Punditry Crisis -- Afghanistan

Submitted by fire with fire on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 11:56am

About three and a half hours before President Biden addresses the nation on the Punditry Crisis unfolding at the airport in Kabul, Afghanistan, I checked in at Fox News Channel, CNN and MSNBC to hear from names like Pinetta and McCaffery. And this super in front of the face of some other National Security Expert, "Questions arise on how the system failed in Afghanistan?"

The question, as always in the USA, is whom to blame. Biden blames Trump, of course. But veteran Talking Head Andrea Mitchell offered this bit of analysis: "Just blaming the prior administration. I don't think that is going to work."

The pearls are being clutched real good and hard today. On Fox, a panel of three conservative women who are nevertheless concerned with the issues facing the women of Afghanistan were furious at Sleepy Joe for not keeping the Taliban from being the Taliban. Or, perhaps they just thought the US should stay there to keep the Taliban in check, as we have done for the last 20 years.

Of course no one on the air says anything to help put this in context -- mentioning the 20 years or the umpty dump trillion dollars blown to bits. No, the assumption remains uncontested and only Conspiracy Theory Wackaloons suggest that spending the umpty dump trillion dollars was the purpose of the war as the arms manufacturers have total control of American foreign policy.

That really is the nub of all our political questions in 2021 -- is the government serious about anything other than graft?

That really is the question on the alleged public health regime in place now. Is it a serious effort to "save lives" or is it a serious effort to make money for campaign contributors? The friends of those campaign contributors are quick to change the subject to science whenever this question is asked.

Too bad for Biden that he can't hide behind science as he tries to explain what went wrong in Afghanistan. Pretty obvious that the News Networks are pushing for a re-invasion and re-occupation to save the women of Afghanistan from the men of Afghanistan.

Too bad for the rest of us who understand that solving the world's problems is not one of the powers granted to our government by the Constitution. Bringing up the Constitution of course brands me as a wackaloon in today's political world.

You can call me crazy. I really don't care. But I had big belly laughs as I was watching those "news" shows. I know people who still take them seriously. Which is even funnier.

Tags:

news hens and roosters

Vote

Comments

Submitted by Raggedy Ann on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 1:30pm

The MSM is pathetic.

Period.

Edited to add - Caitlin nails it:
https://caitlinjohnstone.substack.com/p/afghanistan-shenanigans

—

"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 12:29pm

The only people whose views interest me

.... are those who were dead set against the US attacking Afghanistan after 9/11, and who stated so publicly.

The defective judgement of those who cheered the US atrocity in Afghanistan — at that time — are more-or-less a blight upon the nation. Although I suppose they do deserve some credit for pushing the US into that graveyard where failed Empires go to die.

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by CB on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 1:09pm

Re: solving the world's problems

Too bad for the rest of us who understand that solving the world's problems is not one of the powers granted to our government by the Constitution.

has invariably made things far worse.

Submitted by NYCVG on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 2:18pm

Problem solving?

@CB not the USA. We Cause the problems.

Making profit from the misery we create overseas is our driving force.

—

NYCVG

Submitted by Raggedy Ann on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 1:16pm

Whitney Webb is a treasure

https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-afghanistan-peace-deal-rekindled-busine...

—

"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11

Submitted by CB on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 1:53pm

That deal is dead in the water

@Raggedy Ann @Raggedy Ann
The Americans have been given the boot for good and that's a good thing. Whitney Webb was correct in her final summary.

How the New US-Afghanistan Peace Deal Rekindled a “Business Friendly Taliban”
...
The ultimate question then becomes, will the deal last? The U.S. has already left several routes open through which they can call off U.S. troop withdrawal on a whim. In addition, the Taliban’s decentralized, factional nature makes their ability to uniformly agree with, and abide by, the terms of the agreement questionable, though not impossible. Yet, if the deal’s “secret annex” regarding the indefinite presence of 8,000 plus “counter-terrorism” forces is not amended, it is hard to imagine many Taliban fighters accepting the presence of such a large foreign military contingent as part of a long-term peace deal, especially given that the expulsion of such troops has long been the group’s core demand.

Regardless of whether the deal sticks or falls apart, it is unlikely that it will lead to a more peaceful, prosperous Afghanistan. Instead, if successful, it will lead to revenue-sharing and power-sharing among different “mafias” including the Taliban, the “fantastically corrupt” Ghani government, CIA paramilitary groups and all the warlords in between. It appears what this deal would achieve in practice, is the consolidation of a dysfunctional narco-state in alliance with U.S. interests, not unlike the model the U.S. has pursued and supported in other countries.

Submitted by Raggedy Ann on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 1:41pm

Which is why she is a treasure.

@CB

—

"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11

Submitted by Pluto's Republic on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 2:59pm

Well, let's just hope the Spice continues to flow.

@CB

—

____________________

The political system is what it is because the People are who they are. — Plato

Submitted by NYCVG on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 5:04pm

It will

@Pluto's Republic New version of Dune coming up soon. October, I think. Big screen.

—

NYCVG

Submitted by lotlizard on Tue, 08/17/2021 - 12:52am

One “spice” that does seem to flavor the behavior of empires

@Pluto's Republic
would be nutmeg (German: Muskatnuss)

[video:https://youtu.be/nc5LaNcTAfU]

Submitted by CB on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 1:49pm

Russia-China advance Asian roadmap for Afghanistan

Shanghai Cooperation Organization's 'facilitate, not mediate' role could be the key to solving the Afghan imbroglio
by Pepe Escobar July 15, 2021

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting of Foreign Ministers on Wednesday in Dushanbe, the Tajik capital, may have been an under-the-radar affair, but it did reveal the contours of the big picture ahead when it comes to Afghanistan.

So let’s see what Russia and China – the SCO’s heavyweights – have been up to.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi laid out the basic road map to his Afghan counterpart Mohammad Haneef Atmar. While stressing the Chinese foreign policy gold standard – no interference in internal affairs of friendly nations – Wang established three priorities:

1. Real inter-Afghan negotiations towards national reconciliation and a durable political solution, thus preventing all-out civil war. Beijing is ready to “facilitate” dialogue.

2. Fighting terror – which means, in practice, al-Qaeda remnants, ISIS-Khorasan and the Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM). Afghanistan should not be a haven for terrorist outfits – again.

3. The Taliban, for their part, should pledge a clean break with every terrorist outfit.

Atmar, according to diplomatic sources, fully agreed with Wang. And so did Tajik Foreign Minister Sirojiddin Muhriddin. Atmar even promised to work with Beijing to crack down on ETIM, a Uighur terror group founded in China’s western Xinjiang. Overall, the official Beijing stance is that all negotiations should be “Afghan-owned and Afghan-led.”
...
This will mean the normalization of the Taliban as a political movement. Considering their current diplomatic drive, the Taliban do have their eyes on the ball. So the Russian warning that they should not become a security threat to any of the Central Asian “stans” or there will be “consequences” has been fully understood.
...
Following recent analyses by President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the Russian delegation explained to its SCO counterparts its view counterposing Moscow and Beijing’s effort to develop a polycentric world system based on international law, on the one hand, with the Western concept of the so-called “rules-based world order.”
...
No imperial graveyard ahead

SCO member Pakistan remains arguably the key to solve the Afghan drama. The Pakistani ISI remains closely linked to every Taliban faction: never forget the Taliban are a creation of legendary General Hamid Gul in the early 1990s.
...
China needs an eminently stable Pakistan for all the long-term Belt and Road/China-Pakistan Economic Corridor projects and to fulfill its goal of incorporating Afghanistan. Kabul would be bound to benefit not only from increased connectivity and infrastructure development but also from future mineral including rare earth exploration projects.
...
Added hysteria depicting Russia and China involved in Afghan reconstruction as but a new chapter in the never-ending “graveyard of empires” saga does not even qualify as nonsense. The talks in Dushanbe made clear that the Russia-China strategic partnership approach to Afghanistan is cautiously realistic.
...
It’s all about national reconciliation, economic development and Eurasian integration. Not included are a military component, hubs for an Empire of Bases, foreign interference. Moscow and Beijing also recognize, pragmatically, that fulfilling those dreams will not be possible in an Afghanistan hostage to ethno-sectarianism.

The Taliban for their part seem to have recognized their own limits, hence their current inter-regional diplomatic drive. They seem to be paying close attention to the inevitable heavyweights – Russia and China – as well as the Central Asian “stans” plus Pakistan and Iran.

Whether all this interconnection dance will herald the beginning of a post-war Afghanistan as a real functioning state, all we can say is insha Allah.

Submitted by NYCVG on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 2:17pm

Understood

@CB and very helpful.

The USA has lost its seat at this table. China Russia and Afghanistan and Pakistan and IDK---Turkey? India? Pipelines throughout Europe, avoiding Ukraine which is on its enemy list. The ramifications stretch very far.

Instead, the USA can continue rattling sabres with Israel, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE, not to mention Britian, which is going to face its own challenges as the Independence drums bang ever louder.

Turmoil every place.

Shanghai Cooperation Organization's 'facilitate, not mediate' role could be the key to solving the Afghan imbroglio
by Pepe Escobar July 15, 2021

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting of Foreign Ministers on Wednesday in Dushanbe, the Tajik capital, may have been an under-the-radar affair, but it did reveal the contours of the big picture ahead when it comes to Afghanistan.

So let’s see what Russia and China – the SCO’s heavyweights – have been up to.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi laid out the basic road map to his Afghan counterpart Mohammad Haneef Atmar. While stressing the Chinese foreign policy gold standard – no interference in internal affairs of friendly nations – Wang established three priorities:

1. Real inter-Afghan negotiations towards national reconciliation and a durable political solution, thus preventing all-out civil war. Beijing is ready to “facilitate” dialogue.

2. Fighting terror – which means, in practice, al-Qaeda remnants, ISIS-Khorasan and the Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM). Afghanistan should not be a haven for terrorist outfits – again.

3. The Taliban, for their part, should pledge a clean break with every terrorist outfit.

Atmar, according to diplomatic sources, fully agreed with Wang. And so did Tajik Foreign Minister Sirojiddin Muhriddin. Atmar even promised to work with Beijing to crack down on ETIM, a Uighur terror group founded in China’s western Xinjiang. Overall, the official Beijing stance is that all negotiations should be “Afghan-owned and Afghan-led.”
...
This will mean the normalization of the Taliban as a political movement. Considering their current diplomatic drive, the Taliban do have their eyes on the ball. So the Russian warning that they should not become a security threat to any of the Central Asian “stans” or there will be “consequences” has been fully understood.
...
Following recent analyses by President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the Russian delegation explained to its SCO counterparts its view counterposing Moscow and Beijing’s effort to develop a polycentric world system based on international law, on the one hand, with the Western concept of the so-called “rules-based world order.”
...
No imperial graveyard ahead

SCO member Pakistan remains arguably the key to solve the Afghan drama. The Pakistani ISI remains closely linked to every Taliban faction: never forget the Taliban are a creation of legendary General Hamid Gul in the early 1990s.
...
China needs an eminently stable Pakistan for all the long-term Belt and Road/China-Pakistan Economic Corridor projects and to fulfill its goal of incorporating Afghanistan. Kabul would be bound to benefit not only from increased connectivity and infrastructure development but also from future mineral including rare earth exploration projects.
...
Added hysteria depicting Russia and China involved in Afghan reconstruction as but a new chapter in the never-ending “graveyard of empires” saga does not even qualify as nonsense. The talks in Dushanbe made clear that the Russia-China strategic partnership approach to Afghanistan is cautiously realistic.
...
It’s all about national reconciliation, economic development and Eurasian integration. Not included are a military component, hubs for an Empire of Bases, foreign interference. Moscow and Beijing also recognize, pragmatically, that fulfilling those dreams will not be possible in an Afghanistan hostage to ethno-sectarianism.

The Taliban for their part seem to have recognized their own limits, hence their current inter-regional diplomatic drive. They seem to be paying close attention to the inevitable heavyweights – Russia and China – as well as the Central Asian “stans” plus Pakistan and Iran.

Whether all this interconnection dance will herald the beginning of a post-war Afghanistan as a real functioning state, all we can say is insha Allah.

—

NYCVG

Submitted by Linda Wood on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 3:31pm

Your excerpts from Pepe Escobar

@CB @CB

are the most important things to contemplate. China and Russia claim interest in developing Afghanistan with zero tolerance for Afghanistan exporting drugs and terrorism, whereas USA and CIA policy has been to profit from both, thereby increasing human suffering. The CIA is a dope fiend, and our MIC is an abomination.

I sure hope the Russians and China succeed in this effort. Both regimes have increased the well being of their own people in recent decades. Perhaps the Taliban have decided destroying their own people for the enrichment of U.S. gangsters and puppets is nausiating and ultimately futile, as there was nothing in it for them but endless death.

Shanghai Cooperation Organization's 'facilitate, not mediate' role could be the key to solving the Afghan imbroglio
by Pepe Escobar July 15, 2021

The Shanghai Cooperation Organization meeting of Foreign Ministers on Wednesday in Dushanbe, the Tajik capital, may have been an under-the-radar affair, but it did reveal the contours of the big picture ahead when it comes to Afghanistan.

So let’s see what Russia and China – the SCO’s heavyweights – have been up to.

Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi laid out the basic road map to his Afghan counterpart Mohammad Haneef Atmar. While stressing the Chinese foreign policy gold standard – no interference in internal affairs of friendly nations – Wang established three priorities:

1. Real inter-Afghan negotiations towards national reconciliation and a durable political solution, thus preventing all-out civil war. Beijing is ready to “facilitate” dialogue.

2. Fighting terror – which means, in practice, al-Qaeda remnants, ISIS-Khorasan and the Eastern Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM). Afghanistan should not be a haven for terrorist outfits – again.

3. The Taliban, for their part, should pledge a clean break with every terrorist outfit.

Atmar, according to diplomatic sources, fully agreed with Wang. And so did Tajik Foreign Minister Sirojiddin Muhriddin. Atmar even promised to work with Beijing to crack down on ETIM, a Uighur terror group founded in China’s western Xinjiang. Overall, the official Beijing stance is that all negotiations should be “Afghan-owned and Afghan-led.”
...
This will mean the normalization of the Taliban as a political movement. Considering their current diplomatic drive, the Taliban do have their eyes on the ball. So the Russian warning that they should not become a security threat to any of the Central Asian “stans” or there will be “consequences” has been fully understood.
...
Following recent analyses by President Vladimir Putin and Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, the Russian delegation explained to its SCO counterparts its view counterposing Moscow and Beijing’s effort to develop a polycentric world system based on international law, on the one hand, with the Western concept of the so-called “rules-based world order.”
...
No imperial graveyard ahead

SCO member Pakistan remains arguably the key to solve the Afghan drama. The Pakistani ISI remains closely linked to every Taliban faction: never forget the Taliban are a creation of legendary General Hamid Gul in the early 1990s.
...
China needs an eminently stable Pakistan for all the long-term Belt and Road/China-Pakistan Economic Corridor projects and to fulfill its goal of incorporating Afghanistan. Kabul would be bound to benefit not only from increased connectivity and infrastructure development but also from future mineral including rare earth exploration projects.
...
Added hysteria depicting Russia and China involved in Afghan reconstruction as but a new chapter in the never-ending “graveyard of empires” saga does not even qualify as nonsense. The talks in Dushanbe made clear that the Russia-China strategic partnership approach to Afghanistan is cautiously realistic.
...
It’s all about national reconciliation, economic development and Eurasian integration. Not included are a military component, hubs for an Empire of Bases, foreign interference. Moscow and Beijing also recognize, pragmatically, that fulfilling those dreams will not be possible in an Afghanistan hostage to ethno-sectarianism.

The Taliban for their part seem to have recognized their own limits, hence their current inter-regional diplomatic drive. They seem to be paying close attention to the inevitable heavyweights – Russia and China – as well as the Central Asian “stans” plus Pakistan and Iran.

Whether all this interconnection dance will herald the beginning of a post-war Afghanistan as a real functioning state, all we can say is insha Allah.

Submitted by Marie on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 3:55pm

Recall that the old Taliban

@Linda Wood
came close to eradicating opium production before the US invasion. Russia has suffered significant problems with the flood of Afghan junk since then. And we know that China has been hostile towards opium pushers for over a century.

Submitted by Marie on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 2:53pm

An army disappears.

Reflections on Events in Afghanistan

Social media reported that at the Kabul residence of the Afghan National Security Advisor Hamdullah Mohib who post-haste fled to Tajikistan on Saturday with President Ashraf Ghani, three Toyota Landcruiser SUVs were found stacked with American dollar bills.

Mohib was the shadow king of Afghanistan. He controlled the country’s defence budget. In the coming year, he would have handled over $3 billion, which the US has earmarked as assistance for the Afghan armed forces. The Taliban spoiled his party.
...

Submitted by enhydra lutris on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 2:56pm

Blame Jimmy Carter, it was he/his administration

that decided to make Afghanistan "Russia's Vietnam" by funneling support for a mujahadin war against the Russkies there. To keep it sekret, ie, not too blatant, we sent our funds, weapons and the like through Pakistan who used it to support the Taliban, who eventually drove the Russians out, took over the country, and became our enemy and target when 1) they demanded too big of a cut of a long planned pipeline across the country or (&/or, really) 2) they harbored Al Qaeda, whose leader, OBL, took credit when a bunch of fellow Saudi ex-pats attacked on 9/11.

be well and have a good one

—

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Submitted by Raggedy Ann on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 3:00pm

There's plenty of blame to go around,

@enhydra lutris .
But, aren't we sick of the blame game? Isn't it time to reconcile with who and what we are?

—

"The “jumpers” reminded us that one day we will all face only one choice and that is how we will die, not how we will live." Chris Hedges on 9/11

Submitted by enhydra lutris on Tue, 08/17/2021 - 9:35am

We learn from history (or not), so it is important to

@Raggedy Ann

get the full history out there. We cannot "reconcile with who and what we are" until we actually look into the mirror and see exactly who and what we are. The Taliban didn't just come out of nowhere, it was very much something we created or at least amplified and we need to know that and why we did it. We have to dispel the mythos before we can learn from the reality.

Personally, I would've preferred to say that Jimmy/the US/ the CIA was responsible, but blame was an available hook to hang the history on, so I used it.

be well and have a good one

—

That, in its essence, is fascism--ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt --

Submitted by fire with fire on Tue, 08/17/2021 - 11:09am

You made a correct point

@enhydra lutris .
.

Jimmy Carter is a great ex President, but as the Head Knocker, not so much. He was never even a progressive, just a rational Eisenhower type of moderate -- back when there was such thing as a moderate. As of the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan, he was buying the Received Wisdom about Communism and he and Zbiggy came up with clever, moderate, low cost proxy war as a Moderate solution to the Cold War problem posed by Afghanistan.

There was a very well made piece of propaganda called Charlie Wilson's War that tells the mythical story of how slipping anti-helicopter rockets to the "people" of Afghanistan "saved" them from Communist Tyranny.

That perpetual narrative of Americans standing up for the Little Guys of the world who are tormented by Evil Dictators is the problem. It is a self serving lie and always was a self serving lie. Most politicians are such natural whores that it never occurs to them to wonder whether the Self Serving Stories of American Virtue are True. But I would guess that the Sunday School Teacher from Plains was probably just naive when he got to be Prez, and his Do Gooder Strategy for "helping" the poor benighted population of Afghanistan to throw off the yoke of Communism was probably a noble ideal in his Naval Officer head.

I have a brother in law who got to be an Air Force Lt. Colonel. He is the most naive person I know, as he assumes that his military experience makes him wise.

I take very slight exception to your use of the word, blame. Like RA, I don't think that word is very useful. But Mister Peanut shoulda known better. I agree with you on that.

—

I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.

Submitted by fire with fire on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 3:11pm

Blame Skippy?

@enhydra lutris .

That sure was a bonehead move to sic Islamic Fundamentalism on the officially Atheistic Communists, and he deserves a heaping helping of BLAME.
.

You don't often see irony like this but from the opening post:
.

The question, as always in the USA, is whom to blame.

—

I cried when I wrote this song. Sue me if I play too long.

Submitted by ggersh on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 5:19pm

This pundit get's it partially right

—

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley

Submitted by CB on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 5:23pm

Donald Trump wanted

@ggersh
to leave Afghanistan, Syria and Iraq but was prevented from doing so. The deep state had him by the balls and they squeezed.

Submitted by Linda Wood on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 5:59pm

They've been squeezing Biden

@CB

pretty hard this week, with video of his naked son testifying to a prompting hooker that his drug dealers had another laptop full of more video.

If I wanted to praise Biden right now, it would be to point out that he didn't let this shit rattle him.

Submitted by ggersh on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 6:03pm

If I recall correctly

@CB the Donald dropped the MOAB on Afghanistan, bombed Syria on a false pretext and killed Solemaini in Iraq

—

I never knew that the term "Never Again" only pertained to
those born Jewish

"Antisemite used to be someone who didn't like Jews
now it's someone who Jews don't like"

Heard from Margaret Kimberley

Submitted by CB on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 6:56pm

Trump always wanted to exit the Middle East

@ggersh
but he was too weak and didn't know how to pick his advisors. He had little to no actual control over the government or military to affect any real changes. He was hamstrung from the get go. He ended up being a clown.

On Syria:

Fighting between various groups that has been going on for hundreds of years. USA should never have been in Middle East. Moved our 50 soldiers out. Turkey MUST take over captured ISIS fighters that Europe refused to have returned. The stupid endless wars, for us, are ending! https://t.co/Fbcem9i55Z
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 9, 2019

On Iraq:

GOING INTO THE MIDDLE EAST IS THE WORST DECISION EVER MADE IN THE HISTORY OF OUR COUNTRY! We went to war under a false & now disproven premise, WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. There were NONE! Now we are slowly & carefully bringing our great soldiers & military home. Our focus is on the BIG PICTURE! THE USA IS GREATER THAN EVER BEFORE!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 9, 2019

Trump originally set up the withdrawal from Afghanistan and Biden went along with it.

“September 11th represents a very sad event and period for our Country and should remain a day of reflection and remembrance honoring those great souls we lost,” he said. “Getting out of Afghanistan is a wonderful and positive thing to do.”

Trump urged Biden to “keep as close” as possible to his own goal of getting the troops out on May 1.

He only killed Soleimani because Israel set it up and demanded it. But at least he didn't retaliate when Iran fired missiles into the American bases in Iraq.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Tue, 08/17/2021 - 12:08am

Trump didn’t pick his advisers

@CB

Either Israel did or whoever runs the government. I think he did want to end the wars but the MICC was too strong and over ruled him.

We have been warring in the Middle East at the behest of Israel and trying to make it the only super power there. Our troops die for Israel and not to protect our vanishing freedoms.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by Marie on Tue, 08/17/2021 - 11:22am

Oh, poor widdle Trump --

@snoopydawg
he had no control over who he appointed and they prevented him from doing all the all the wonderful and great things on his (non existent) agenda. What a load of rot.

Trump operated on two cylinders: 1) if Obama was for it, Trump was against it except for further enriching the haves and 2) whatever he thought he could spin to make him look good. He's historically ignorant, has no regard for ordinary people, racist, sexist, and totally self-centered.

Assess politicians, particularly presidents, based on what they did while in office and not some fantasy of what they really wanted to do. It's much easier and much more accurate.

Submitted by Marie on Tue, 08/17/2021 - 11:31am

Trump wasn't a victim.

@CB
He was President of the United States. An awesome power. As CIC, which recent presidents like to remind the public that they are, he alone could order withdrawals and additional deployments for all active and limited new engagements.

Quoting Trump is an exercise in futility because he contradicted himself within minutes, hours, or days. And nobody had to push Trump to take out General Soleimani -- like 99% of DC, he has a bug up his ass about Iran.

Submitted by Linda Wood on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 9:17pm

Matt Taibbi

Afghanistan: We Never Learn - by Matt Taibbi - TK News by Matt Taibbi

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/afghanistan-we-never-learn?token=eyJ1c2VyX...

... Every image coming out of Afghanistan this past weekend was an advertisement for the incompetence, arrogance, and double-dealing nature of American foreign policy leaders.

Submitted by CB on Mon, 08/16/2021 - 9:54pm

Blinken sounds just like Mike Pompeo

@Linda Wood @Linda Wood
He'll never admit responsibility for anything.

Submitted by snoopydawg on Tue, 08/17/2021 - 12:11am

Blinker is just Pompeo

@CB

in a skinny suit. Other than that he’s worse than pompous Pompeo. Or they’re twins like Deveto and Schwartznegger. SP on both.

—

Which AIPAC/MIC/pharma/bank bought politician are you going to vote for? Don’t be surprised when nothing changes.

Submitted by NYCVG on Tue, 08/17/2021 - 12:22pm

100% agree.

@Linda Wood

—

NYCVG

Submitted by Linda Wood on Tue, 08/17/2021 - 12:46am

I was just realizing

that if Russia now extends economic and industrial development to Afghanistan, especially water projects to increase agriculture, it will be doing exactly what the Soviets were doing just before we armed the jihad against them. I read about the Soviet water projects in Afghanistan in National Geographic just before we started the war.

In other words, if Russia begins aiding Afghanistan with agricultural and economic development, we are

RIGHT

BACK

WHERE

STARTED

FROM.

Submitted by lotlizard on Tue, 08/17/2021 - 1:55am

“Small” atrocities go under the radar in times of big atrocities

What kind of a person throws sulfuric acid over an attractive and intelligent young woman, disfiguring her for life? I used to read about this sort of thing only in Sherlock Holmes stories.

And the reporting is so sketchy. Is it because the story doesn’t fit any narrative the BBC is interested in promoting right now?

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-58232397

This version of the story has much more detail, though important questions like motive and cultural context remain unaddressed:

https://www.theargus.co.uk/news/19516044.medical-student-milad-rouf-admi...

Submitted by The Wizard on Tue, 08/17/2021 - 11:23am

Will the West screw it up?

It appears from some reporting, obviously not the Western MSM, that there is an agreement formed last month between the Taliban and neighboring major states. The reports I read stress that 2/3 of the Taliban are reporting to a central authority and the rest are a question. These are the conditions as I have read them.
- minimum violence when the Taliban take over Afghanistan. (met)
- no retribution (seems to be happening, might be difficult against "evil doers" to quote Bush
- women keep the right to education and employment … within Islamic law (whatever that means)
- zero tolerance of extremist violent groups (can they do it?)
- eliminate the cultivation of drugs (What will the CIA do for revenue, and how many CIA agents to eliminate)

Russia, China, Iran, Pakistan, Turkey and many others are looking for a stable, safe drug-free Afghanistan and are willing to help the Taliban if they can deliver.

So, here's the fly in the ointment, the US. Will we apply pressure, economic sanctions, and finance opposition terrorist groups and possibly even bomb them and also prevent them from being recognized at the UN and other international organizations, out of pure spite? The US is probably good and pissed off. After all, this is the latest saga in the great power competition between the Soviet Union and the US (Communism v. Democracy). The Soviet Union pummeled the US in Vietnam, the US pummeled the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and now the Soviet Union just pummeled the US in Afghanistan. The US was bragging that the Soviet Union could not defeat the Taliban, but we were so much more capable than them. Well, the Soviet supported government lasted three years after the Soviets left, the US supported government was gone even before US troops were out. Yes, of course, I know that the Soviet Union had nothing to do with this latest situation, but I'm trying to present it in the terms of the mentality of the true Cold Warrior. The bottom line is that the US failed miserably and took a huge step towards the collapse of the Empire. Will other countries believe that the US is a serious empire? The US M.O. is to go into a country, bomb the hell out of it, first with explosive bombs dropped from warplanes and then pallets full of US dollars. Could be it takes a hell of a lot more to be an empire. The US can only do harm, massive harm, and is good for nothing else! The question now is how hard will the US try to kneecap an unstable Afghanistan in the pursuit of revenge.

—

Capitalism has always been the rule of the people by the oligarchs. You only have two choices, eliminate them or restrict their power.