We Are Buying the Bullets for our own Executions

We Are Buying the Bullets for our own Executions
self | 09/15/2001 | demidog

Posted on 09/15/2001 5:36:38 PM PDT by Demidog

"In March 1985, President Reagan signed National Security Decision Directive 166, ...[which] authorize[d] stepped-up covert military aid to the mujahideen - Steve Coll, Washington Post, July 19, 1992.

The Afghanistan conflict was the largest insurgency support operation in the history of the United States.

The CIA, in order to keep a buffer between the U.S. and the Afghanis, worked its training and supply lines through Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI). This was a strategic decision meant to prevent any knowledge of the objective becoming known.That objective being the destruction of the Soviet Union. Both ISI and the Afghanis were being used as puppets and pawns for a war American citizens wouldn't support. A war that would be executed, were the main protagonists to openly engage, using intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads. This is no fun for the warmongers and would not for an instant be supported by the American or Soviet people. Therefore, America needed to find bodies other than American soldiers to throw in front of the Soviet military.

Besides being an extremely cynical move, it is arguably immoral. At the time it was a secret war for the intents and purpose of the U.S. We were in fact engaging in war, yet had not declared war as is demanded by the constitution. The public knew that a war was being waged, but had no clue (yet) that they were actually footing the bill for Afghan training and arms.

As part of the training, the CIA inculcated the Muslims with a special brand of propaganda. Propaganda which looks eerily similar to what we notice coming from Palestine via Arafat's PLO.

"Predominant themes were that Islam was a complete sociopolitical ideology, that holy Islam was being violated by the atheistic Soviet troops, and that the Islamic people of Afghanistan should reassert their independence by overthrowing the leftist Afghan regime propped up by Moscow." - Dilip Hiro, "Fallout from the Afghan Jihad," Inter Press Services, 21 November 1995.

The CIA, being the CIA, didn't stop supporting the Muslim jihad movement once the Soviet's withdrew from Afghanistan. They continued to support the Islamic jihad via Pakistan's ISI. And it believed the new Muslim republics which had sprouted up in the crumbling former Soviet States, were serving its purpose. A void needed to be filled and as long as it wasn't communism, this was fine. Or was it?

An "unfortunate" heroin trade was cropping up from within these Muslim republics. While American warmongers like their experimental wars without name or congressional approval, they are dangerous. They can blow up in their own faces as is evidenced by the mother of all secret war actions "Iran Contra." It wasn't that anything was that unusual about Iran Contra, it was that it had become public in an embarrassing way and was used as political capital by the democrats.

While Reagan had done a great job of giving the war mongers free reign, he had also provided the War Party a perfect excuse for intervening in even more countries abroad: the war on drugs.

Money ear-marked for the war on drugs is virtually limitless compared to the CIA funded excursions of pre drug war days. As an example of this, examine the current budget for the war on drugs. It tops out at roughly 50 Billion dollars - an amount one hundred fifty times greater than the entire counter-intelligence budget. If you are starting to see a priority dilemma, you're not alone.

After the fall of the Soviet Union, the new bogey man was being hyped. That is not to say there wasn't a huge new heroin trade. But it is of dubious authority and interest which compelled us to act. It is probable that the CIA, DEA and everyone else on the planet knew that going after the supply lines wouldn't result in any noticeable decrease in domestic drug use but the hysteria over the drug trade served a useful purpose. And it was arguable that our care and feeding of the fanatic jihad movement had actually exacerbated this problem.

The U.S. has a particularly bad habit of ignoring the problems it creates. Consider the Iran hostage crisis. It had culminated from the effects of our own bad policy

In the spring of 1953, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) made plans to topple Mossadegh from power, claiming the Iranian prime minister was scheming to let the Soviet Union's communists regain much of the old Russian control within Iran. The CIA's plan for getting involved in Iran's internal political affairs was called Operation Ajax. In the spring and early summer of 1953, CIA agents hired mobs of Iranians to stir up trouble throughout the country. The CIA sponsored uprising against Mossadegh and his nationalists began in mid-August, and on August 19 he was forced to flee. He was arrested in flight, and was sentenced to three years in prison.
While the shah seemed to have triumphed, the strong current of anti-Americanism grew as word began to leak out about the secret role played by the United States in keeping the shah on his throne. The shah ignored any misgivings his subjects might have had about American intervention. Instead he seemed more determined than ever to stamp out any opposition to his leadership that might remain among his people. The shah further protected his dictatorial reign by signing oil agreements with several European countries as well as the United States. These agreements assured Iran of more than sufficient income to create economic prosperity. Unfortunately, most of this money was used by the shah, his aides, and other wealthy Iranian businessmen before the poor could benefit from any of it.
US-Iranian Relations and the Hostage Crisis

Unlike recent terrorist actions, the students in Tehran actually had demands. The Shah, whom we had supported to the extreme detriment of the Iranian people, (we had in fact put him in power after taking over the country in order to keep supply lines to the Soviet Union open during W.W.II) had terrorized the country and ruled with an iron fist. Finally, after the Shah had left Iran in an act of self-exile (he probably would have been put on trial for his criminal acts otherwise) and the U.S.'s admission of the Shah into the country for cancer treatment, students stormed the U.S. embassy and took everyone there hostage.

The students issued their demands in February of 1980:

.. the return of the shah to Iran for trial, the return of the shah's wealth to the Iranian people, an admission of guilt by the United States for its past actions in Iran, plus an apology and a promise not to interfere in Iran's affairs in the future.

Arguably, the policy to never concede to the demands of terrorists is sound. The basis of such a policy is that one never reward criminal acts. However, that policy can hardly be morally justified when the criminal act is in response to years worth of criminal acts perpetuated by, in this case, the U.S. itself.

The Hostage Crisis was an epic blunder by U.S. policy makers on every level. It was a crisis created by U.S. meddling. The refusal of the U.S. to admit it's own mistakes was an act of hubris which angered the entire Muslim world. Some claim that it was Carter's "appeasement" that prolonged the crisis. This is a convenient thing to say but Iran wasn't appeased. Carter met none of their demands.

It should be noted that the U.S. had decided to get involved in Afghanistan after Afghanistan started to court Iran and the Soviet Union diplomatically. This worried U.S. foreign policy makers. They were afraid that the Soviet Union would have too much influence in the region. And the U.S., having totally blown it's relationship with Iran, began supporting one Saddam Husein who had already invaded Iran by the time the hostages were released in 1981. It was with the help of the U.S. that one of the more protracted and bloody wars occurred in the region. This too would come back to haunt us when after supplying Hussein with equipment and training to fight Iran, he would invade Kuwait. And even that invasion was precipitated by a major diplomatic blunder by a U.S. ambassador who virtually invited Hussein to attack by insinuating that the U.S. would not be concerned were an invasion to occur.

That the U.S. has put expediency over honor should be patently obvious. The political loyalty that the U.S. has offered to tyrants and dictators boggles the mind. This at the expense of whatever nation in question. Rather than build relationships which transcend leaders, the U.S. has specifically targeted individual leaders. While it is obvious that these tyrants in many cases appease us only to receive enough technology and military training to blow us off at some later date, it is less obvious why the U.S. continues to put its trust in religious fanatics who spend the bulk of their time plotting ways to exterminate their own citizens. So far, the return on such investments has resulted in thousands upon thousands of American civilians and servicemen being killed. (And this doesn't include Tuesday's victims) And who has been protected? The only thing being protected is the corporate interests of a small group of American and European Oil companies. And it's being done under the guise of "regional stability." Does the result of U.S. foreign policy look stable to you?

In Afghanistan, the Taliban, including our nemesis Osama Bin Laden, rules the nation. They are notorious for their abuse of women and anyone perceived to be non fundamentalist. In conjunction with Libya, Pakistan, Iraq and Iran, they train the bulk of the worlds terrorists. Expertise they first obtained from our own CIA.

In 1998, President Clinton announced that Bin Laden was "definitely" responsible for the embassy bombings. And he lobbed cruise missiles at unspecified targets within Afghanistan as well as an Aspirin factory in Sudan. Perhaps the latter was to deprive middle eastern countries the remedy for headaches inflicted upon diplomats who suffered from U.S. foreign policy under Clinton. Whatever the reason, the factory owners sued the U.S. and won. The CIA's studious discovery of "Round-UP" weed killer outside the factory gates, wasn't considered proper justification to send a million dollar cruise missile into the facility. Another blunder.

Yet even so, after the "discovery" of Bin Laden's guilt, the U.S. was sending over 100 million dollars in "humanitarian aid" to Afghanistan. Is this sane? In a country where a days labor costs pennies, how far will 100 million dollars go? How will it be spent? Afghanistan has virtually no infrastructure and it's main hobbies are hitting severed goats heads with sticks while on horseback and training terrorists.

Take a wild guess where that money is going. It's not goats heads. When the U.N tried to convince Taliban leaders to allow their aid to go directly to the citizens who needed it, they told the U.N. to pound sand and pointed them to the desert where it lived. The U.S. continued to send humanitarian aid to a known enemy and terrorist of the United States even though the fact it was not spending any of that money on it's own citizens was known.

The Saturday meeting, to be followed by more talks in the next two  days, was held after 
the Taliban asked for further negotiations. The WFP's suspension of the project deprives 
nearly 300,000 city residents of subsidized bread. The WFP says it needs to know who 
is actually receiving the bread, and suspects that rampant corruption diverts much of the 
aid from the poorest recipients.

http://www.afghansnet.com/news/allnews/article_2001_06_17_0356.html

Worse, is the fact that Osama Bin Laden whom, it was announced on Tuesday, is the new Afghanistan Minister of Defense, has been known for terrorist acts against the U.S. since at least 1993.

In Somalia in 1993 the now-infamous Osama bin Laden trained the Somali tribesmen who conducted ambushes of U.S.
peacekeeping forces in support of Somali clan leader Moham-med Farah Aideed. The result of the attack was 18 dead U.S. Army Rangers and U.S. withdrawal from Somalia. Osama bin Laden, a Saudi, did not merely object to U.S. intervention in Somalia. His main reason for attacking U.S. targets was the American presence in Saudi Arabia and Washington's sup-port for Israel. Bin Laden was allegedly linked to the 1996 truck bombing of the U.S. military apartment complex, Khobar Towers, in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. airmen and wounded 515 others. He was also allegedly linked to the simultaneous bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanza-nia in 1998 and other attacks.

DOES U.S. INTERVENTION OVERSEAS BREED TERRORISM? - The Historical Record - Ivan Eland

Clinton leaves office. Breathe a sigh of relief. Bush isn't going to continue this stupid policy is he? Yup. In May of this year in fact, Colin Powell announced that he was sending 43 million dollars to Afghanistan. An increase from the previous year.

When Neville Chamberlain appeased the Nazi's he made a very big mistake according to some historians. But when we do it? There's a very good reason according to War Party supporters. The Indian press wasn't so generous last may:

"Yet, in the name of its war against opium, the Bush administration has been providing aid to 
the Taliban regime, reportedly to the tune of $43 million. Unless, the UN supported 
sanctions against the Taliban receive worldwide support, we shall be guilty of committing
a historical mistake - as costly as Chamberlain's policy of appeasement towards Hitler."

http://www.indian-express.com/ie20010525/ed2.html

And yesterday, Colin Powell again announced stunning decisions from the State Department.

1. Sanctions were being lifted regarding Pakistan. They were put there in the first place because Pakistan had the sheer audacity to develop it's own nuclear weapons and test them.

2. The U.S. is sending Pakistan 20 million dollars in aid.

"We will soon hand over a list to the Pakistan government regarding possible assistance they can provide. We have also prepared a list for Taliban and will see how they can help us", [Powell] said. http://paknews.com/top.php?id=1&date1=2001-09-14

Pakistan is the only nation in the world that has full diplomatic relations with Afghanistan, the nation that it and the CIA trained to battle the Soviet Union. Given America's difficulties remaining loyal, do you believe that Pakistan won't stab the U.S. as soon as it turns its back? It is amazing that the CIA believes it has Pakistan under control. We believed we had Iran under control as well and Iran blew up in our faces.

Harry Wu is no stranger to Americans. In some ways, he is more American than many Americans due to his untiring devotion to freedom. Wu is no stranger to American policy blunders. He lived them. His former countrymen suffer under the iron fist of a communist regime that executes over 2000 citizens a year for crimes ranging from murder to tax evasion. His efforts to expose China's "laogai", (concentration camps where atrocities occur that rival the Nazi Holocaust), are nothing short of heroic. Wu is critical of America's interventionism too. And for good reason. It is helping to keep the communists in power. Something that 30 years ago would have been unthinkable. It is also extremely dangerous to America in the long run.

China's deplorable record on human rights cannot be "redeemed" by the economic progress that took place under the late Deng Xiaoping, Wu stated. "Deng is finished. Communism goes on. But why is the Butcher of Beijing applauded as a hero in your country? Why? Because your companies want to make money there. Your companies and politicians do not care about slave labor. They do not care about the execution of the innocent. They do not care about human rights. They care about copyrights and national security. But what they have done is to help turn China into an economic and military giant. But it is still a Communist giant which crushes human beings."
Wu also noted that former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger recommends doing more and more business with China. "This man makes a lot of money in China. He is not concerned about human suffering. He is concerned about money and strategy."
He pointed out that China is the only nation which now has the capability (and the will) to launch intercontinental ballistic missiles against the United States. And the United States, he said, is helping China aim the dagger at its own throat. "The White House is no longer the White House. It is the Yellow House," Wu said. "The United States is undermining its own security and aiding the murderers and butchers of Beijing.
Harry Wu Tells of China's Continuing Horrors (Excerpts from Dr. Wu's address at the Roman Forum on February 23, 1997. - Thomas A. Droleskey

To those who don't want to face the suicidal nature of American foreign policy, such words infuriate. We are told often that such talk smacks of blaming the victim upon whom the crime was committed. That analogy only works if the victim is the person being blamed. But that is not what is occurring here. In the case of the World Trade Center attacks, the innocent victims are the people who worked and visited the building and suffered the consequences. Blame for America's foreign policy cannot be placed at their feet. It is to be placed at the feet of America's foreign policy wonks, Congressional leaders and Presidents who give and carry out the insane advice of the warmongers and petty meddlers. The everyday American no longer has even an iota of influence on these monsters. And monsters they are due to their pathological ability to compartmentalize and rationalize the death and destruction caused by these policies. Policies which suck up billions of taxpayer dollars at gunpoint, and give them to tyrants around the world.

In a rational environment, some of America's leaders would have been charged with war crimes and held accountable for their actions. Bill Clinton was indicted for war crimes but because he was backed by the warmongers abroad, no invading force surrounded his home and dragged him kicking and screaming to the Hague as was Slovidan Milosivech earlier this year.

In China, those who have suffered execution at the hands of the state, are finally given back to their families along with a bill for the single bullet used to carry out their murder. This according to Harry Wu who has risked his life to document that information.

In America, the Congress by way of the income tax, has charged its citizens for the bullets ahead of time and then sat back and waited for the execution to occur afterwards. You and I are personally buying the bullets ( plane tickets, box cutters, video cameras, flight training) with our own sweat and blood. It can't be said that we paid for it with our own money because these same warmongers in Congress do not believe it was our money to begin with. They have coerced our employers to take this money from us before we can use it for our own causes. It is only accounting slight of hand which makes one believe that it was money earned. It looks that way on your pay stub, but only a thief or an imbecile would suggest that money which you never received could be considered your income.

So perhaps we are to be forgiven for allowing "our" hard earned money be sent directly into Osama Bin Laden's pockets. But shall our government be forgiven for making us buy the bullets from our future executioners? At least the Chinese can protest the bill.

TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs
KEYWORDS:

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 421-437 next last

1 posted on 09/15/2001 5:36:38 PM PDT by Demidog (rfisk@lycos.com)

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: sendtoscott,tex-oma,AKBear,Samaritan,Sandy,tpaine,Alan Chapman,kristinn,OWK

bump

2 posted on 09/15/2001 5:38:18 PM PDT by Demidog

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Madame Axe,AuntB,LSJohn,DAnconia55,Senator Pardek,B.O. Plenty,Cato,annalex,Uriel1975

bump

3 posted on 09/15/2001 5:40:56 PM PDT by Demidog

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Revel,Rowdee,AMMON-CENTRIST,Leonf,Ada Coddington,dwc,dc hole,Tarakotchi

bump

4 posted on 09/15/2001 5:44:28 PM PDT by Demidog

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #5 Removed by Moderator

Comment #6 Removed by Moderator

To: Demidog

That objective being the destruction of the Soviet Union.

What an idiotic statement. There was never any threat to the physical safety of the Soviet Union from Afghanistan, with possible exception of adjacent Central Asian Republics.

Assistance to the anti-Soviet forces in Afghanistan played an arguably major role in the demise of the evil empire of the Soviet Union. Yes, some of that assistance seems to have backfired, with our former friends turning on us.

This should not be surprising. Same thing happened in WW2. Without our assistance, it is extremely unlikely the Russians could have defeated Hitler. Our assisting them in crushing a common enemy led directly to their confronting us in the next conflict, the Cold War.

Neither of these episodes should lead to great second thoughts. Defeating Hitler was important enough to justify an alliance even with Stalin. Defeating the Soviet Union was important enough to justify a temporary alliance with fundementalist Moslems. Right now we face the possibility of a single atomic attack. However, for 40 years we faced the daily possibility of total atomic annihlation by thousands of bombs. The Russian repulse in Afghanistan significantly contributed to the end of that state of affairs.

7 posted on 09/15/2001 5:50:04 PM PDT by Restorer

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: D Joyce

I have no clue as I'm ashamed to say what a PDD25 is. :)

However, the fact that Clinton made sure to say to the world "support Bush whatever he does" is a bit out of character. Why I wonder?

8 posted on 09/15/2001 5:50:13 PM PDT by Demidog

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Demidog

Good post. Thanks.

9 posted on 09/15/2001 5:52:38 PM PDT by Inspector Harry Callahan

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Demidog

This is an excellent essay and brings up important points in a cogent manner. It's one of the best essays posted here since Black Tuesday.

The concept you have documented is called blowback, and hard-nosed realists retired from the intelligence community have been warning about it for a decade. Now it's finally come home as they predicted.

For some unexplored corners of our China policy, read Who Sold Us Out to China: A Study of the Sino-American Relationship. Some of the story is in there.

10 posted on 09/15/2001 5:55:36 PM PDT by Publius

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Restorer

What an idiotic statement.

I agree. It was made by our government. I am simply telling you what they claimed the objective was.

11 posted on 09/15/2001 5:59:40 PM PDT by Demidog

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: Demidog

btt

13 posted on 09/15/2001 6:03:33 PM PDT by sendtoscott

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Demidog

the fact that Clinton made sure to say to the world "support Bush whatever he does" is a bit out of character.

I beg to differ.
This piece of despicable human waste, is a lot of things, but he is no dummy.
He knows the mood of the American people and he's going to play right into it.
He never led the Country, he stuck his finger in the wind and told people what they wanted to hear.
Bill Clinton knows what the people want to hear right now, hence his "support" for Bush's actions.

I love the irony that Bill's legacy will be

"I did not have sex with that women..." B. Clinton

"And soon, the people who knocked these buildings down, will hear from ALL of US!" President G.W. Bush

14 posted on 09/15/2001 6:04:19 PM PDT by SAMWolf

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Restorer

"Right now we face the possibility of a single atomic attack. However, for 40 years we faced the daily possibility of total atomic annihlation by thousands of bombs. "

somehow I think the Russians are human...

15 posted on 09/15/2001 6:07:37 PM PDT by Mr.E

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: holycabinet

I am wrestling whether we should be looking for the truth in this...

Always look for the truth - your country is more important than your government. If they were truly patriots, the people in your government would agree.

16 posted on 09/15/2001 6:09:39 PM PDT by sendtoscott

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Publius

Thank you much.

17 posted on 09/15/2001 6:11:45 PM PDT by Demidog

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: holycabinet

The word must get out. We should support our countrymen. It is nut supporting your fellow American by fomenting more bad policy which is bound to get some of them killed.

They may get mad. I'm not concerned with that.

18 posted on 09/15/2001 6:14:21 PM PDT by Demidog

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

Comment #19 Removed by Moderator

Comment #20 Removed by Moderator

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 421-437 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search

News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794