Remember Vietnam and the "Light at the end of the Tunnel?"
by staff report via you're kiddin' - CNN Wednesday, May 2 2012, 7:14pm international /
mass media /
Now we have more meaningless platitudes, slogans and metaphors
Obama vows to "FINISH THE JOB," in Afghanistan -- would we care to outline what the J-O-B actually is, Mr Drone child killer, Obama? America hasn't fought a legal war in decades. Iraq was a LIE -- over one million innocent civilians dead. Pakistan is a continuing Drone war crime as are the Sudan and Yemen. Libya was a complete travesty; Syria is a crime in the making -- WHAT FUCKIN' JOB are you talking about, you LYING arsehole? Do you imagine the world is as GULLIBLE and STUPID as the cowering, uneducated, genitally groped, American population, you LYING, duplicitous piece of dog shit?
We have a few more throw-away meaningless phrases for you; how about, "STAYING THE COURSE", "MOVING FORWARD;" or "complete the MISSION," we do not wish to "CUT AND RUN," do we now! Yes, indeed, there is always "light at the end of the tunnel" -- 50K US troops dead and FOUR million Asian civilians." How about "air between the ears of Americans," for believing anything that issues from your murdering, LYING black MOUTH?
CNN Report follows:
Obama vows to 'finish the job' in Afghanistan
Kabul, Afghanistan (CNN) -- President Barack Obama marked the first anniversary of the death of terror mastermind Osama bin Laden with an unannounced trip to Afghanistan where he reiterated that U.S. troops will not remain in the country "a single day longer" than necessary.
Obama said he remains committed to pulling 23,000 troops out of the country by the end of summer and sticking to the 2014 deadline to turn security fully over to the Afghan government. He said that NATO will set a goal this month for Afghan forces to be in the lead for combat operations next year.
"We will not build permanent bases in this country, nor will we be patrolling its cities and mountains," he president said during a speech at Bagram Air Base early Wednesday. "That will be the job of the Afghan people."
The trip was Obama's third to Afghanistan since taking office and comes as he fights for re-election. The president is scheduled to return to Washington around noon Wednesday.
About two hours after Obama left the country, a powerful explosion rocked the capital, Kabul, authorities reported.
A suicide car bomb was detonated outside the gates of Green Village, a compound that houses contractors and aid workers, killing at least seven people and wounding 17 others, the Afghan interior ministry said. The casualties included school children.
"This is another desperate attack by the Taliban," said Gen. Carsten Jacobson, spokesman for the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force. "Another attack by the insurgency that resulted in the deaths of innocent Afghan civilians, with most of that being children from a nearby school."
Even as Obama pledged to not keep troops in harm's way "a single day longer than is absolutely required for our national security," he promised to "finish the job" and "end this war responsibly."
Obama also spoke of a "negotiated peace," and said his administration has been in direct talks with the Taliban. "We've made it clear that they can be a part of this future if they break with al Qaeda, renounce violence, and abide by Afghan laws," he said.
Finally, the president vowed: "This time of war began in Afghanistan, and this is where it will end."
Earlier in his trip, Obama and Afghan President Hamid Karzai signed an agreement outlining cooperation between their countries once the U.S.-led international force withdraws in 2014.
Some U.S. forces will remain in a post-war Afghanistan as military advisers, but both U.S. and Afghan officials have yet to decide how many troops will continue supporting the Afghan military, and for how long.
See reactions to Obama's surprise trip
At a signing ceremony for the Strategic Partnership Agreement, Obama said that neither country asked for the war that began more than a decade ago, but now they would work in partnership for a peaceful future.
"There will be difficult days ahead, but as we move forward in our transition, I'm confident that Afghan forces will grow stronger; the Afghan people will take control of their future," Obama said.
Addressing a concern in Afghanistan that the United States will abandon the country once its troops leave, Obama said, "With this agreement, I am confident that the Afghan people will understand that the United States will stand by them."
He later added that the United States "did not come here to claim resources or to claim territory. We came here with a very clear mission to destroy al Qaeda," referring to the terrorist organization responsible for the September 11, 2001, attacks.
Obama's address came nine years to the day after then-President George W. Bush delivered his "Mission Accomplished" speech aboard the aircraft carrier USS Abraham Lincoln, announcing the end of major combat operations in Iraq.
Karzai offered his thanks to the American people for helping Afghanistan, and the presidents shook hands after signing the document in the atrium of the King's Residence, part of the Presidential Palace in Kabul.
"This agreement will close the season of the past 10 years and is going to open an equal relationship season. With the signing of this agreement, we are starting a phase between two sovereign and independent countries that will be based on mutual respect, mutual commitments and mutual friendship," Karzai said.
Obama warned the Afghan people and, later, U.S. troops he met with, of difficult days ahead. In remarks to troops at Bagram, Obama sounded emotional as he said that soldiers could see friends get hurt or killed as the mission winds down.
"There's going to heartbreak and pain and difficulty ahead, but there's a light on the horizon because of the sacrifices you've made," he said.
The security risks in Afghanistan were evident from the secretive nature and timing of the trip. Obama landed in Afghanistan in the cover of darkness, and the signing ceremony occurred in the late evening.
Back in the United States, politicians reacted to the president's visit -- some with praise, others claiming it was politically motivated.
Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney said, "I am pleased that President Obama has returned to Afghanistan. Our troops and the American people deserve to hear from our president about what is at stake in this war. Success in Afghanistan is vital to our nation's security. It would be a tragedy for Afghanistan and a strategic setback for America if the Taliban returned to power and once again created a sanctuary for terrorists."
Sen. James Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, was less supportive.
"Clearly, this trip is campaign-related. We've seen recently that President Obama has visited college campuses in an attempt to win back the support of that age group since he has lost it over the last three years. Similarly, this trip to Afghanistan is an attempt to shore up his national security credentials, because he has spent the past three years gutting our military," he said in a statement.
The Strategic Partnership Agreement provides a framework for the U.S.-Afghanistan partnership for the decade after the U.S. and allied troop withdrawal, according to senior administration officials who briefed reporters on the flight.
Specific levels of U.S. forces and funding are not set in the agreement and will be determined by the United States in consultation with allies, the officials said on condition of not being identified.
Noting the anniversary of the bin Laden mission, the officials called it a resonant day for the Afghan and American people.
More than 130,000 troops from 50 countries serve in Afghanistan, according to the NATO-led International Security and Assistance Force. The United States is the biggest contributor, providing about 90,000 troops, followed by the United Kingdom (9,500), Germany (4,800) and France (3,600).
The war that began in 2001 is increasingly unpopular in the United States, with the latest CNN/ORC International poll in late March showing 25% of respondents supporting it and 72% opposing it.
More than 2,700 troops from the United States and its partners have died in the war, the majority of them American.
In 2011, the United States outlined its plan to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by the end of 2014. The move was followed by withdrawal announcements by most of the NATO nations.
Last week, Afghan National Security Adviser Rangin Daftar Spanta and U.S. Ambassador Ryan Crocker initialed a text that outlined the kind of relationship the two countries want in the decade following the NATO withdrawal.
The deal had been long expected after Washington and Kabul found compromises over the thorny issues of "night raids" by U.S. forces on Afghan homes and the transfer of U.S. detainees to Afghan custody.
It seeks to create an enduring partnership that prevents the Taliban from waiting until the U.S. withdrawal to try to regain power, the senior administration officials said.
Obama visited Afghanistan in March 2010 and returned in December of the same year. He also visited Afghanistan in 2008 as a presidential candidate.
[How about this for defining a 'JOB' -- putting an end to YOU and the stinking Wall St, Banking and Corporate cabals that control you. The WORLD is AWAKE to you IDIOTS! O, and go back to bed America!] "YES, WE CAN" PUT AN END TO YOU, OBAMA!"
Washington has pressured the Philippines, whose government it owns, into conducting joint military exercises in the South China Sea. Washington’s excuse is that China has territorial disputes with the Philippines, Indonesia, and other countries concerning island and sea rights in the South China Sea. Washington asserts that China’s territorial disputes with the like of Indonesia and the Philippines are a matter of United States’ national interests.
Washington has not made it clear what Washington’s stake is in the disputes. The reason Washington cannot identify why China’s disputes with the Philippines and Indonesia are threats to the United States is that there is no reason. Nevertheless, the undefined “threat” has become the reason Washington needs more naval bases in the Philippines and South Korea.
What this is all about is provoking a long-term cold war conflict with China that will keep profits and power flowing into Washington’s military-security complex. Large profits flow to armaments companies. A portion of the profits reflow into campaign contributions to “the people’s representatives” in DC and to presidential candidates who openly sell out their country to private interests.
Washington is going to construct new naval bases in the Philippines and on the environmentally protected Jeju Island belonging to South Korea. Washington will waste tax revenues, or print more money, in order to build the unnecessary fleets to occupy these bases. Washington is acquiring bases in Australia for US Marines to protect Australia from China, despite the lack of Chinese threats against Australia. Bush and Obama are the leading models of the “people’s president” who sell out the people, at home and abroad, to private interests.
Why is Washington ramping up a new cold war?
The answer begins with President Eisenhower’s warning to the American people in his last public address about the military/industrial complex in 1961. I won’t quote the warning as it is available online. Eisenhower pointed out to Americans that unlike previous wars after which the US demilitarized, after World War II the cold war with the Soviet Union kept the power and profits flowing into the military/industrial complex, now known as the military/security complex. President Eisenhower said that the flow of power and profit into the military/industrial complex was a threat to the economic wellbeing and liberty of the American people.
No one paid any attention, and the military/security complex was glad to be rid of the five-star general war hero president when his second term expired. Thanks to the hype about the “Soviet threat,” the military/security complex faced an unlimited horizon of mounting profits and power as Americans sacrificed their future to the interests of those who protected Americans from the Soviet threat.
The good times rolled for the armaments companies and security agencies for almost three decades until Reagan and Gorbachev reached agreement and ended the cold war. When the Soviet Union subsequently collapsed, the future outlook for the power and profit of the US military/security complex was bleak. The one percent was about to lose its fortunes and the secret government was about to lose its power.
The military/security complex went to work to revive the need for a massive “defense” and “security” budget. Among their willing tools were the neoconservatives, with their French Jacobin ideology and Israeli loyalties. The neocons defined America as the “indispensable people.” Such extraordinary people as Americans must establish hegemony over the world as the sole remaining superpower. As most neoconservatives are allied with Israel, the Muslim Middle East became the target of opportunity.
Muslims are sufficiently different from Westerners that Muslims are easy to demonize.
The demonization began in the neoconservative publications. Once Dick Cheney had the George W. Bush regime staffed with neoconservatives, the next step was to create “threats” to Americans out of verbiage about the Taliban’s responsibility for 9/11 and about “Iraqi weapons of mass destruction,” including verbal images from Bush’s National Security Advisor of “mushroom clouds” over US cities.
No one in the US government or the “free” US media or the media of the US puppet states in England, Europe, Japan, Taiwan, Canada, Australia and South Korea was struck by Washington’s proposition that “the world’s sole superpower” was threatened by the likes of Iraq and Iran, neither of which had any offensive military capability or any modern weapons, according to the unequivocal reports of the weapons inspectors.
What kind of “superpower” is threatened by Iraq and Iran? Certainly, not a real one.
No one seemed to notice that the alleged 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabians, not Afghans or Iraqis, yet it was Afghanistan and Iraq that were labeled “terrorist threats.” Saudi Arabia and Bahrain, which do terrorize their subjects, are safe from having America bring them democracy, because they are Washington’s puppets, not independent countries.
As fear of nonentities swept over the population of “the world’s sole superpower,” the demands for war against “America’s enemies”--”you are with us or against us”--swept through the country. “Support the troops” plastic ribbons appeared on American cars. Americans went into a frenzy. The “towel heads” were after us, and we had to fight for our lives or be murdered in our beds, shopping centers, and airliner seats.
It was all a hoax to replace the Soviet threat with the Muslim threat.
The problem that developed with the “Muslim threat” is that in order to keep the profits and power flowing into the military/security complex, the promised six-week war in Iraq had to be extended into 8 years. The war in Afghanistan against a few thousand lightly armed Taliban has persisted for more than a decade, longer than the attempted Red Army occupation of Afghanistan.
In other words, the problem with hot wars is that the need not to win them in order to keep them going (Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan are all long-term wars never won) in order that the profits and power continue to flow to the military/security complex demoralizes the US military and creates the world-wide impression that the “world’s sole superpower” cannot even defeat a few thousand insurgents armed with AK-47s, much less a real army.
In Iraq and Afghanistan more US soldiers have died from demoralization and suicides than from combat. In Iraq, the US was humiliated by having to end the war by putting the Sunni insurgents on the US military payroll and paying them to stop killing US troops. In Korea the US was stopped by an army of a backward third world country that lived on rice. What would happen today if the US “superpower’s” militarily confronted China, a country with an economy on which the US is dependent, about equal in size to the US economy, operating on its home territory? The only chance the evil in Washington would have would be nuclear war, which would mean the destruction of the entire world by Washington’s hubris.
Fortunately, profits are more important to Washington than ending life on earth. Therefore, war with China will be avoided, just as it was avoided with the Soviet Union. However, China will be presented by Washington and its prostitute media, especially the New York Times, Washington Post, and Murdoch’s collection of whores, as the rising threat to America. The media story will shift the importance of America’s allies from Europe to countries bordering the South China Sea. American taxpayers’ money, or newly printed money, will flow into the “new alliance against China.”
China’s rise is a great boon to the US military/security complex, which governs america in which there is a pretense of “freedom and democracy.” China is the profitable replacement for the “Soviet threat.” As the days go by, the presstitute media will create in the feeble minds of Americans “The CHINA Threat.”
Soon whatever little remains of the US living standard will be sacrificed to Washington’s confrontation with China, along with the seizure of our pensions and personal savings in order to deter “the China threat.”
If only Americans were an intelligent people. Then they might have some prospect of holding on to their incomes, remaining wealth, and liberty. Unfortunately, Americans are so thoroughly plugged into the Matrix that they present as a doomed people, incapable of thought, reason, or ability to comprehend the facts that the rest of the world sees clearly.
Can reality be brought to the American people? Perhaps a miracle will occur. Stay tuned.