Yahoo Tuning Groups Ultimate Backup metatuning a must-read!

I had missed the last few days of stuff on that site.
pretty much a contradiction that does need to be dealt with some day. but don't expect it in our lifetime. possibly on the discovery channel in 30 years they will present some hodge podge to imply some other disinformation.
Every one where i worked at ABCTV scenic shop saw another plane fly by (probably a tailing fighter, it looked like to all of us, the rednecks included).
5-10 seconds after the second plane hit. we all saw it.
this is not apart of the archive footage anymore.

I expect leaders to lie, but i think a leader who cannot lie and get away with it is not up to the job.

Obomber will puss it off for a while, but he is a one term fall guy.
he isnt going to touch this with a ten foot pole.
he will be too busy putting troops in Afganistan,
as if taking them out of Iraq is all people care about.
I seriously doubt he will do anything to weaken the police state in place

no war in Iran till after the Olympic games, otherwise China will be too pissed for messing up their party.

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

Aaron Johnson wrote:
> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20108.htm
>
> it's relatively short---if you don't have lots o' time---jump to the
> 'conclusion' section--but it's worth reading it all to see the airtight
> logic for yourself.
>
> It's a detailed exposure of the various contradictions and lies of Cheney's
> (and the 9/11 commission report) timeline.
>
> -AKJ.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

It sickens me that only the socialist seem to
tell it like it is

Obama outlines a policy of endless war

http://www.wsws.org/articles/200...m- j16_prn.shtml <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/obam-j16_prn.shtml>

By Bill Van Auken
16 July 2008

Any misconception that Barack Obama is running in the 2008 election as an ï¿½antiwarï¿½ candidate should have been cleared up Tuesday in what was billed by the Democratic presidential campaign as a ï¿½major speechï¿½ on national security and the US war in Iraq.

Speaking before a backdrop of massed American flags at the Reagan Building in Washington, Obama made it clear that he opposes the present US policy in Iraq not on the basis of any principled opposition to neo-colonialism or aggressive war, but rather on the grounds that the Iraq war is a mistaken deployment of power that fails to advance the global strategic interests of American imperialism.

What emerges from the speech by the junior senator from Illinois is that the November election will not provide the American people with the opportunity to vote for or against war, but merely to choose which of the two colonial-style wars that US forces are presently fighting should be escalated.

As in his op-ed piece published in the New York Times on Monday, his call on Tuesday for the withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq was linked to the proposal to dispatch as many as 10,000 troops to Afghanistan to escalate the war there.

The thrust of Obamaï¿½s speech was a critique of the Bush administrationï¿½s incompetence in pursuing an imperialist strategy, combined with an implicit commitment to advance the same basic strategy in a more rational and effective manner once he enters the White House.

He summed up his policy as ï¿½a responsible redeployment of our combat troops that pushes Iraqï¿½s leaders toward a political solution, rebuilds our military, and refocuses on Afghanistan and our broader security interests.ï¿½

Obama reiterated his campaign pledge to bring US ï¿½combat brigadesï¿½ out of Iraq within 16 months of his inauguration. After this ï¿½redeployment,ï¿½ however, a ï¿½residual forceï¿½ would remain in Iraq carrying out counter-insurgency operations, protecting US facilities and training and supporting Iraqi puppet forcesï¿½tasks that would undoubtedly keep tens of thousands of American troops occupying the country indefinitely.

Obama stressed that he would make ï¿½tactical adjustmentsï¿½ to his plan based upon consultations with ï¿½commanders on the ground and the Iraqi government,ï¿½ suggesting that even the partial withdrawal he proposes would unlikely unfold as quickly as promised.

The speech was scheduled in advance of a ï¿½fact-findingï¿½ tour that Obama is set to embark upon in the next week, visiting both Iraq and Afghanistan and conducting meetings with US military commanders in both countries.

Obama began his speech by invoking the legacy of US imperialismï¿½s strategy in the aftermath of World War II, when it acted to ï¿½foster new international institutions like the United Nations, NATO and the World Bankï¿½ and rebuilt shattered European capitalism through the Marshall Plan. He contrasted that six-decade policy with what he presented as the squandered opportunity for Washington to again seize global leadership following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.

ï¿½The world, too, was united against the perpetrators of this evil act, as old allies, new friends and even long-time adversaries stood by our side,ï¿½ said Obama. ï¿½It was timeï¿½once againï¿½for Americaï¿½s might and moral suasion to be harnessed; it was time to once again shape a new security strategy for an ever-changing world.ï¿½

The starting point for seizing this golden opportunity, according to Obama, was to ï¿½have deployed the full force of American power to hunt down and destroy Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and all of the terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in Afghanistan.ï¿½

Instead, he charged, the Bush administration diverted these military resources into the war against Iraq, ï¿½a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.ï¿½ He continued: ï¿½By any measure, our single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for keeping America safe.ï¿½

This presentation is a gross and deliberate distortion of the motives underlying both the war in Afghanistan and the one in Iraq. Neither of them was launched with the aim of ï¿½keeping America safe,ï¿½ but rather to advance definite strategic interests of American imperialism.

The central aim of the war in Afghanistanï¿½planned well before the attacks of 9/11ï¿½was to take advantage of the power vacuum in Central Asia created by the Soviet Unionï¿½s dissolution to assert US domination over a region containing the second largest proven reserves of petroleum and natural gas in the world.

As for the supposed targets of this operationï¿½Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Talibanï¿½all of them are, in the final analysis, the products of US imperialismï¿½s own bloody history of intervention in the region, particularly in the 1980s, when Washington poured billions of dollars into funding the Mujahedin forces fighting the Soviet-backed government of Afghanistan and the Soviet army when it intervened there. Among these forces were bin Laden and those who went on to set up both Al Qaeda and the Taliban.

The legacy of this CIA-directed war was the devastation of Afghanistan and protracted political chaos, which Washington sought to curb by supporting the Talibanï¿½s coming to power.

Now, nearly seven years after the US invaded Afghanistan, Obama proclaims, ï¿½As president, I will make the fight against Al Qaeda and the Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have to win.ï¿½

To that end, Obama vowed to send ï¿½two additional combat brigades to Afghanistanï¿½ and to press Washingtonï¿½s NATO allies to make ï¿½greater contributionsï¿½with fewer restrictionsï¿½ in terms of deploying their own troops.

He continued by vowing to expand the intervention in Afghanistan into neighboring Pakistan.

ï¿½The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into Afghanistan,ï¿½ he warned. ï¿½We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and as president, I wonï¿½t. We need a stronger and sustained partnership between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take out terrorist camps and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.ï¿½

There is no evidence that US forces are fighting Al Qaeda in Afghanistan or that the bulk of those attacking American and NATO forces are following orders issued by the remnants of the Taliban. The Pentagon has not reported the capture of Al Qaeda operatives in the stepped-up fighting that has claimed the lives of 69 US and NATO soldiers in the months of May and June.

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

The author forgot to mention another reason we are in Afghanistan--one
of the largest sources of opium poppies in the world for the CIA to
protect and sell.

If we are really fighting a 'war on drugs', we'd have torched them
already. But no, these fields are protected by all the might of the US
military and black-ops and special-ops.

-AKJ

--- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
>
> It sickens me that only the socialist seem to
> tell it like it is
>
>
> Obama outlines a policy of endless war
>
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/200...m- j16_prn.shtml
> <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/obam-j16_prn.shtml>
>
> By Bill Van Auken
> 16 July 2008
>
> Any misconception that Barack Obama is running in the 2008 election as
> an ï¿½antiwarï¿½ candidate should have been cleared up Tuesday in what was
> billed by the Democratic presidential campaign as a ï¿½major speechï¿½ on
> national security and the US war in Iraq.
>
> Speaking before a backdrop of massed American flags at the Reagan
> Building in Washington, Obama made it clear that he opposes the present
> US policy in Iraq not on the basis of any principled opposition to
> neo-colonialism or aggressive war, but rather on the grounds that the
> Iraq war is a mistaken deployment of power that fails to advance the
> global strategic interests of American imperialism.
>
> What emerges from the speech by the junior senator from Illinois is
that
> the November election will not provide the American people with the
> opportunity to vote for or against war, but merely to choose which of
> the two colonial-style wars that US forces are presently fighting
should
> be escalated.
>
> As in his op-ed piece published in the New York Times on Monday, his
> call on Tuesday for the withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq was
> linked to the proposal to dispatch as many as 10,000 troops to
> Afghanistan to escalate the war there.
>
> The thrust of Obamaï¿½s speech was a critique of the Bush
administrationï¿½s
> incompetence in pursuing an imperialist strategy, combined with an
> implicit commitment to advance the same basic strategy in a more
> rational and effective manner once he enters the White House.
>
> He summed up his policy as ï¿½a responsible redeployment of our combat
> troops that pushes Iraqï¿½s leaders toward a political solution, rebuilds
> our military, and refocuses on Afghanistan and our broader security
> interests.ï¿½
>
> Obama reiterated his campaign pledge to bring US ï¿½combat brigadesï¿½ out
> of Iraq within 16 months of his inauguration. After this
ï¿½redeployment,ï¿½
> however, a ï¿½residual forceï¿½ would remain in Iraq carrying out
> counter-insurgency operations, protecting US facilities and training
and
> supporting Iraqi puppet forcesï¿½tasks that would undoubtedly keep
tens of
> thousands of American troops occupying the country indefinitely.
>
> Obama stressed that he would make ï¿½tactical adjustmentsï¿½ to his plan
> based upon consultations with ï¿½commanders on the ground and the Iraqi
> government,ï¿½ suggesting that even the partial withdrawal he proposes
> would unlikely unfold as quickly as promised.
>
> The speech was scheduled in advance of a ï¿½fact-findingï¿½ tour that Obama
> is set to embark upon in the next week, visiting both Iraq and
> Afghanistan and conducting meetings with US military commanders in both
> countries.
>
> Obama began his speech by invoking the legacy of US imperialismï¿½s
> strategy in the aftermath of World War II, when it acted to ï¿½foster new
> international institutions like the United Nations, NATO and the World
> Bankï¿½ and rebuilt shattered European capitalism through the Marshall
> Plan. He contrasted that six-decade policy with what he presented as
the
> squandered opportunity for Washington to again seize global leadership
> following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
>
> ï¿½The world, too, was united against the perpetrators of this evil act,
> as old allies, new friends and even long-time adversaries stood by our
> side,ï¿½ said Obama. ï¿½It was timeï¿½once againï¿½for Americaï¿½s might and
moral
> suasion to be harnessed; it was time to once again shape a new security
> strategy for an ever-changing world.ï¿½
>
> The starting point for seizing this golden opportunity, according to
> Obama, was to ï¿½have deployed the full force of American power to hunt
> down and destroy Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and all of the
> terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in
> Afghanistan.ï¿½
>
> Instead, he charged, the Bush administration diverted these military
> resources into the war against Iraq, ï¿½a country that had absolutely
> nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.ï¿½ He continued: ï¿½By any measure,
our
> single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for
> keeping America safe.ï¿½
>
> This presentation is a gross and deliberate distortion of the motives
> underlying both the war in Afghanistan and the one in Iraq. Neither of
> them was launched with the aim of ï¿½keeping America safe,ï¿½ but rather to
> advance definite strategic interests of American imperialism.
>
> The central aim of the war in Afghanistanï¿½planned well before the
> attacks of 9/11ï¿½was to take advantage of the power vacuum in Central
> Asia created by the Soviet Unionï¿½s dissolution to assert US domination
> over a region containing the second largest proven reserves of
petroleum
> and natural gas in the world.
>
> As for the supposed targets of this operationï¿½Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda
> and the Talibanï¿½all of them are, in the final analysis, the products of
> US imperialismï¿½s own bloody history of intervention in the region,
> particularly in the 1980s, when Washington poured billions of dollars
> into funding the Mujahedin forces fighting the Soviet-backed government
> of Afghanistan and the Soviet army when it intervened there. Among
these
> forces were bin Laden and those who went on to set up both Al Qaeda and
> the Taliban.
>
> The legacy of this CIA-directed war was the devastation of Afghanistan
> and protracted political chaos, which Washington sought to curb by
> supporting the Talibanï¿½s coming to power.
>
> Now, nearly seven years after the US invaded Afghanistan, Obama
> proclaims, ï¿½As president, I will make the fight against Al Qaeda and
the
> Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have
> to win.ï¿½
>
> To that end, Obama vowed to send ï¿½two additional combat brigades to
> Afghanistanï¿½ and to press Washingtonï¿½s NATO allies to make ï¿½greater
> contributionsï¿½with fewer restrictionsï¿½ in terms of deploying their own
> troops.
>
> He continued by vowing to expand the intervention in Afghanistan into
> neighboring Pakistan.
>
> ï¿½The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of
> Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into
> Afghanistan,ï¿½ he warned. ï¿½We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and
> as president, I wonï¿½t. We need a stronger and sustained partnership
> between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take
out
> terrorist camps and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need
> more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in
> the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan
> cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets
> like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.ï¿½
>
> There is no evidence that US forces are fighting Al Qaeda in
Afghanistan
> or that the bulk of those attacking American and NATO forces are
> following orders issued by the remnants of the Taliban. The Pentagon
has
> not reported the capture of Al Qaeda operatives in the stepped-up
> fighting that has claimed the lives of 69 US and NATO soldiers in the
> months of May and June.
>
>
> /^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
> Mesotonal Music from:
> _'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>
> _'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
> Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>
>
> ',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',
>
>
>
>
> Aaron Johnson wrote:
> > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20108.htm
> >
> > it's relatively short---if you don't have lots o' time---jump to the
> > 'conclusion' section--but it's worth reading it all to see the
airtight
> > logic for yourself.
> >
> > It's a detailed exposure of the various contradictions and lies of
Cheney's
> > (and the 9/11 commission report) timeline.
> >
> > -AKJ.
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Meta Tuning meta-info:
> >
> > To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> > metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
> >
> > To post to the list, send to
> > metatuning@yahoogroups.com
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

🔗Pete McRae <owlsgrease@...>

Hi Aaron!

"...the determination of the American ruling elite to continue using military force as a means of offsetting its economic decline." (insert favored ideology)

Well, one way to continue funding in the face of stock market tribulations and suchlike is to have a SERIOUS backup source of ready cash, no? Tested and proven, ...

[And proven that US agencies are anything BUT above resorting to such unsavory activities as drug-peddling, what did they call that thing, "Iran-Contra", a-suhn-in??? &c., &c., &c.;-]

...Weed, coke, and heroin are GREAT cash crops, and the legal contradictions can be chalked up to either a.) "everyone likes to have fun on the weekend", so don't enforce to stringently (?), or b.) "those damned criminals and lowlifes are so resourceful, we just can't seem to keep on top of 'em. We need more tax revenue for cops and soldiers". Very clever! And ANY shrewd grower knows pretty much how to stay clean, or under the radar, so you could say they're just being good capitalists, too, if they happen to be independent. Did I mention...and shrewd! ;-} If they get caught, well, we need a scapegoat now and then, don't we?

Now that the coca regions are flipping us off a lot, it's probably good to be about guarding other sources of revenue, eh? I mean, I'm joking, but it ain't very funny. Sorry.

~RPM

Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...> wrote:
The author forgot to mention another reason we are in Afghanistan--one
of the largest sources of opium poppies in the world for the CIA to
protect and sell.

If we are really fighting a 'war on drugs', we'd have torched them
already. But no, these fields are protected by all the might of the US
military and black-ops and special-ops.

-AKJ

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

🔗Pete McRae <owlsgrease@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

from what i understand all the poppy fields were gone, coming back after we entered. It is a typical way in which the cia has supported it more illegal activities going back to the Vietnam war ( at least). Congressman Jack Brooks attempted time and time again to bring a similar thing with the Iran Contra hearings. This appeared to not only involve our gov't selling cocaine (se any of the madcowprod post i have put up) but also others which is easy to figure out in that instanse, So this is who Olie North was really- a drug dealer

/^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
Mesotonal Music from:
_'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere: North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>

_'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>

',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',

Aaron Krister Johnson wrote:
> The author forgot to mention another reason we are in Afghanistan--one
> of the largest sources of opium poppies in the world for the CIA to
> protect and sell.
>
> If we are really fighting a 'war on drugs', we'd have torched them
> already. But no, these fields are protected by all the might of the US
> military and black-ops and special-ops.
>
> -AKJ
>
> --- In metatuning@yahoogroups.com, Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...> wrote:
> >> It sickens me that only the socialist seem to
>> tell it like it is
>>
>>
>> Obama outlines a policy of endless war
>>
>> http://www.wsws.org/articles/200...m- j16_prn.shtml >> <http://www.wsws.org/articles/2008/jul2008/obam-j16_prn.shtml>
>>
>> By Bill Van Auken
>> 16 July 2008
>>
>> Any misconception that Barack Obama is running in the 2008 election as >> an ï¿½antiwarï¿½ candidate should have been cleared up Tuesday in what was >> billed by the Democratic presidential campaign as a ï¿½major speechï¿½ on >> national security and the US war in Iraq.
>>
>> Speaking before a backdrop of massed American flags at the Reagan >> Building in Washington, Obama made it clear that he opposes the present >> US policy in Iraq not on the basis of any principled opposition to >> neo-colonialism or aggressive war, but rather on the grounds that the >> Iraq war is a mistaken deployment of power that fails to advance the >> global strategic interests of American imperialism.
>>
>> What emerges from the speech by the junior senator from Illinois is
>> > that > >> the November election will not provide the American people with the >> opportunity to vote for or against war, but merely to choose which of >> the two colonial-style wars that US forces are presently fighting
>> > should > >> be escalated.
>>
>> As in his op-ed piece published in the New York Times on Monday, his >> call on Tuesday for the withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq was >> linked to the proposal to dispatch as many as 10,000 troops to >> Afghanistan to escalate the war there.
>>
>> The thrust of Obamaï¿½s speech was a critique of the Bush
>> > administrationï¿½s > >> incompetence in pursuing an imperialist strategy, combined with an >> implicit commitment to advance the same basic strategy in a more >> rational and effective manner once he enters the White House.
>>
>> He summed up his policy as ï¿½a responsible redeployment of our combat >> troops that pushes Iraqï¿½s leaders toward a political solution, rebuilds >> our military, and refocuses on Afghanistan and our broader security >> interests.ï¿½
>>
>> Obama reiterated his campaign pledge to bring US ï¿½combat brigadesï¿½ out >> of Iraq within 16 months of his inauguration. After this
>> > ï¿½redeployment,ï¿½ > >> however, a ï¿½residual forceï¿½ would remain in Iraq carrying out >> counter-insurgency operations, protecting US facilities and training
>> > and > >> supporting Iraqi puppet forcesï¿½tasks that would undoubtedly keep
>> > tens of > >> thousands of American troops occupying the country indefinitely.
>>
>> Obama stressed that he would make ï¿½tactical adjustmentsï¿½ to his plan >> based upon consultations with ï¿½commanders on the ground and the Iraqi >> government,ï¿½ suggesting that even the partial withdrawal he proposes >> would unlikely unfold as quickly as promised.
>>
>> The speech was scheduled in advance of a ï¿½fact-findingï¿½ tour that Obama >> is set to embark upon in the next week, visiting both Iraq and >> Afghanistan and conducting meetings with US military commanders in both >> countries.
>>
>> Obama began his speech by invoking the legacy of US imperialismï¿½s >> strategy in the aftermath of World War II, when it acted to ï¿½foster new >> international institutions like the United Nations, NATO and the World >> Bankï¿½ and rebuilt shattered European capitalism through the Marshall >> Plan. He contrasted that six-decade policy with what he presented as
>> > the > >> squandered opportunity for Washington to again seize global leadership >> following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
>>
>> ï¿½The world, too, was united against the perpetrators of this evil act, >> as old allies, new friends and even long-time adversaries stood by our >> side,ï¿½ said Obama. ï¿½It was timeï¿½once againï¿½for Americaï¿½s might and
>> > moral > >> suasion to be harnessed; it was time to once again shape a new security >> strategy for an ever-changing world.ï¿½
>>
>> The starting point for seizing this golden opportunity, according to >> Obama, was to ï¿½have deployed the full force of American power to hunt >> down and destroy Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda, the Taliban and all of the >> terrorists responsible for 9/11, while supporting real security in >> Afghanistan.ï¿½
>>
>> Instead, he charged, the Bush administration diverted these military >> resources into the war against Iraq, ï¿½a country that had absolutely >> nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks.ï¿½ He continued: ï¿½By any measure,
>> > our > >> single-minded and open-ended focus on Iraq is not a sound strategy for >> keeping America safe.ï¿½
>>
>> This presentation is a gross and deliberate distortion of the motives >> underlying both the war in Afghanistan and the one in Iraq. Neither of >> them was launched with the aim of ï¿½keeping America safe,ï¿½ but rather to >> advance definite strategic interests of American imperialism.
>>
>> The central aim of the war in Afghanistanï¿½planned well before the >> attacks of 9/11ï¿½was to take advantage of the power vacuum in Central >> Asia created by the Soviet Unionï¿½s dissolution to assert US domination >> over a region containing the second largest proven reserves of
>> > petroleum > >> and natural gas in the world.
>>
>> As for the supposed targets of this operationï¿½Osama bin Laden, Al Qaeda >> and the Talibanï¿½all of them are, in the final analysis, the products of >> US imperialismï¿½s own bloody history of intervention in the region, >> particularly in the 1980s, when Washington poured billions of dollars >> into funding the Mujahedin forces fighting the Soviet-backed government >> of Afghanistan and the Soviet army when it intervened there. Among
>> > these > >> forces were bin Laden and those who went on to set up both Al Qaeda and >> the Taliban.
>>
>> The legacy of this CIA-directed war was the devastation of Afghanistan >> and protracted political chaos, which Washington sought to curb by >> supporting the Talibanï¿½s coming to power.
>>
>> Now, nearly seven years after the US invaded Afghanistan, Obama >> proclaims, ï¿½As president, I will make the fight against Al Qaeda and
>> > the > >> Taliban the top priority that it should be. This is a war that we have >> to win.ï¿½
>>
>> To that end, Obama vowed to send ï¿½two additional combat brigades to >> Afghanistanï¿½ and to press Washingtonï¿½s NATO allies to make ï¿½greater >> contributionsï¿½with fewer restrictionsï¿½ in terms of deploying their own >> troops.
>>
>> He continued by vowing to expand the intervention in Afghanistan into >> neighboring Pakistan.
>>
>> ï¿½The greatest threat to that security lies in the tribal regions of >> Pakistan, where terrorists train and insurgents strike into >> Afghanistan,ï¿½ he warned. ï¿½We cannot tolerate a terrorist sanctuary, and >> as president, I wonï¿½t. We need a stronger and sustained partnership >> between Afghanistan, Pakistan and NATO to secure the border, to take
>> > out > >> terrorist camps and to crack down on cross-border insurgents. We need >> more troops, more helicopters, more satellites, more Predator drones in >> the Afghan border region. And we must make it clear that if Pakistan >> cannot or will not act, we will take out high-level terrorist targets >> like bin Laden if we have them in our sights.ï¿½
>>
>> There is no evidence that US forces are fighting Al Qaeda in
>> > Afghanistan > >> or that the bulk of those attacking American and NATO forces are >> following orders issued by the remnants of the Taliban. The Pentagon
>> > has > >> not reported the capture of Al Qaeda operatives in the stepped-up >> fighting that has claimed the lives of 69 US and NATO soldiers in the >> months of May and June.
>>
>>
>> /^_,',',',_ //^ /Kraig Grady_ ^_,',',',_
>> Mesotonal Music from:
>> _'''''''_ ^North/Western Hemisphere:
>> North American Embassy of Anaphoria Island <http://anaphoria.com/>
>>
>> _'''''''_ ^South/Eastern Hemisphere:
>> Austronesian Outpost of Anaphoria <http://anaphoriasouth.blogspot.com/>
>>
>> ',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',',
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Aaron Johnson wrote:
>> >>> http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20108.htm
>>>
>>> it's relatively short---if you don't have lots o' time---jump to the
>>> 'conclusion' section--but it's worth reading it all to see the
>>> > airtight
> >>> logic for yourself.
>>>
>>> It's a detailed exposure of the various contradictions and lies of
>>> > Cheney's
> >>> (and the 9/11 commission report) timeline.
>>>
>>> -AKJ.
>>>
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>>>
>>> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
>>> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>>>
>>> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>>>
>>> To post to the list, send to
>>> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>>>
>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Meta Tuning meta-info:
>
> To unsubscribe, send an email to:
> metatuning-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Web page is http://groups.yahoo.com/groups/metatuning/
>
> To post to the list, send to
> metatuning@yahoogroups.com
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>

a must-read!

🔗Aaron Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Pete McRae <owlsgrease@...>

🔗Pete McRae <owlsgrease@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>

🔗J.A.Martin Salinas <tony@...>

🔗Aaron Krister Johnson <aaron@...>

🔗Kraig Grady <kraiggrady@...>