How are we making money in Afghanistan?

Oh, I get it, "no blood for oil" type joke, right?

Subby, do you honestly believe we don't have a military presence in Somalia and Algeria right now? Do you think the Pentagon set up African command because they were worried about pirates?

Sad, but true. The facts sometimes suck, but they are never-the-less... facts.

But Iraq is the front line in the war on Terror!

Hey, subby, try reading the first line: Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden's terrorist organisation, driven out of Afghanistan and defeated in Iraq

They didn't move for fun. Those wars led to this.

nailPuppy:How are we making money in Afghanistan?

the CIA gets a cut of the opium trade.

You search Pakistan while I check Scarlett Johansson lingerie drawer...again.

/Recycled

Actually Subby, I'm sure we have Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) forces in all three countries already. We're just not told about them.

/Good
//Kill the bastards wherever they are

nailPuppy: How are we making money in Afghanistan?

The bulk of the reconstruction projects have been handed out the same way they were done in Iraq, no-bid, cost plus contracts handed out to American firms which donate heavily to the GOP. As in Iraq, these firms are not being policed, and outrageous cost overruns are the norm. And this doesn't even go into the support services (Halliburton, et al) for the troops.

All the congressional hearings into corruption in Afghanistan have been ultimately stymied by the same method that the neocons used to stop investigations into corruption in Iraq; presidential signing statements. Congress has yet to force the issue.

In the meanwhile, the American government is paying billions to prop up Karzai, who is spending most of the money on himself and his own tribe, with absolutely no oversight. The money is not trickling down to the people, and in many areas of Afghanistan people are starving. It's one of the main reasons that the Taliban are coming back, they are feeding people the central government is starving. Lack of oversight in any building project leads to disaster; and the same is true of the nation building going on in Afghanistan.

Somacandra: Al-Qaeda has a safe haven in Pakistan because the USA's Pakistani foreign policy is being run out of the office of Dick Cheney, a meddling man whose ignorance of warfare and diplomacy is directly responsible for the quagmire in Iraq and the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is Vietnam all over again, with a corrupt US backed government, absurd rules of engagement and a safe haven for our opponents to stage hit and run attacks against our guys.

nailPuppy:How are we making money in Afghanistan?

Give em a chance, they're still working on auditing Iraq(^).

Afghanistan is next, hopefully.

/doesn't hold breath

Last One Left:Hey, subby, try reading the first line: Al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden's terrorist organisation, driven out of Afghanistan and defeated in Iraq

They didn't move for fun. Those wars led to this.

They weren't in Iraq in the first place.

Mugato:They weren't in Iraq in the first place.

While that is true, Operation Iraqi Freedom wasn't about that anyway. Besides, my point was that America's search for and strategy against al Qaeda isn't as futile as subby makes it out to be.

I thought GW said that he didn't care where OBL was? I thought Bush said that OBL didn't matter? What's going on? Are we being lied to? What would Jesus do?

I'm so confused.

Not really, but then the world didn't change for me on 9/11, only for the ignorant and the stupid. The world was the same, they just woke up a little to do something idiotic and then go back to sleep.

I just want to make sure I got this straight...

Bush is a terrible president for violating Iraq's sovereignty and drawing the US into a war. He should be impeached and we must BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!

SO that we can send them off to invade Pakistan, Somalia, Algeria and anywhere else in the world that might be housing al queda.

Last One Left:search for

Pssst: they're in Pakistan, Somalia, and Algeria.

Somacandra:Actually Subby, I'm sure we have Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) forces in all three countries already. We're just not told about them.

/Good
//Kill the bastards wherever they are

Uh, yes we are. It's hardly the governments' fault if no one pays bloody attention to what's actually going on. Much as certain people among us would love to believe otherwise, the US government doesn't actually contro where the news organizations or individuals focus their observation/questions. If for someone it's Paris Hilton's sex life rather than US military deployment and sustained troop presences, that's their own damned fault.

Uhh, what? The Empire of Ethiopia managed to take a stroll into Somalia and is still there, subby. Complete with Chechnya-style precision weapons such as lobbing artillery shells into Mogadishu and indiscriminate reprisals. So we've already got a proxy handling that mess, thank you very much.

Somacandra:Actually Subby, I'm sure we have Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) forces in all three countries already. We're just not told about them.

That'd be these guys (new window).

They've been overthrowing governments for years. Here's a farking hint. STOP DOING IT!

Last One Left:Mugato:They weren't in Iraq in the first place.

While that is true, Operation Iraqi Freedom wasn't about that anyway. Besides, my point was that America's search for and strategy against al Qaeda isn't as futile as subby makes it out to be.

You're right. It was about weapons of mass destruction. How'd that turn out?

Right... now it's securing freedom and democracy for the Middle East. Or was that last week's memo?

While all of you brave defenders of the United State's efforts certainly
deserve a flag lapel pin, you've completely missed the point - we blew it.



Immediately after 911 we had the entire world ready to go after these guys,
including Iran, who was willing to round up and turn over everyone they could
find - and they would have too, if it hadn't been for our cowboy diplomacy.

We're the 21st century's equivalent of Redcoats lining up to be slaughtered.
The paradigm shifted to the hard right and we're staying the course as if
nothing changes. We're sending carrier battle groups to fight fleas and
we don't seem to be learning fast enough. Hell, we're still getting hardons
over the next generation of fighter jets when we should be sinking ungodly
amounts of money into intelligence.

This never was a war, there is no organized enemy to force into surrender
and we should have approached this problem in an entirely different way
but no, we had to follow Donald "We go to war with the army that is a
known unknown unless we don't know what we know" Rumsfeld. And
now you idiots want to elect John "Experience you can count on"
McCain - a relic from the last time when we didn't learn anything?

See if you can figure this out. If we had been able to throw the same amount
of manpower into a worldwide police effort not to mention an equal amount of
cash as we have spent today, we could have setup a 300,0000 man anti-terrorism
police force backed with a trillion dollars in resources - and that number is probably
off by 200% by the time you look at replacing all the resources we need to restock
- and I won't even try to factor in what DHS/TSA and all the other alphabet soup
agencies have gobbled up to date.

And what do we have for this brilliantly executed effort?

More terrorists today than we did on 9/12 (and nobody is arguing that point) more
of a chance of a direct hit on the US that we cannot stop (even this administration
is making that claim) all the while where we have opened up a fatal vulnerability
for the world to see with out near economic collapse that can be exploited by
simply shutting off or squeezing down our energy supply for 60 to 90 days.

You screwed the pooch and have probably put this country in such peril
that we may never recover - and all that in a short seven year period.

Your next assignment, should you decide to accept it, is to find a way
of blaming the liberals for this - and we all know you will try.

Random Reality Check:Your next assignment, should you decide to accept it, is to find a way
of blaming the liberals for this - and we all know you will try.

You had a good message all the way up to this point.

The bi-partisan authoritarianism upsets me more than actual 9/11 attack. Our aggressive foreign policy, which NO current presidential candidate instends to change, is to blame.

The sooner we realize this, the better off we'll be. But that's OK, keep voting in the same Democrat or Republican asshats. That makes sense.

RIDETHEWALRUS:I just want to make sure I got this straight...

Bush is a terrible president for violating Iraq's sovereignty and drawing the US into a war. He should be impeached and we must BRING OUR TROOPS HOME NOW!

Close, but not quite.

RIDETHEWALRUS:SO that we can send them off to invade Pakistan, Somalia, Algeria and anywhere else in the world that might be housing al queda.

If Bush had done this, I'd have understood and probably even respected him A shiatLOAD more than I do right now, no matter how much that would indeed suck.

WFern:You're right. It was about weapons of mass destruction. How'd that turn out?

Right... now it's securing freedom and democracy for the Middle East. Or was that last week's memo?

From what I remember it was both (and some more). There can be multiple reasons for an action.

3rdLostPassword:Pssst: they're in Pakistan, Somalia, and Algeria.

Yes, and?

rosebud_the_sled:I thought GW said that he didn't care where OBL was? I thought Bush said that OBL didn't matter?

No, you just got suckered into fake quotes hook, line, and sinker. Bush did say that he wasn't concerned that bin Laden personally could do anything dangerous, and insisted the entire Al Qaeda organization instead was more dangerous.

Because People in power are Stupid:

Uhh...your chart is laughably made up. From 2003-2005, the US has spent far more than $400 billion in military spending. In fact, it's well over a trillion. source, scroll to page 4. (Also, the US spent about 6 trillion total during those three years on non-military related items).

That chart implies Halliburton somehow got about $150 billion of that $400 billion, which is also ridiculously wrong. The entire company (war and non-war related), has revenue of roughly 15-20 billion annually. source. That $150 billion figure is simply way off the mark and my guess is, made up.

Wait, I just realized...this is Fark. Made-up stuff keeps this place going. So...Big Oil is behind 9/11 so they could profit off Iraq and Afghanistan.

First we're not focused enough on Afghanistan, now we're too focused.

Go into Pakistan and back into Africa and no doubt the shillmitter will restart the "deliberately never ending war" line.

helix400:
Because People in power are Stupid:

Uhh...your chart is laughably made up....
Wait, I just realized...this is Fark. Made-up stuff keeps this place going.


Feel free to correct it with Photoshop. Now get off my lawn.

Why are people so willing to accept shiat or coarse explanations on things like "war for oil" but demand high levels of citation for another coarse explanation like "war for Israel."

Good lord. Look for quality in your retrospectives for all of your explanations.

sarcastrophe:Random Reality Check:Your next assignment, should you decide to accept it, is to find a way
of blaming the liberals for this - and we all know you will try.

You had a good message all the way up to this point.

Okay...

sarcastrophe:The bi-partisan authoritarianism upsets me more than actual 9/11 attack. Our aggressive foreign policy, which NO current presidential candidate instends to change, is to blame.

Ah but while I am 100% in agreement with you, this insanity was begun by this administration and and this administration alone. The marketing to "go to war" had nothing to do with the useless Democrats, this was the Bush Administration and it was shoved down everyone's throat in a manner that would make any schoolyard bully proud.

What raises my blood pressure to boiling (and I am guessing it is doing it to you as well) is that there is likely to be no change. Hell, look what happened when Obama floated the idea that he would meet with the head of Iran or suggested that he would remove our troops from Iraq in any sort of timetable - he got crucified. I would also point out that this was done, not just by the right, but by a fair amount of "Centrists" whatever that term is supposed to mean today.

sarcastrophe:The sooner we realize this, the better off we'll be. But that's OK, keep voting in the same Democrat or Republican asshats. That makes sense.

I wouldn't presume to think that anyone of Fark keeps track of my political decisions but I got completely disgusted with Obama (after being a very early supporter) and walked away from both of the major candidates a week or so ago.

I am now committed to voting third party out of complete disgust.
Sorry, I will not be a part of the Deck Chair Rearrangement Committee^(TM) this time around.

And no, it is more symbolic than anything else but if enough people choose this route maybe the major parties will listen to us or even better, if enough people get as disgusted as you and I are, maybe we can elect none of the above.

What would happen if a third party candidate split the vote pretty much equally with the two traditional candidates, say 33, 33, 33?

Anyone know?
Run off election?

Yup, I think we can say that this is a direct fault of not finishing the job in Afghanistan.



Good work there, Assclown

I love all the 5 star armchair generals on FARK

Trollomite:I love all the 5 star armchair generals on FARK

yeah, no one should criticize the people whose leadership brought us here. I'm sure they did their best and they'll do better next time.

let's just be quiet and let them work their magic.

the results speak for themselves, we got distracted, we got arrogant, and we will continue to pay dearly for the missteps from the people making the decisions. Not only should the military and civilian leadership expect criticism, you should demand accountability for these failures. sometime patriotism means speaking up when your country has gone wrong.

varmitydog:Somacandra: Al-Qaeda has a safe haven in Pakistan because the USA's Pakistani foreign policy is being run out of the office of Dick Cheney, a meddling man whose ignorance of warfare and diplomacy is directly responsible for the quagmire in Iraq and the resurgence of the Taliban in Afghanistan. It is Vietnam all over again, with a corrupt US backed government, absurd rules of engagement and a safe haven for our opponents to stage hit and run attacks against our guys.

He was never this ignorant in the past. remember the "American Enterprise Institute" video of him in the 90s? He knew stuff then.

But of course, he wasn't being promised millions to play ignorant.

He's worse than ignorant. He's a calculating businessman that will play dumb if it gets him a share of Iraq's $25 trillion in oil reserves.

shinjitsuism:Yup, I think we can say that this is a direct fault of not finishing the job in Afghanistan.

Good work there, Assclown

If only voting were enabled for your entry. Spot on.

Didn't bin Laden say something about bankrupting us by having us throw our military at every backwater that an al-qaeda flag shows up in?

Al-Qaeda in the United States has only one comment.



Allahu Akbar!

I really think that the best thing we could do is get rid of Republican rule in the Whitehouse and keep Robert Gates on board. He is a pretty no BS kind of guy and I think if we could get the guys with the ties to oil and military contractors out of the picture that we could sit down with the Pentagon and look at solutions to these problems. I really think that the current administrations lust with big business has clouded their judgement and that we need a new set of eyes looking at this. I trust Obama to listed to people that understand what is going on and make good decisions. I think McCain is another cowboy with a short fuse that will start the bombing people before thinking about the consequences. That is just me though. If Obama would promise to keep Gates on board, I think we would start making much better decisions on the War of Terror where we have the support of the majority of Americans regardless of party affiliation.

Random Reality Check:Your next assignment, should you decide to accept it, is to find a way
of blaming the liberals for this - and we all know you will try.



Already been done.

DaSwankOne:I really think that the best thing we could do is get rid of Republican rule in the Whitehouse and keep Robert Gates on board. He is a pretty no BS kind of guy and I think if we could get the guys with the ties to oil and military contractors out of the picture that we could sit down with the Pentagon and look at solutions to these problems. I really think that the current administrations lust with big business has clouded their judgement and that we need a new set of eyes looking at this. I trust Obama to listed to people that understand what is going on and make good decisions. I think McCain is another cowboy with a short fuse that will start the bombing people before thinking about the consequences. That is just me though. If Obama would promise to keep Gates on board, I think we would start making much better decisions on the War of Terror where we have the support of the majority of Americans regardless of party affiliation.

I'm curious why you thunk Gates is worth keeping. Here is a link to his background. As best I can remember this guy has always been a partisan and of questionable judgment. Gates also played a role in the Iran-Contra affair, a charming little ditty where the US government sold arms to a country that had declared war on us and was technically in a state of war with us.

I believe that would fall under "aid and comfort to the enemy" which is treason by any name.

Biological Ali:Random Reality Check:Your next assignment, should you decide to accept it, is to find a way
of blaming the liberals for this - and we all know you will try.

Already been done.

[smile]

Perhaps I should have stipulated "credible" in that statement...

Nestea PlungeBush said he would fight them wherever they are. You calling Mr. Bush a liar? I think he said "bring them to justice" or some other corny shiat.

I think his exact words were "Bring 'em on".

Then he went and played golf. Surprisingly, no terrorists showed up on the course, so Bush probably thought they had surrendered.

While my post is in no way serious, had it happened like this it would explain a lot.

Random Reality Check:Anyone know?
Run off election?

State and local leaders would decide it, or SCOTUS.

If it's state/local: You get whoever runs the key areas.
If it's SCOTUS: You most likely get one of the 2 major parties assuming it's justifiable to do so by law. But all things being equal and justifiable, I assume they'd go with the dem or repub if only because of Scalia's recent interview where he basically said "I don't want to hear anymore about the 2000 election. The country needed the election decided and we made a decision. We needed to end the confusion" (paraphrase). To me that means they go major party, because it's less confusing.

Random Reality Check:I'm curious why you thunk Gates is worth keeping. Here is a link to his background. As best I can remember this guy has always been a partisan and of questionable judgment. Gates also played a role in the Iran-Contra affair, a charming little ditty where the US government sold arms to a country that had declared war on us and was technically in a state of war with us.

I believe that would fall under "aid and comfort to the enemy" which is treason by any name.

From Your Link:Because of his senior status in the CIA, Gates was close to many figures who played significant roles in the Iran-Contra Affair and was in a position to have known of their activities. In 1984, as deputy director of CIA, Gates advocated that the U.S. initiate a bombing campaign against Nicaragua and that the U.S. do everything in its power short of direct military invasion of the country to remove the Sandinista government [13]. The evidence developed by Independent Counsel did not warrant indictment of Gates for his Iran-Contra activities or his responses to official inquiries.

You really need to read the shiat you link. He might have known what was going on, but he had jack shiat to do with Iran Contra.

Hey subby.. we're only told what the liberal media wants us to know. There is a lot going on behind the scenes.

Last One Left:Mugato:They weren't in Iraq in the first place.

While that is true, Operation Iraqi Freedom wasn't about that anyway. Besides, my point was that America's search for and strategy against al Qaeda isn't as futile as subby makes it out to be.

Sure it is. After 5 years of supposed all out war with Al-Qaeda their worldwide membership is up, not down (new window) and according to the CIA the Al-Qaeda cell that has been most effective at recruting new members is the one INSIDE the US Camp at Gitmo (new window). That's right, we can't even shut them down inside a prison on an American military base.

PenisGargle:Hey subby.. we're only told what the liberal media wants us to know. There is a lot going on behind the scenes.

By "good" do you mean: $$$$$$$$$$$$$
Or do you mean "gains in the world stage with respect to international politics, security, and the general well-being of Americans and their allies that outweighs the costs in human life and capital"?

SilentStrider:nailPuppy:How are we making money in Afghanistan?

the CIA gets a cut of the opium trade.

You know they cut a sweet deal there.
And whatever happened to the natural gas pipeline deal that foundered in the 90's, when the taliban came to power?