verses. The violence in the Koran against the ***** (unbeliever) takes up 61% of the text. Every mention of the ***** is brutal, condemning, pejorative, hateful and threatening. The Hadith, the Traditions of Mohammed, has 20% of its text devoted to jihad. The Sira, Mohammed's life, has 70% of the text about Mohammed as prophet devoted to jihad.

Endless ink has been wasted on trying to answer the question of what is Islam? Is Islam the religion of peace? Or is the true Islam a radical ideology? Is a moderate Muslim the real Muslim?



This reminds a scientist of the old arguments about light. Is light a particle or is light a wave? The arguments went back and forth. Quantum mechanics gave us the answer. Light is dualistic; it is both a particle and a wave. It depends upon the circumstances as to which quality manifests. Islam functions in the same manner.

You cannot defeat part of a Whole like we're trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's either all or nothing. The President has to make one of the biggest and gravest decisions since the atomic bombing of Japan during WWII.

 

[Spectrum]

You cannot defeat part of a Whole like we're trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's either all or nothing. The President has to make one of the biggest and gravest decisions since the atomic bombing of Japan during WWII.

Do you really think this is a battle against ISLAM

Before answering, Ive studied Islam formally, speak Arabic, and have been to several countries in the middle-east.

Though I would agree that Islam, because The Prophet and the first 4 Caliphs were spiritual as well as military leaders, has an underpinning of violence. However, you must remember that JIHAD, is also spiritual and Muslims propose that internal Jihad by all muslims is more important than Jihad as a tactical weapon against the enemy. You must all remember that there are a billion Muslims that DONT agree with the Jihad as brought forth by the Muslim Brotherhood (Bin Ladin with the Base and other groups). Fundamentalism is also as much of an issue of poverty as much as gangs are in issue of poverty in urban communities in the U.S. These geopolitical issues involving Muslims are NOT exclusively or even overwhelming issues of religion. It is MUCH more complex than that. Also, and Im not accussing you of this, most people continuously confuse ARAB CULTURE with Islam. Women not being able to drive in Saudi Arabia is a statement on Arab Culture...not Islam. Otherwise, it would be an issue in Turkey as well. People very consistently confuse correlation with causation and that is a very dangerous thing.

 

[lerri]

NEITHER ONE IT'S ALL ABOUT RUSSIA AND CHINA AND THE SHANGHAI COOPERATION ORGANISATION(SCO).WHO THE US AND UK AND NATO DREAD.

 

[QueEx]

You cannot defeat part of a Whole like we're trying to do in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's either all or nothing. The President has to make one of the biggest and gravest decisions since the atomic bombing of Japan during WWII.

I didn't find the quoted information that you were responding to in this thread.

 

[nittie]

I didn't find the quoted information that you were responding to in this thread.

Not responding to any particular information in this thread. Basically I'm talking about the overall mistakes the U.S. is making against Al Qaeda, Taliban, and Islam. They are not exclusive. They are one. America cannot defeat it with regional warfare. Therefore Mr. Z and neocons are leading the rest of us into a crusade we cannot win. Islam has morphed into a illegal drug organization, a military movement as well as a religion. If the U.S cannot comprehend the totality of this we don't stand a chance. We cannot afford to pick good and bad muslims or wars of choice.

 

[Spectrum]

Islam has morphed into a illegal drug organization, .

WOW.. WTF

Dont you mean that the Taliban are highly involved in the Heroin trade as opposed to saying that ALL of Islam is. You do know the taliban make up < than .001 percent of the entire muslim population.

You cant be serious. Do you also think that black gang members represent ALL black people . Or are they gang members that just happen to be black.

What kind of logic are you using to transfer the decisions of a few thousand people to the Billions as a universal truth

Enough of the hasty generalizations.

 

[QueEx]

Not responding to any particular information in this thread. Basically I'm talking about the overall mistakes the U.S. is making against Al Qaeda, Taliban, and Islam. They are not exclusive. They are one. America cannot defeat it with regional warfare. Therefore Mr. Z and neocons are leading the rest of us into a crusade we cannot win. Islam has morphed into a illegal drug organization, a military movement as well as a religion. If the U.S cannot comprehend the totality of this we don't stand a chance. We cannot afford to pick good and bad muslims or wars of choice.

Honestly, I don't know what to say.

We cannot afford to pick good and bad muslims

This, to me, is just contrary to the most basic of my parents teachings: knowing, accepting and realizing the difference between right, and wrong; and good and bad.

Maybe (I hope) I'm just misunderstanding you.

QueEx

 

[nittie]

The laws of thought are fundamental logical rules, with a long tradition in the history of philosophy, which collectively prescribe how a rational mind must think. To break any of the laws of thought (for example, to contradict oneself) is to be irrational


The three classic laws of thought are attributed to Aristotle and were foundational in scholastic logic. They are:

law of identity

In logic, the law of identity states that an object is the same as itself: A ≡ A. Any reflexive relation upholds the law of identity. When discussing equality, the fact that "A is A" is a tautology.



law of noncontradiction

In logic, the Principle of contradiction (principium contradictionis in Latin) is the second of the so-called three classic laws of thought. The oldest statement of the law is that contradictory statements cannot both at the same time be true, e.g. the two propositions A is B and A is not B are mutually exclusive. A may be B at one time, and not at another; A may be partly B and partly not B at the same time; but it is impossible to predicate of the same thing, at the same time, and in the same sense, the absence and the presence of the same quality.

law of excluded middle

Islam cannot be about peace and pratice jihad. It cannot deal drugs and build nations. To believe otherwise is irrational. There cannot be any moderation. Thats Obama dilemma. Is this the final battle between East and West or does he leave the decision to future generations. Another thing, this is not Obama's war, this is George Bush and his cronies war. The fact that some in the rep party would project it on the President shows the true character of the party.

 

[rNubb]

WOW.. WTF

Dont you mean that the Taliban are highly involved in the Heroin trade as opposed to saying that ALL of Islam is. You do know the taliban make up < than .001 percent of the entire muslim population.

You cant be serious. Do you also think that black gang members represent ALL black people . Or are they gang members that just happen to be black.

What kind of logic are you using to transfer the decisions of a few thousand people to the Billions as a universal truth

Enough of the hasty generalizations.

You can tell them this over and over again and they won't heard you. Folks don't know Islam. I have addressed these wild assumptions and allegations for such a long time and the message is flatly refused by most.

They need a big menacing Islamic monster to justify their faith in Christ and Western civilization. They think Bin laden, and the Students are some prophetic figures ushering in the return of their Israeli Jesus. They don't know that son of Mary is the Savior to the world, not just the bible thumping, easter suit wearing, Sunday worshippers.

 

[lerri]

THIS IS NOT ABOUT ISLAM(MUSLIMS) OR THE TALIBAN.BUT THIS ABOUT THE OVERALL GEOPOLITICAL ENEMY RUSSIA AND CHINA AND THE SHANGHAI COOPERATION ORGANISATION AND PIPE LINE-A-STAN.AND THE COPPER DEPOSIT'S AND HERIONE CONTROL.BECAUSE ZBIGNIEW BREZENSKI SAID AT A CFR CONFERENCE WITH FOREIGN POLICY EXPERTS AND GEOSTRATIGIZER'S THAT THE CENTER OF WORLD'S POWER IS NOT IRAN........IT'S MOSCOW AND BEIJING..........THERE THE ONLY REMAINING COUNTRIES WHO CAN CHALLENGE THE US AND NATO FROM A MILTARY STANDPOINT.NOT ONLY CAN THEY CHALLENGE THEM FROM A MILITARY STANPOINT.THE CAN ALSO CHALLENGE THEM ECONOMICALLY AND POLITICALLY AS WELL WHEN IT COMES TO THE WORLD STAGE.........PURE AND SIMPLE.......SO I HOPE YALL OUT THERE LISTENING TO ME.BECAUSE THIS MAYBE THE LAST MILITARY ADVENTURE THAT US WILL BE INVOLVED IN FOR QUITE SOME TIME.WHATEVER OBAMA CHOICE IS IN REGARD TO MORE TROOP DEPLOYMENT'S.IT IS GOING TO HAVE HUGE IMPLICATION'S DOMESTICALLY AND INTERNATIONALY........IN OTHER WORD'S WHAT IM SAYING THIS COULD BE THE END!!!!!!!!!!!SERIOUSLY REAL TALK

 

[QueEx]

Please drop the damn caps!

 

[nittie]

THIS IS NOT ABOUT ISLAM(MUSLIMS) OR THE TALIBAN.BUT THIS ABOUT THE OVERALL GEOPOLITICAL ENEMY RUSSIA AND CHINA AND THE SHANGHAI COOPERATION ORGANISATION AND PIPE LINE-A-STAN.AND THE COPPER DEPOSIT'S AND HERIONE CONTROL.BECAUSE ZBIGNIEW BREZENSKI SAID AT A CFR CONFERENCE WITH FOREIGN POLICY EXPERTS AND GEOSTRATIGIZER'S THAT THE CENTER OF WORLD'S POWER IS NOT IRAN........IT'S MOSCOW AND BEIJING..........THERE THE ONLY REMAINING COUNTRIES WHO CAN CHALLENGE THE US AND NATO FROM A MILTARY STANDPOINT.NOT ONLY CAN THEY CHALLENGE THEM FROM A MILITARY STANPOINT.THE CAN ALSO CHALLENGE THEM ECONOMICALLY AND POLITICALLY AS WELL WHEN IT COMES TO THE WORLD STAGE.........PURE AND SIMPLE.......SO I HOPE YALL OUT THERE LISTENING TO ME.BECAUSE THIS MAYBE THE LAST MILITARY ADVENTURE THAT US WILL BE INVOLVED IN FOR QUITE SOME TIME.WHATEVER OBAMA CHOICE IS IN REGARD TO MORE TROOP DEPLOYMENT'S.IT IS GOING TO HAVE HUGE IMPLICATION'S DOMESTICALLY AND INTERNATIONALY........IN OTHER WORD'S WHAT IM SAYING THIS COULD BE THE END!!!!!!!!!!!SERIOUSLY REAL TALK

Russia, and China, to a certain extent, couldn't bust a grape in a food fight. They have been totally pimped and played by the West and they hate the fuck outta it. Yeah they might engage in some low level espionage, maybe arm terrorist, look the other way on certain crimes, but thats about it.

China is the new swiss bank for the elites but I do like how they are investing in Africa they seem to be hedging their view about State with some spiritualism but thats a discussion for another thread.

 

[nittie]

You can tell them this over and over again and they won't heard you. Folks don't know Islam. I have addressed these wild assumptions and allegations for such a long time and the message is flatly refused by most.

They need a big menacing Islamic monster to justify their faith in Christ and Western civilization. They think Bin laden, and the Students are some prophetic figures ushering in the return of their Israeli Jesus. They don't know that son of Mary is the Savior to the world, not just the bible thumping, easter suit wearing, Sunday worshippers.

From The 'Another question' thread....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by nittie
What is a conservative or a liberal. Labels

Quote:
Revelation 13:14 And he deceives those who dwell on the earth because of the signs which it was given him to perform in the presence of the beast, telling those who dwell on the earth to make an image to the beast who had the wound of the sword and has come to life.

Sure you want to stick with that 'son of Mary is the savior of the world' position. It is a natural, physical and scientific impossibility.