XPost: soc.culture.china, soc.culture.usa, soc.culture.latin-america   
   XPost: soc.culture.pakistan, soc.culture.indian, soc.culture.iraq   
   XPost: rec.sport.tennis   
   From: acoustic@panix.com   
      
   In article ,   
   bmoore   wrote:   
   >On Tuesday, August 5, 2014 2:33:26 PM UTC-7, forc...@gmail.com wrote:   
   >> On Wednesday, 6 August 2014 04:42:06 UTC+8, rst9  wrote:   
   >>   
   >> > Afghan attack kills US major general, wounds 15   
      
   bmoore wrote:   
      
     "They signed up to try to do good for their nation, which is a noble   
      but elusive goal in that part of the world."   
      
   This sounds like a piece of unbridled, unabashed imperialist   
   propaganda, unless "they" above also refers to the many who sign up to   
   resist the forces which invade and occupy their country.   
      
   If we look at the history of George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq in   
   2003, many Iraqis did eventually sign up to fight - to "try to do   
   good" for their country - to try to take it back from Washington's   
   influence.  They signed up to resist a rule that had been imposed upon   
   them through bombs and missiles.  They were crushed several times.   
   But they've kept on coming back.  That the current rule in Iraq is   
   wrong, even though it is disguised by Washington-supervised elections,   
   isn't hard for anyone to see.   
      
   So look at what's happening to Iraq now: Those who signed up with the   
   Green Zone fortress in Baghdad are now quaking in their boots.   
      
   In Afghanistan, Washington is doing no better.  Our military and the   
   CIA have bombed and killed so many "terrorists" and yet there are   
   still so many Taliban fighters and "green-on-blue" soldiers.   
      
   Who can honestly say that they aren't the noble ones who signed up   
   with whatever group in order to "do good" for their country?   
      
   An Afghan citizen oughts to ask him- or herself (and apparently many   
   have): "What is this country named the United States of America doing   
   in my country wreaking so much death and destruction year after year?"   
      
   And nobody has ever had even a semi-satisfactory explanation for why   
   Washington has to have such a stupendously costly, and mind-bogglingly   
   huge and expansive military base at Bagram, located in Afghanistan's   
   remote northeast bordering Russia and China.  Your neocon buddy   
   "demo-rising" offered a laughable one a few years back: "Our SEALs had   
   used the facility to practice how to kill Osama bin Laden."   
      
   Well, if this is the real reason for Bagram's existence, now that OBL   
   has been long dead, why are we still holding on to it and negotiating   
   and negotiating and negotiating to try to hold on to it into an   
   indefinite future?  For an intelligent Afghan national, what do you   
   think he/she sees?  Is the Taliban the real problem or is the intruder   
   who claims to be on your side but kills your relatives in the name of   
   protecting youself?   
      
   And if the intruder wants to protect you, why is he hiding in Bagram   
   and requiring tens of thousands of troops and untold lethal weapons to   
   protect him?   
      
   I think the longer Washington stays in Afghanistan, the faster its   
   fig leaf will fall off completely.   
      
   It's not beagle this and beagle that.  It's hard to convince anyone   
   who has a mind of his/her own and therefore can see Washington's   
   hegemonic motives beyond its "do-good" narrative that America has to   
   be in Afghanistan and we have to keep Bagram.   
      
   I can't imagine that our founding fathers would want King George III's   
   military advisors and their guards to come all the way from the other   
   side of the Atlantic Ocean to show us how to build up our defense   
   forces.   
      
   To the contrary, I can very easily imagine George Washington telling   
   them to stay home and mind their own business.   
      
   Of course, it was much harder for King George to come to the New World   
   than for the neocons in Washington today to send our B2 bombers and   
   Tomahawk missiles to any part of the world today.  And that, I think,   
   is why it's so hard for the noble Afghans to tell us to go home except   
   by sacrificing themselves one at a time to tell the American people   
   that Washington is doing something really wrong to garrison planet   
   Earth with hundreds and hundreds of forward military bases.   
      
   On this note, we can see another fallacy in Washington's narrative   
   that we need those hundreds and hundreds of military bases to defend   
   ourselves.  To wit, if Obama is so successful in stopping mighty   
   Russia from going to war in Ukraine using economic and political tools   
   alone, why do we then need to maintain those bases against the   
   militarily lesser adversaries like China, Iraq, Syria, Libya, or   
   Afghanistan?  At this point, I can hear whispers about "poor   
   countries".  Yeah, so we bomb them if they are too poor to care about   
   economic sanctions?  You mean, those bases are needed for poor   
   countries?  Evil, evil!   
      
   It is clear that behind Washington's propaganda, there lies a lot of   
   contradictions that no one needs to dig very deep to uncover.   
      
   lo yeeOn   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)