Home | About | Donate

Clinton Backs Plan for Endless War in Afghanistan


#1

Clinton Backs Plan for Endless War in Afghanistan

Lauren McCauley, staff writer

Presidential contender Hillary Clinton on Friday declared her full support for President Obama's plan to keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan until at least 2017, saying the move reflects a knowledge of "what's going on in the real world."

In an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, the former Secretary of State reiterated Obama's position, saying that while the U.S. government doesn't want troops engaged in on-the ground content, "we want them to help support and train the Afghan army."


#2

Another victory for the MIC. No one in the presidential race is for bringing the troops home and putting them to work building bridges, train tracks, solar arrays, etc. Wouldn't there be some profit in that, too? Oh... so much more in blowing stuff up and killing people.


#3

I believe that Clinton would be a more dangerous president than Donald Trump. And that's saying a lot. She is as neoconservative as Lindsey Graham, Ted Cruz and Marc Rubio. And given the current geopolitical reality -- that Russia has spoken loud and clear that the neocon regime-change agenda is over -- a bellicose and unapologetic champion of US hegemony will very likely provoke WW III.


#4

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#6

What?

I thought Clinton didn't like Putin.

He's got to be loving seeing the U.S. sinking into the quagmire we created when we funded the mujahiddin to fight against the soviets.

"American officials estimate that, from 1985 to 1992, 12,500 foreigners were trained in bomb-making, sabotage and urban guerrilla warfare in Afghan camps the CIA helped to set up.

Since the fall of the Soviet puppet government in 1992, another 2,500 are believed to have passed through the camps. They are now run by an assortment of Islamic extremists, including Osama bin Laden, the world's most wanted terrorist.

Bin Laden arrived in Afghanistan from Saudi Arabia in 1979, aged 22. Though he saw a considerable amount of combat - around the eastern city of Jalalabad in March 1989 and, earlier, around the border town of Khost - his speciality was logistics.

From his base in the Pakistani city of Peshawar, he used his experience of the construction trade, and his money, to build a series of bases where the mujahideen could be trained by their Pakistani, American and, if some recent press reports are to be believed, British advisers.

One of the camps bin Laden built, known as Al-Badr, was the target of the American missile strikes against him last summer. Now it is used by Harkat-ul-Mujahideen, a Pakistan-based organisation that trains volunteers to fight in Kashmir."


#7

I am not sure that this is the case. I think Russia has stopped this in Syria, and will hopefully stop it in Iran, but I doubt that the support could have extended to Libya, for example. Russia's military is one tenth the size of that of the USA. They have two foreign military bases, not 700, and they cannot match the USA head to head. But they can definitely help with countries close to their border.

Syria, was a country being attacked by USA proxies. The USA imported terrorists into Syria, trained existing terrorists and supplied them with modern weaponry. Syria was earmarked for a no fly zone so that the country, like Libya would have had no means of defending itself. This was to be backed up with NATO air-power, and the Australian prime minister Tony Abbott, for example had already sent Australian air power and had begun to bomb Syria, guaranteeing an easy victory for the USA proxy terrorists. This is pretty much a mirror of the model used to destroy Libya and would have resulted in a similar devastation as the Libya destruction project. I am very relieved that Russia has put an end to this. I hope the Syria destruction project, which has been in progress for a decade, ends here, but it is still early days, and I don’t even know how this will pan out.

Iran is close into Russia and can be supplied by with weaponry directly from the Caspian sea, and the USA cannot stop this without bombing Russia itself. Russia can faciltate the export of Iranian oil to itself and to China, and the USA cannot stop this. Further, Russia would hate to have USA military bases in the former Iran, because that would introduce a USA military presence in the Caspian Sea. If there is one other neocon country destruction project that can and probably will be stopped by Russia, it is Iran. Iran's survival very much depends on Russia, in the sense that if Russia indicated it would not save Iran by supplying weaponry, then it would open the door for the Frum/Perl/Wolfowitz/Kristol/Cheney axis to move the Iran sanctions to the next stage and begin the overthrow of Iran in earnest.


#8

Yeah, it's a sad day when you're looking at Trump seriously as a potential break with this imperial pattern between the 2 parties. Obviously most people would prefer Sanders, but as we're already seeing, he's going to have to beat a media machine that so far has never lost an election for the establishment. Trump is fighting the same forces, too.

A strange election shaping up. It's going to stress test every media theory and hypothesis in the last 40 years.


#9

CLINTON BACKS PLAN FOR ENDLESS WAR IN AFGHANISTAN.

That headline explains the one underneath it, why HRC is the front runner!


#10

Ctlz, is this for real? Or is it a dubbed fake? Could these word really have come from the mouth of HRC?


#11

IMO Bernie supporters could prevail upon him to BRING THE TROOPS HOME. Fuggahboutit w/Shillary, a con artist & self-server if there ever was one.
If I remember correctly, both she & Bill were much more liberal @ one time. Something happened to turn them both into monsters-was it dealing w/Gingrich's War on Our Country?
They were both early supporters of microcredit, which empowers the poorest of the poor to work to turn their lives around by granting very small loans to start tiny businesses & then supporting them to succeed.
I know this firsthand because for almost 25 yrs [beginning in 1988]I was a volunteer w/RESULTS/RESULTSEducationFund which lobbied Congress and the WorldBankto support such programs; we provided these people in power with information about the benefits of microcredit& other poverty-ending solutions to the persistent problem of hunger. Hillary spoke @ one of our InternationalConference closing banquets[after a day during which all of us visited many Members of Congress-it was a different House =and Senate in those days] Now I am a busy supporter of the candidacy of Senator Bernie Sanders. I wouldn't trust Shillary as far as I could throw her.


#13

War means big profits for her Wall Street supporters. Is everybody blind?


#14

Yes, it's real. It aired on CNN on April 23, 2009:

"Also, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton says the U.S. may be reaping what it sowed in Pakistan and Afghanistan. What she means exactly, in her own words. That's coming up.

Plus, the first family as we've rarely seen them -- candid new photos from inside the White House. The Obamas behind-the-scenes, as we approach 100 days of the Obama presidency.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK) BLITZER: A terrorist hot spot and a deal with the Taliban are prompting some blunt talk from the secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

Listen to what she says about America's responsibility for what's happening in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, U.S. SECRETARY OF STATE: We also have a history of kind of moving in and out of Pakistan. I mean, let's remember here, the people we are fighting today, we funded 20 years ago. And we did it because we were locked in this struggle with the Soviet Union. They invaded Afghanistan and we did not want to see them control Central Asia. And we went to work.

And it was President Reagan, in partnership with the Congress, led by Democrats, who said you know what, it sounds like a pretty good idea. Let's deal with the ISI and the Pakistani military and let's go recruit these Mujahedeen and that's great. Let's get some to come from Saudi Arabia and other places, importing their Wahabi brand of Islam so that we can go beat the Soviet Union.

And guess what?

They retreated. They lost billions of dollars and it led to the collapse of the Soviet Union. So there's a -- a very strong argument, which is it wasn't a bad investment to end the Soviet Union, but let's be careful what we sow, because we will harvest.

So we then left Pakistan. We said OK, fine. You deal with the Stingers that we've left all over your country. You deal with the mines that are along the border. And, by the way, we don't want to have anything to do with you. In fact, we're sanctioning you.

So we stopped dealing with the Pakistani military and with ISI and we now are making up for a lot of lost time.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

BLITZER: The secretary of State on Capitol Hill today. In the years after the U.S. and Soviet Union both pulled out the region, the Taliban clearly took hold in Afghanistan, specifically. Coalition forces later swept the Taliban from power there, but life hasn't been easy, especially for women.

http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0904/23/sitroom.02.html


#20

Is anyone really surprised here?

Hilary Clinton has been wrong on so many judgments--not only the Iraq invasion, but throughout the Bush-Cheney era she kept voting for their "Every-three-months- 'Emergency Funding' " requests, long after it was apparent to every thinking person that the invasion was a hoax, and the lack of strategy was a disaster.

But then HRC was wrong on NAFTA (60,000 U.S. factories closed as a result), wrong on the Patriot Act (2005), wrong on the Patriot Act renewal (2010), wrong on the bankruptcy bill (she called this bill a terrible bill when first lady, then voted for it as senator), wrong on comparing Obama unfavorably to McCain, wrong until recently on Keystone Pipeline (she could have killed it as Sec'y of State) and wrong on TPIP until a week before her debate with Bernie.

Wrong, wrong, wrong--anyone who would trust HRC's judgment on anything would be a sucker for a great deal on the London Bridge. Never! Never! Never!


#21

No one can track Defense budgets during wars, that is why the MIC loves skirmishes all over the world. All the better to plunder the treasury. The cost of infrastructure is limited and can be observed. Secrecy is the currency of Empires and the criminals who run them.


#22

The world needs Hillary as the U.S. President like it needs a hole in the head. Trump would be worse. What the world needs is someone with intelligence and maturity, someone who despises war and capitalism and everything American.

America is a heavy weight around the neck of every nation on Earth. It is leading our world towards a nuclear war in which there will be no winners.


#23

"They [Russia] have two foreign military bases, not 700, and they cannot match the USA head to head. But they can definitely help with countries close to their border."
* Not only that, but it was the CCCP's vast military expansion that bankrupted the nation and led to its collapse.
* They must be smiling as they watch the US Fourth Reich following the same path. The Reich's infrastructure is crumbling just as the Soviet Union's crumbled as everything was poured into their military and the Russian People became little more than chattels serving the military.
* All the scum that is running the Reich can see, is that they are making enormous profits selling arms, both to the Reich and around the world. The fallout from this is ignored by them. The world is getting tired of bullies running and ruining their lives. Demonstrations are increasing globally against these policies of greed and terror.
* We the People of the World* are finally beginning to BDS the 0.001%, the Reich and its Evil Axis. The movement is growing, even in the face of police [SA] and military brutality.
* The day is fast approaching when the Reich will self destruct, collapsing in its own dry-rot, if it isn't first put out of its misery by direct action of the People.
;-})


#24

From the Tom Paxton song "Daily News"
Ban the bombers are afraid of a fight
Peace hurts business and that ain't right.
How do I know?
I read it in the Daily News.


#25

"New light was shed on Bush-Blair relations by material disclosed by Hillary Clinton at the order of the U.S. courts"

Leaked Memo Reveals Blair's 'Deal In Blood' With Bush Over Iraq War : Information Clearing House - ICH
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article43170.htm


#29

Clinton's real world is one with eternal war promoted by the wise and peaceful US.


#30

Clinton is a warmonger. This is one area where she has a long consistent record. She believes in the US wielding its military around the world. Of course, Bernie's foreign policy is pretty status quo, but he would be much more cautious about jumping into war than Clinton.