Donald Trump: establishment trojan horse?

Politics, History, & 'Conspiracy'
User avatar
Canuckster
Posts: 6731
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 5:24 pm
Reputation: 3073

Re: Donald Trump: establishment trojan horse?

Postby Canuckster » Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:29 pm

shes pretty fucking hot actually.
People say they all want the truth, but when they are confronted with a truth that disagrees with them, they balk at it as if it were an unwanted zombie apocalypse come to destroy civilization.

User avatar
Megaterio Llamas
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:56 pm
Reputation: 2533

Postby Megaterio Llamas » Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:42 am

Daglord wrote:I, for one, would welcome a return of the anti-war left. it's been far too long & would be a nice change from the (supposedly) anti-fascist LARPers, Russian scapegoat & Neo-Nazi fear mongering. there are some legit beefs, but they are not helping their cause.

Image

Trump Offers Democrats an Opportunity to Finally Oppose Endless War in Afghanistan
http://theantimedia.org/trump-offers-democrats-opportunity-to-oppose-endless-war-in-afghanistan/

(SHADOWPROOF) — President Donald Trump’s plan to escalate the war in Afghanistan is largely a continuation of his predecessor’s policy in Afghanistan, including President Barack Obama’s decision to abandon withdrawal of United States military forces in his last year in office.

There was scant opposition to Obama’s pursuit of endless war during his presidency, and now that Trump effectively owns the agenda for war, Democrats have a political opportunity to finally oppose the war. However, at the moment, few are moving to boldly call for a full withdrawal of U.S. troops.

Trump announced the “new strategy” for Afghanistan will involve an approach based on “conditions” instead of a “time-based approach.” Obama’s policy in his last year in office, however, was based on “conditions” and largely why he abandoned plans for withdrawing United States military forces in July 2016.

He boasted of a “new strategy” that involved integrating “all instruments of American power: diplomatic, economic, and military, toward a successful outcome.” But Obama requested that allies commit additional troops to the war when 30,000 additional troops were sent to Afghanistan in 2009. The Obama administration also pledged to work with the United Nations and diplomatic partners.

It is unclear what Trump means by “economic” power, but Obama and Afghanistan President Ashraf Ghani announced in 2015 that “economic reform” was a “central pillar of the national unity government’s agenda.” Obama pledged up to $800 million in “U.S. economic assistance” to spur development.

While one might think Trump’s pledge to “not talk about numbers of troops” or “plans for further military activities” is indefensible, Obama engaged in secretive troop build-ups in Afghanistan. He claimed the combat phase of the war ended but later redefined labels to permit troops to engage in fighting in Afghanistan.

Trump claimed he “lifted restrictions” that were placed on “war fighters,” which prevented the secretary of defense and commanders from “fully and swiftly waging battle.” That is not hugely out of step when it comes to war-making policies.

The Obama administration “loosened” restrictions on U.S. forces in Afghanistan in 2016. As reported by the New York Times, airstrikes no longer had to be “justified as necessary to defend American troops.” Commanders were allowed to use “air power” against the Taliban when they saw fit and forces were allowed to accompany Afghan troops into combat.

Presumably, the biggest departure may be that Trump will give the U.S. military greater freedom to engage in carpet bombing on a scale that may result in the kind of civilian carnage that has occurred in Iraq since he assumed office.

Much was made about a potential expansion of the war into Pakistan without the full support of the country’s government. Recall, Obama launched around 375 drone strikes in Pakistan that injured at least 990 people and killed more than 2,100 people, including so-called militants reportedly targeted. It is not like Obama was granting terrorists sanctuary.

The war in Afghanistan was launched in 2001, as an act of retaliation for the September 11th attacks.

As of August 2016, according to the “Costs Of War Project” at the Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs at Brown University, at least 31,000 Afghan civilians have been killed in Afghanistan. Well over 40,000 Afghan civilians were “seriously injured” since January 2009. The International Committee of the Red Cross treated 9,200 new patients in 2015, and 1,261 were amputees.

It was estimated, as of June 2016, that there were 1.4 million refugees inside Afghanistan and “nearly 1 million Afghans were internally displaced.” There are at least 2.6. million Afghan refugees in over 70 countries.

When Obama was still president, the percentage of civilians in Afghanistan killed by “pro-government forces,” according to the United Nations Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA), rose dramatically. Since 2013, deaths of children sharply escalated, with 639 deaths and 1,822 injuries documented. The rate of civilian deaths from airstrikes has also skyrocketed in the last two years of the Obama administration.

***

The specifics that depict the human toll of endless war in Afghanistan are what matters. Yet, what Democrats said in response largely suggests they are likely to take a technocratic approach to Trump’s plans instead of pushing for an end to war.

“When President Trump says there will be no ceiling on the number of troops and no timeline for withdrawal, he is declaring an open-ended commitment of American lives with no accountability to the American people,” Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi declared. “The American people need to know more about the President’s plans and conditions.”

“To what extent is there a comprehensive strategy, including an exit strategy for finally bringing America’s heroes home? Congress looks forward to a comprehensive briefing on the troop increase and overall strategy as soon as possible,” Pelosi added.

Pelosi neglected the record of a Democratic president, who left office with a fairly open-ended commitment to war. She also seems open to another escalation as long as Trump agrees to plan an exit strategy, which could be set years from now.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, who is the ranking Democrat on the personal subcommittee of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said the speech lacked details, substance, and a “vision of what success in Afghanistan looks like.”

On Twitter, Senator Catherine Cortez Masto meekly pledged to ask if Trump’s plan would really make America safer and what it would mean for deployed troops. Senator Tim Kaine tweeted, “The American public deserves more details from POTUS on Afghanistan.”

Senator Bob Casey called for a new Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) in order to make U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq seem more legal while Senator Tom Carper offered tempered praise as he recommended Gen. John Nicholson be kept on as commander of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

Hawkishly, Senator Maggie Hassan largely echoed the warmongering of Trump and stated, “It is critical that Afghanistan does not again become a safe haven for terrorists, and we must constantly adjust to the situation on the ground and maintain a troop presence that can ensure that Afghanistan does not slip backward.”

Support for maintaining a U.S. troop presence was also expressed by Senator Jeanne Shaheen, and she suggested a “fully engaged diplomatic presence,” as well as a “stronger, more resilient NATO” would be critical.

Senator Jack Reed also recommended more emphasis on diplomacy, contending the State Department must be properly staffed and the budget for foreign aid for Afghanistan’s government must not be slashed. And Senator Richard Blumenthal argued, “Military force without forceful effective diplomacy is no strategy,” before he proceeded to endorse a continuation of war.

The closest any Senate Democrat came to strong opposition to continuing war was the statement from Senator Jeff Merkley, where he proclaimed, “Americans are exhausted by a seemingly endless war. We have lost too many brave service members, and we owe all who have served there an extraordinary debt of gratitude. It is time for the president to present a compelling plan for regional stability and an end to American military involvement — not a vague plan to continue the failed strategies of the past.”

From the House of Representatives, Democratic Caucus Chairman Joe Crowley stated, “President Trump has no strategy for ending the war in Afghanistan.” He was disappointed there were no plans announced to “extract” troops from the “volatile region.”

Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur demanded “clarity of objective,” and maintained, “There can be no blank check for war anywhere. Committing more American troops without a clear path forward will not lead to the resolution of this sixteen-year war.”

While Representative Pramala Jayapal suggested Congress should listen to Americans who want to end the war and tweeted, “We need a concerted diplomatic effort to sustainably end the war in Afghanistan and bring our heroes home.”

The strongest Democratic opponent of the announced escalation was Representative Barbara Lee, who was the sole opposition for the authorization of war under President George W. Bush.

“I am deeply troubled by President Trump’s failure to outline a comprehensive strategy to bring an end to our nation’s longest war. After sixteen years at war, one thing is clear: there is no military solution in Afghanistan,” Lee stated. “Any lasting peace in Afghanistan must be secured through diplomacy. Further military engagement will only put our brave servicemen and women in harm’s way while doing little to enhance our national security.”

There were very few Democrats, who indicated they would staunchly oppose escalation. Some even did what Trump probably hopes they will do, which is not oppose him because they recognize war-making is part of a bipartisan national consensus in Washington, D.C.

Nevertheless, for those representatives and senators, who see themselves as part of “The Resistance,” this is no longer “The Good War” that Obama escalated, drew down, and then kick-started again. It is Trump’s war. They have a political opportunity to resist perpetual war under a deeply unpopular and despised president.


from 2012, but could have been filmed yesterday.




The pro war fake left is one of the very worst things there is about being alive today.
el rey del mambo

User avatar
Megaterio Llamas
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2014 7:56 pm
Reputation: 2533

Postby Megaterio Llamas » Thu Aug 24, 2017 9:40 am

More American Troops to Afghanistan, To Keep the Chinese Out? Lithium and the Battle for Afghanistan’s Mineral Riches

Trump calls for escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Why? Is it part of the “Global War on Terrorism”, going after the bad guys, or is it something else?

Unknown to the broader public, Afghanistan has significant oil, natural gas and strategic raw material resources, not to mention opium, a multibillion dollar industry which feeds America’s illegal heroin market.

These mineral reserves include huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and lithium, which is a strategic raw material used in the production of high tech batteries for laptops, cell phones and electric cars.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-ameri ... es/5605456
el rey del mambo

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Thu Aug 24, 2017 3:45 pm

Canuckster wrote:shes pretty fucking hot actually.


yep... & "woke".



[spoiler]
"Under U.S. law it is illegal for any American to provide money or assistance to al-Qaeda, ISIS or other terrorist groups. If an American citizen gave money, weapons or support to al-Qaeda or ISIS, he or she would be thrown in jail. Yet the U.S. government has been violating this law for years, quietly supporting allies and partners of al-Qaeda, ISIL, Jabhat Fateh al Sham and other terrorist groups with money, weapons, and intelligence support, in their fight to overthrow the Syrian government. The CIA has also been funneling weapons and money through Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Qatar and others who provide direct and indirect support to groups like ISIS and al-Qaeda. This support has allowed al-Qaeda and their fellow terrorist organizations to establish strongholds throughout Syria, including in Aleppo.

A recent New York Times article confirmed that ‘rebel groups’ supported by the U.S. ‘have entered into battlefield alliances with the affiliate of al-Qaeda in Syria, formerly known as al Nusra.’ This alliance has rendered the phrase ‘moderate rebels’ meaningless. Reports confirm that ‘every armed anti-Assad organization unit in those provinces [of Idlib and Aleppo] is engaged in a military structure controlled by [al-Qaeda’s] Nusra militants.’

A recent Wall Street Journal article reported that many rebel groups are ‘doubling down on their alliance’ with al Nusra. Some rebel groups are renewing their alliance, while others, like Nour al-Din al-Zinki, a former CIA-backed group and one of the largest factions in Aleppo are joining for the first time. “The Syria Conquest Front—formerly known as the al-Qaeda-linked Nusra Front—is deeply intermingled with armed opposition groups of all stripes across Syria’s battlefields.”

The CIA has long been supporting a group called Fursan al Haqq, providing them with salaries, weapons and support, including surface to air missiles. This group is cooperating with and fighting alongside an al-Qaeda affiliated group trying to overthrow the Syrian government. The Levant Front is another so-called moderate umbrella group of Syrian opposition fighters. Over the past year, the United States has been working with Turkey to give this group intelligence support and other forms of military assistance. This group has joined forces with al-Qaeda’s offshoot group in Syria.

This madness must end. We must stop arming terrorists.

The American people have felt directly the cost of our nation's interventionist wars—costs borne by our nation's sons and daughters who have served, and by communities and people in every part of this country. We have spent trillions of dollars on regime change wars in the Middle East while communities like Hawaii face a severe lack of affordable housing, aging infrastructure, the need to invest in education, health care, and so much more.

The Stop Arming Terrorists Act (H.R.608) would prohibit any Federal agency from using taxpayer dollars to provide weapons, cash, intelligence, or any support to al-Qaeda, ISIS and other terrorist groups, and it will prohibit the government from funneling money and weapons through other countries who are directly or indirectly supporting terrorists. The legislation is cosponsored by Reps. Peter Welch (D-VT), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Walter B. Jones (R-NC), Thomas Massie (R-KY), Ted Yoho (R-FLY), and Garrett Thomas (R-VA).


Gabbard vs. Mattis, Testimony on FY 2017 Defense Budget Request.



when Trump ended the funding of "moderate" rebels, & the left was telling anyone who would listen that Trump was now acting as "Putin's Puppet", Tulsi went out & set the record straight. she also called bullshit on the Syrian gas attack & Trump's response to it (which the establishment left was thrilled about).



"this isn't a matter of us giving weapons to people & they are falling in the wrong hands. we are directly arming armed militants who are working under the command of Al-Qaeda, all in this effort to overthrow the Syrian Government".



[spoiler]
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii) said Friday she was "skeptical" that Syrian leader Bashar Assad's regime was behind this week's chemical weapons attack in northern Syria.

"There are a number of theories that are out there," Gabbard said during an interview on CNN's "The Situation" when addressing who was behind the attack.

Gabbard pointed to false intelligence reports about weapons of mass destruction used to justify the Iraq War under President George W. Bush as an example of how the intelligence assessments can produce inaccurate information.

"There are a number of ways that you can point the finger," she said.

Pressed to specify if Assad was responsible for civilian deaths in Syria, as the U.S. and Western leaders have maintained, Gabbard said that responsibility "goes around."

"There is responsibility that goes around ... again, my interest is in bringing about peace. Standing here and pointing fingers does not accomplish peace for the Syrian people," she said.

Asked if she would change her mind if the Pentagon would present her with hard evidence that Assad was behind the chemical attack, the lawmaker replied "no."

Gabbard has been a lightning rod for criticism over her position on Syria, with her decision to meet with Assad in January drawing disgust from members of both parties.

The Iraq War veteran, who serves as a prominent member of both the House Armed Services and Foreign Affairs committees, argued the meeting was part of her push to expedite a peaceful resolution to Syria's years-old conflict.

Gabbard argued Friday that President Trump's decision to launch a missile strike against Syrian government forces the previous day in response to the gas attack was "reckless."

"It made me sad and it made me angry to see that President Trump took this reckless action without really considering, frankly, the dire consequences," she said.

Trump claimed Thursday after the strike that “there can be no dispute that Syria used banned chemical weapons” and that “numerous previous attempts at changing Assad’s behavior have all found and failed very dramatically.”

Gabbard rejected that, asserting also that it went against U.S. national security interests.

"Escalating a counter-productive, destructive regime-change war is harmful for the Syrian people and its harmful for the United States and our national security interests. We need to learn our lessons from the past," she said.

"If President Assad is found to be responsible after an independent investigation for these horrific chemical weapons attack, I'll be the first one to denounce him."

http://thehill.com/policy/international/327922-tulsi-gabbard-skeptical-assad-regime-behind-gas-attack

Image

of course, this has put her directly in the democratic establishment's crosshairs.

Image

Liberal leaders call for challenge to Gabbard over Syria skepticism
http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/09/politics/democratic-leaders-gabbard-syria/index.html

A pair of veteran leaders on the left, former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean and Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden, called on Hawaiians to vote Rep. Tulsi Gabbard out of office after the Democrat questioned whether Syrian President Bashar al-Assad was responsible for last week's chemical attack.

"People of Hawaii's 2nd District -- was it not enough for you that your rep met with a murderous dictator? Will this move you?" Tanden tweeted Friday in response to Gabbard's comments on CNN that she is "skeptical" Assad is responsible for the chemical attack.


Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:05 pm



[spoiler]
I'm rising today to urge my colleagues to support H.R.1227, the Ending Federal Marijuana Prohibition Act, which I’ve introduced with my Republican colleague, a fellow Army veteran and former prosecutor from the State of Virginia, Congressman Tom Garrett, where we are seeking to address our outdated and widely problematic marijuana laws by federally decriminalizing marijuana. FBI reports have shown that in 2011 alone, an individual in the United States was arrested for marijuana use, sale or possession every 42 seconds—every 42 seconds—mostly in poor and minority communities. Our current laws are turning everyday Americans into criminals, sending them to jail, ruining their lives, tearing apart families and wasting huge amounts of taxpayer dollars to arrest, prosecute and incarcerate people for marijuana use—a drug that has been proven time and time again to be far less dangerous than alcohol, both for individual consumers as well as for the people around them. Dr. Donald Abrams, who is the Chief of oncology at San Francisco General Hospital,has talked about how in the 37 years that he has worked and served as a physician, the number of patients that he's admitted to his hospital with marijuana complications are zero. The number of patients that he's admitted due to alcohol use is—quote—“profound”. So,rather than actually helping people, our current laws are turning them into criminals, forever impacting their future and the future of their families. Over the years we've spent hundreds of billions of dollars locking people up for nonviolent marijuana offenses, creating strain within our criminal justice system, clogging court calendars and resulting in further overcrowding our prisons. Now, just a few weeks ago Ihad the chance to go and visit a number of our prisons and jails in Hawaii, where I saw firsthand the crumbling infrastructure, the extreme overcrowding and facilities in dire need of upgrades, as well as the shortage of services that are actually needed to help rehabilitate people and reduce our recidivism rates. So whether you personally think that marijuana use is good or bad, whether you would choose to use marijuana or not, the question is, should we really be sending people to jail and turning them into criminals for it? The answer is no. The fiscal impacts, the social impacts of our current policy, are having devastating ripple effects on individuals and our communities and are only continuing to perpetuate the problem.

For example, the contradiction that we see currently between state and federal laws on marijuana has created a serious problem for many of our local businesses. I've talked with local bankers in my home state of Hawaii who express great frustration and even confusion about the contradiction between our laws—the fact that our state of Hawaii has legalized and authorized marijuana dispensaries to grow, process, and dispense medical marijuana, but federal law also prohibits banks and credit unions from offering any type of financial services to both businesses and individuals whose financial transactions have anything to do with marijuana. So what this means in a practical term is our state-recognized and licensed medical marijuana dispensary owners, as well as their employees, can't open a bank account, can’t get a loan from our local banks. The businesses have to literally hold thousands or even millions of dollars and conduct their transactions in cash. Businesses that provide services to these medical marijuana dispensaries are also unable to access financial services due to the gaps between federal and state law. So as we look at ways that we need to update our outdated drug policies and the need for us to reform a very broken criminal justice system, we need to take into account the growing body of evidence that suggests the medicinal benefits of marijuana, including preventing epileptic seizures, reducing anxiety, and even halting the growth of cancer cells. However, the FDA still currently classifies marijuana as a Schedule 1 classification, basically saying that marijuana is like heroin, LSD and MDMA, ignoring the fact that at least 28 states, including my home state of Hawaii have already accepted the medical use of marijuana under state law. We need to require the FDA to remove marijuana from Schedule 1 based on state-accepted medical use. These reforms that we are calling for in this bipartisan bill are common sense and they are long overdue—long overdue changes that will help to reduce the strain on our criminal justice system, create certainty and reduce contradictions and confusion between state and federal law, and update those federal laws to actually meet the needs and progress that states are making across the country.

Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Thu Aug 24, 2017 4:35 pm

Megaterio Llamas wrote:More American Troops to Afghanistan, To Keep the Chinese Out? Lithium and the Battle for Afghanistan’s Mineral Riches

Trump calls for escalation of the war in Afghanistan. Why? Is it part of the “Global War on Terrorism”, going after the bad guys, or is it something else?

Unknown to the broader public, Afghanistan has significant oil, natural gas and strategic raw material resources, not to mention opium, a multibillion dollar industry which feeds America’s illegal heroin market.

These mineral reserves include huge veins of iron, copper, cobalt, gold and lithium, which is a strategic raw material used in the production of high tech batteries for laptops, cell phones and electric cars.


http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-ameri ... es/5605456


yep. I like the story about McMattis showing Trump pics of girls in miniskirts to get his approval for additional troops/Afghan deployment. LOL. the right can use it to make Trump look like some great liberator, while the left can use it to emphasize his naivety. well played.

while I think there is probably some truth to that, the skeptic in me thinks it has more to do with this meeting:

Inside Trump’s Tortured Search for a Winning Strategy in Afghanistan
http://archive.is/vvOzP

Image

In mid-July, President Donald Trump sat down for a meeting with the head of an American chemical company that transformed his view of the U.S. military presence in Afghanistan. Exploiting the country’s abundant natural resources could result in an incredible economic windfall, Trump was told.

In his conversation with Michael Silver, the CEO of American Elements, a firm specializing in the production of advanced metals and chemicals, Trump learned of the enormous wealth buried beneath Afghan soil: perhaps more than $1 trillion in untapped mineral resources in the form of copper, iron, and rare-earth metals.

Trump’s interest in the mining plan was first sparked by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani, who met with Trump in Riyadh in May, according to an administration official. “We are sitting on enormous wealth,” Ghani reportedly told Trump. “Why aren’t the American companies in this instead of China?”

Deeply reluctant to continue a 16-year war that has left more than 2,400 Americans dead and cost more than $1 trillion, the news of Afghanistan’s mineral wealth struck a chord with the president. “Trump wants to be repaid,” said a source close to the White House. “He’s trying to see where the business deal is.”

The New York Times first reported in July that Silver met with Trump’s aides, but the mining CEO also pitched his proposal to exploit Afghanistan’s mineral wealth in a personal meeting with the president, sources told Foreign Policy.

A spokesperson for American Elements and two administration officials confirmed the Trump meeting.

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:35 pm

good read: "Teleprompter Trump", I like it.

The Endless War in Afghanistan Just Got Longer
https://www.truthdig.com/articles/endless-war-afghanistan-just-got-longer/

Image

We have two presidents in the United States: The “real Donald Trump” and “teleprompter Trump.” Real Trump speaks, and tweets, his mind. Teleprompter Trump reads speeches prepared for him, delivered in a strained manner that has been likened to a hostage video. Both have been on full display lately, from his rants asserting moral equivalence between neo-Nazis and anti-fascist activists who gathered to oppose them, to attacking the media and threatening to shut down the government if he doesn’t get his border wall. But it was his teleprompter address last Monday, when President Trump promised that the war in Afghanistan—the longest war in U.S. history—would continue, that might have been the most frightening of all, ensuring more suffering and death for U.S. service members and Afghan civilians alike.

“Vile and disgusting fear-based demagoguery,” was the reaction of Matthew Hoh, speaking on the “Democracy Now!” news hour. “I’m greatly saddened because there was nothing in that speech besides the prospect of more killing.” Hoh is a combat veteran, a former Marine company commander who fought in Iraq. He then worked in the U.S. State Department in Afghanistan, resigning from the position in September 2009. In his four-page resignation letter, Hoh wrote: “I fail to see the value or the worth in continued U.S. casualties or expenditures of resources in support of the Afghan government in what is, truly, a 35-year-old civil war. … I do not believe any military force has ever been tasked with such a complex, opaque and Sisyphean mission as the U.S. military has received in Afghanistan.”

Donald Trump long advocated for a U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan. In October 2011, he tweeted: “It is time to get out of Afghanistan. We are building roads and schools for people that hate us. It is not in our national interests.” In January 2013, in a rare admission of agreement with then-President Barack Obama, he tweeted: “I agree with Pres. Obama on Afghanistan. We should have a speedy withdrawal. Why should we keep wasting our money—rebuild the U.S.!” Then, in 2016, he won the Electoral College and, despite losing the national popular vote by 3 million votes, became president.

Image

“Shortly after my inauguration, I directed Secretary of Defense Mattis and my national security team to undertake a comprehensive review of all strategic options in Afghanistan and South Asia,” teleprompter Trump said last Monday at his speech delivered at Fort Myer, right next door to Arlington National Cemetery. Trump’s senior circle in the White House has been winnowed down to his family members and his generals: chief of staff Gen. John Kelly, Secretary of Defense Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis, and national security adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster. After a weekend sequestered at Camp David with these and other military advisers, Trump announced in his Fort Myer address his commitment of thousands more troops and tens of billions more taxpayer dollars to the war in Afghanistan.

Kathy Kelly, like Matthew Hoh, has extensive experience in Afghanistan, as a peace activist with Voices for Creative Nonviolence, twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. She agrees with Hoh that the U.S.-supported government in Kabul has collapsed and isn’t providing any security against the various Afghan warlords. “The United States is one among many warlords right now,” she explained on “Democracy Now!” “It’s certainly the heaviest-armed warlord with the most access to funding, but it’s not the case that the United States has been shoring up some kind of governance that’s been advantageous to people in Afghanistan.”

The New York Times recently reported that President Trump is being informally advised on Afghanistan by billionaire financier Stephen Feinberg, who owns the military contractor DynCorp, and that Trump may be pursuing U.S. control of Afghanistan’s untapped mineral wealth, worth an estimated $1 trillion.

Kathy Kelly responds: “Afghanistan is a country that needs to be able to feed its people, not sending them down into the dungeons and mines to work as serfs. To restore that agricultural infrastructure would require reseeding the orchards, cleaning out the irrigation systems, replenishing the flocks. It would require weening people off of the opium trade. Those are things that could be done.”

President Trump should spend the weekend at Camp David with peace activists, as well as with Afghan civilians, who know their country and its suffering better than anyone. Given what we’ve learned about Donald Trump in his first seven months as president—whether the real Trump or the teleprompter man—we can assume such a gathering is not in the script.

Image

Matthew Hoh is the guy who resigned right after Obama made it clear he wasn't planning on pulling out.

2009 - U.S. official resigns over Afghan war
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603394.html?sid=ST2009102804746

When Matthew Hoh joined the Foreign Service early this year, he was exactly the kind of smart civil-military hybrid the administration was looking for to help expand its development efforts in Afghanistan.

A former Marine Corps captain with combat experience in Iraq, Hoh had also served in uniform at the Pentagon, and as a civilian in Iraq and at the State Department. By July, he was the senior U.S. civilian in Zabul province, a Taliban hotbed.

But last month, in a move that has sent ripples all the way to the White House, Hoh, 36, became the first U.S. official known to resign in protest over the Afghan war, which he had come to believe simply fueled the insurgency.

his 4 page resignation letter:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/hp/ssi/wpc/ResignationLetter.pdf?sid=ST2009102603447

Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Thu Aug 24, 2017 5:45 pm

meanwhile...

D.C. judge approves government warrant for data from anti-Trump website
https://www.yahoo.com/news/d-c-judge-approves-government-warrant-data-anti-160350435.html

Image

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A District of Columbia Superior Court judge on Thursday approved a government warrant seeking data from an anti-Trump website related to Inauguration Day protests, but he added protections to safeguard "innocent users."

Chief Judge Robert Morin said DreamHost, a Los Angeles-based web-hosting company, must turn over data about visitors to the website disruptj20.org, which is a home to political activists who organized protests at the time of Donald Trump's inauguration as U.S. president in January.

Morin, who will oversee review of the data, said the government must explain what protocols it will use to make sure the data of "innocent users" is not seized by prosecutors.

The U.S. Justice Department said it sought the records connected to the site amid concerns that it helped facilitate the planning of protests on Inauguration Day in which more than 200 people were arrested for rioting and vandalizing businesses in downtown Washington.

DreamHost resisted the request, saying the scope of the warrant was too broad and trampled on the rights of 1.3 million visitors to the site, many of whom were simply exercising their First Amendment rights to express their political views.

The Justice Department last week proposed amending the scope of its warrant to exclude the IP addresses of website visitors and limit the search only to records from July 1, 2016 to Jan. 20, 2017.

But DreamHost argued that the warrant was still too broad, as it could sweep in people who sent emails to disruptj20 addresses. The company objected to the two-step process that would require it to turn over data in bulk and let prosecutors search for and seize evidence of criminal involvement in the riots.

Morin said at a hearing on Thursday that he recognized the tension between free speech rights and law enforcement's need to search digital records for evidence. He said he added safeguards to his order granting the government's request for information in an effort to balance those two concerns.

Image

User avatar
Daglord
Posts: 1598
Joined: Sat Jun 07, 2014 2:25 pm
Reputation: 2967

Postby Daglord » Fri Aug 25, 2017 6:25 pm

when John Bolton, Jack Keane, Lindsey Graham & John McCain are parading around MSM & praising you/your choice, you might be on the wrong side...



could we please stop invoking 9/11 to justify military action 17 years later? even Trump brought it up numerous times in his speech.

"to my colleagues in congress, you will own your 'NO' vote. the next 9/11 will be YOUR fault, not President Trump's..."

Image

LOL. fuck you Graham. I predict a TON of support for this...

Dr. Rand Paul Releases Statement Opposing Proposed Troop Increases in Afghanistan
https://www.paul.senate.gov/news/press/dr-rand-paul-releases-statement-opposing-proposed-troop-increases-in-afghanistan

WASHINGTON, D.C.– Today, U.S. Senator Rand Paul released the following statement opposing proposed troop increases in Afghanistan:

"The mission in Afghanistan has lost its purpose, and I think it is a terrible idea to send any more troops into that war," said Dr. Paul.

Dr. Paul has been a leading advocate for returning war-making powers back to Congress. Earlier this year he introduced an amendment to the NDAA to repeal the 2001 and 2002 Authorizations for Use of Military Force (AUMFs), and he will do so again as soon as Congress reconvenes.

His amendment expresses the sense of Congress that the President cannot conduct ongoing U.S. military operations in Afghanistan without an AUMF from Congress authorizing such conduct. He strongly believes that if the President and Congress want to continue the war in Afghanistan, then at the very least Congress should vote on it.

BACKGROUND:

Amendment to Repeal 2001 and 2002 AUMFs - This amendment finds that neither the 2001 nor 2002 AUMFs authorize the use of U.S. forces to engage in direct or indirect actions against ISIS. Thus a new AUMF is required.

(a) Finding: Congress finds that neither the 2001 AUMF (9/11) or the 2002 (Iraq, Operation Iraqi Freedom) authorize the use of US military force against ISIS.

(b) Sense of Congress: The President cannot conduct ongoing US military operations against ISIS without an AUMF from Congress authorizing such conduct. Congress should debate and pass a new authorization.

Language in the 2001 AUMF: In General.—That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Language in the 2002 AUMF: The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to-- (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq.

Image

User avatar
The Anti-Archon
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2014 2:11 pm
Reputation: 233

Postby The Anti-Archon » Fri Aug 25, 2017 6:53 pm

That opium is not going to protect itself.


Return to “The Grand Chessboard”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 85 guests