Obama Puts Off Drawdown of U.S. Troops in Afghanistan

[Tigerace117]

Your job is to produce facts to support your airballs. You can start anytime.

Nope. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If you want anybody to believe your wild accusations that the CIA is plotting to control the world's heroin, you better back it up.

 

[braindrain]

We're talking about 272 tons produced in 2002 by the Taliban controlled Nation.
We're talking about 11,000 tons produced in 2015 by the USA controlled Nation.
It was the CIA that funded, armed and trained al Qeda in Afghanistan in the 80s.
Oliver North's Congressional testimony documented CIA authorized self funding, autonomous drug dealing to fund covert operations.
That would be just four lovely facts you can address, unless we're going to get more gasballs.

Is it surprising to you that when a country is at war there is less time to check what local farmers are growing. Is it surprising to you that when the Takiban is to busy fighting the US to spend time killing farmers for what they grow that many of those farmers go back to growing a crop that makes a ton more money then corn. Tell me how any of this is surprising to you. And yes the US has such great control over Afghanistan that no one is making tons of homemade explosives or placing IEDs all over the country. Oh wait.

The US did not fund Al Qaeda in the 80s. This may be another surprise for you but not everyone in Afghanistan is Al Qaeda.

Care to back up your claim that Oliver Norths testimony documented the CIA funding operations. Because like pretty much everything else here you are exaggerating and twisting the truth.

So no you are not posting facts. Just anti American nonsense as per your normal routine. I have no issues with you not liking this country just you making up lies about it.

 

[DaveFagan]

Is it surprising to you that when a country is at war there is less time to check what local farmers are growing. Is it surprising to you that when the Takiban is to busy fighting the US to spend time killing farmers for what they grow that many of those farmers go back to growing a crop that makes a ton more money then corn. Tell me how any of this is surprising to you. And yes the US has such great control over Afghanistan that no one is making tons of homemade explosives or placing IEDs all over the country. Oh wait.

The US did not fund Al Qaeda in the 80s. This may be another surprise for you but not everyone in Afghanistan is Al Qaeda.

Care to back up your claim that Oliver Norths testimony documented the CIA funding operations. Because like pretty much everything else here you are exaggerating and twisting the truth.

So no you are not posting facts. Just anti American nonsense as per your normal routine. I have no issues with you not liking this country just you making up lies about it.

I see. You admit my facts are accurate.

 

[braindrain]

I see. You admit my facts are accurate.

Maybe try and read what is written. I just explained to you why your nonsense is just that. I know it goes against your little hate America narrative but it is doesn't change it.

 

[DaveFagan]

Maybe try and read what is written. I just explained to you why your nonsense is just that. I know it goes against your little hate America narrative but it is doesn't change it.

I am a genuine patriot. I hate Corporatism/fascism. I consider it my goal to make others aware of it. "There are none so blind as those who will not see,"

 

[braindrain]

I am a genuine patriot. I hate Corporatism/fascism. I consider it my goal to make others aware of it. "There are none so blind as those who will not see,"

Then why do you continue to make up BS conspiracies. Those seeking the truth generally avoid that.

 

[DaveFagan]

Then why do you continue to make up BS conspiracies. Those seeking the truth generally avoid that.

You cannot refute the facts, ergo you choose to delude yourself. Be my guest. BS would be easy to refute. Got the picture?

 

[braindrain]

You cannot refute the facts, ergo you choose to delude yourself. Be my guest. BS would be easy to refute. Got the picture?

The problem is that you don't know the difference between facts and your delusions.
So if it is a fact that the US is behind more poppies being grown in Afghanistan how about you prove it.
Bet you can't.
Just like how when asked for proof of your claim that Oliver north testimony documented the CIA used selling drugs for funding covert ops you ignored that as well.

Funny how of all the facts you claim you can't back any of them up. Typical conspiracy theory nonsense.

 

[DaveFagan]

The problem is that you don't know the difference between facts and your delusions.
So if it is a fact that the US is behind more poppies being grown in Afghanistan how about you prove it.
Bet you can't.
Just like how when asked for proof of your claim that Oliver north testimony documented the CIA used selling drugs for funding covert ops you ignored that as well.

Funny how of all the facts you claim you can't back any of them up. Typical conspiracy theory nonsense.

https://consortiumnews.com/2013/12/09/new-evidence-of-contra-cocaine-scandal/

"The Reagan administration’s neglect of Ainsworth’s insights reflected the overriding hostility toward any information even from Republican activists that put the Contras in a negative light. In early 1987, when Ainsworth spoke with U.S. Attorney Russoniello and the FBI, the Reagan administration was in full damage-control mode, trying to tamp down the Iran-Contra disclosures about Oliver North diverting profits from secret arms sales to Iran to the Contra war.

Fears that the Iran-Contra scandal could lead to Reagan’s impeachment made it even less likely that the Justice Department would pursue an investigation into drug ties implicating the Contra leadership. Ainsworth’s information was simply passed on to Independent Counsel Lawrence Walsh whose inquiry was already overwhelmed by the task of sorting out the convoluted Iran transactions.

Publicly, the Reagan team continued dumping on the Contra-cocaine allegations and playing the find-any-possible-reason-to-reject-a-witness game. The major news media went along, leading to much mainstream ridicule of a 1989 investigative report by Sen. John Kerry, D-Massachusetts, who uncovered more drug connections implicating the Contras and the Reagan administration.

Only occasionally, such as when the George H.W. Bush administration needed witnesses to convict Panamanian dictator Manuel Noriega did the Contra-cocaine evidence pop onto Official Washington’s radar screens.

During Noriega’s drug-trafficking trial in 1991, U.S. prosecutors called as a witness Colombian MedellÃ*n cartel kingpin Carlos Lehder, who, along with implicating Noriega, testified that the cartel had given $10 million to the Contras, an allegation first unearthed by Sen. Kerry. “The Kerry hearings didn’t get the attention they deserved at the time,” a Washington Post editorial on Nov. 27, 1991, acknowledged. “The Noriega trial brings this sordid aspect of the Nicaraguan engagement to fresh public attention.”"

 

[DaveFagan]

The problem is that you don't know the difference between facts and your delusions.
So if it is a fact that the US is behind more poppies being grown in Afghanistan how about you prove it.
Bet you can't.
Just like how when asked for proof of your claim that Oliver north testimony documented the CIA used selling drugs for funding covert ops you ignored that as well.

Funny how of all the facts you claim you can't back any of them up. Typical conspiracy theory nonsense.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/mena.php#axzz4DucrU3EU""The Subcommittee found that the Contra drug links included:


Involvement in narcotics trafficking by individuals associated with the Contra movement.

Participation of narcotics traffickers in Contra supply operations through business relationships with Contra organizations.

Provision of assistance to the Contras by narcotics traffickers, including cash, weapons, planes, pilots, air supply services and other materials, on a voluntary basis by the traffickers.

Payments to drug traffickers by the US State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies."
Senate Committee Report on Drugs,
Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy
chaired by Senator John F. Kerry



Read more: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED | The History The US Government HOPES You Never Learn! http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/mena.php#ixzz4DudP5GQV"

 

[DaveFagan]

The problem is that you don't know the difference between facts and your delusions.
So if it is a fact that the US is behind more poppies being grown in Afghanistan how about you prove it.
Bet you can't.
Just like how when asked for proof of your claim that Oliver north testimony documented the CIA used selling drugs for funding covert ops you ignored that as well.

Funny how of all the facts you claim you can't back any of them up. Typical conspiracy theory nonsense.

The Contras, Cocaine, and U.S. Covert Operations
The Contras, Cocaine, and Covert Operations
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 2
For more information contact:
202/994-7000 or nsarchiv@gwu.edu




Washington, D.C. – An August, 1996, series in the San Jose Mercury News by reporter Gary Webb linked the origins of crack cocaine in California to the contras, a guerrilla force backed by the Reagan administration that attacked Nicaragua's Sandinista government during the 1980s. Webb's series, "The Dark Alliance," has been the subject of intense media debate, and has focused attention on a foreign policy drug scandal that leaves many questions unanswered.

This electronic briefing book is compiled from declassified documents obtained by the National Security Archive, including the notebooks kept by NSC aide and Iran-contra figure Oliver North, electronic mail messages written by high-ranking Reagan administration officials, memos detailing the contra war effort, and FBI and DEA reports. The documents demonstrate official knowledge of drug operations, and collaboration with and protection of known drug traffickers. Court and hearing transcripts are also included.

 

[braindrain]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/mena.php#axzz4DucrU3EU""The Subcommittee found that the Contra drug links included:


Involvement in narcotics trafficking by individuals associated with the Contra movement.

Participation of narcotics traffickers in Contra supply operations through business relationships with Contra organizations.

Provision of assistance to the Contras by narcotics traffickers, including cash, weapons, planes, pilots, air supply services and other materials, on a voluntary basis by the traffickers.

Payments to drug traffickers by the US State Department of funds authorized by the Congress for humanitarian assistance to the Contras, in some cases after the traffickers had been indicted by federal law enforcement agencies on drug charges, in others while traffickers were under active investigation by these same agencies."
Senate Committee Report on Drugs,
Law Enforcement and Foreign Policy
chaired by Senator John F. Kerry



Read more: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED | The History The US Government HOPES You Never Learn! http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MENA/mena.php#ixzz4DudP5GQV"

You may want to reread your own link. It says nothing about the CIA selling drugs which is your claim. Care to try again.

 

[DaveFagan]

You may want to reread your own link. It says nothing about the CIA selling drugs which is your claim. Care to try again.

https://darkpolitics.wordpress.com/cia-involvement-in-drug-smuggling-part-4/

"In June 1998, new evidence surfaced, suggesting that the Reagan administration’s tolerance of drug trafficking by the Nicaraguan Contras and other clients in the 1980s was premeditated. The corporate media ignored a 1982 letter which was introduced into the Congressional Record revealing how CIA Director Casey secretly engineered an exemption which spared the CIA from a legal requirement to report on drug smuggling by agency assets.

The exemption was granted by Attorney General William French Smith in February 1982, only two months after Reagan authorized covert CIA support for the Nicaraguan Contra army and some eight months before the first known documentary evidence revealing that the Contras had started collaborating with drug traffickers. The exemption suggested that the CIA’s tolerance of illicit drug smuggling by its clients during the 1980s was official policy anticipated from the very beginning, not just an isolated series of illicit activities. If this is true, Casey foresaw the legal dilemma which the CIA would encounter should federal law require it to report on illicit narcotics smuggling by its agents. DOJ regulations state that “reportable offenses” included assault, homicide, kidnapping, Neutrality Act violations, communication of classified data, illegal immigration, bribery, obstruction of justice, possession of explosives, election contributions, possession of firearms, illegal wiretapping, visa violations, and perjury.

In 1982 Casey attempted to exempt the CIA from the need to add narcotics violations to the list of reportable non-employee crimes. In March, Smith granted Casey his wish, and drug trafficking offenses were dropped from the list.

This Casey-Smith exchange of letters stands as important historical evidence bolstering the long-denied allegations of CIA complicity in drug trafficking. Worse yet, the documents are evidence of premeditation.

In May 1998, California Congresswoman Maxine Waters introduced the damaging evidence from the Casey-Smith letters into the Congressional Record. Waters stated that the Casey-Smith arrangement “allowed some of the biggest drug lords in the world to operate without fear that the CIA would be required to report their activities to the DEA and other law enforcement agencies. … These damning memorandums … are further evidence of a shocking official policy that allowed the drug cartels to operate through the CIA-led Contra covert operations in Central America.”

 

[braindrain]

The Contras, Cocaine, and U.S. Covert Operations
The Contras, Cocaine, and Covert Operations
National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 2
For more information contact:
202/994-7000 or nsarchiv@gwu.edu




Washington, D.C. – An August, 1996, series in the San Jose Mercury News by reporter Gary Webb linked the origins of crack cocaine in California to the contras, a guerrilla force backed by the Reagan administration that attacked Nicaragua's Sandinista government during the 1980s. Webb's series, "The Dark Alliance," has been the subject of intense media debate, and has focused attention on a foreign policy drug scandal that leaves many questions unanswered.

This electronic briefing book is compiled from declassified documents obtained by the National Security Archive, including the notebooks kept by NSC aide and Iran-contra figure Oliver North, electronic mail messages written by high-ranking Reagan administration officials, memos detailing the contra war effort, and FBI and DEA reports. The documents demonstrate official knowledge of drug operations, and collaboration with and protection of known drug traffickers. Court and hearing transcripts are also included.

You do know that the majority of webs claims were found to not be based on facts right. Furthermore that the CIA worked woth people who sold drugs is not you claim. I get that you don't understand this but the world is not black and white and sometimes you have to work with people that are less then saints to further the goals of the US.
Either way you claimed the CIA sold drugs to fund operations and have provided exactly zero to back that up.

 

[DaveFagan]

You do know that the majority of webs claims were found to not be based on facts right. Furthermore that the CIA worked woth people who sold drugs is not you claim. I get that you don't understand this but the world is not black and white and sometimes you have to work with people that are less then saints to further the goals of the US.
Either way you claimed the CIA sold drugs to fund operations and have provided exactly zero to back that up.

"None so blind as those who choose not to see."

 

[braindrain]

"None so blind as those who choose not to see."

Such convincing proof of your claims.

Typical CT nonsense. Make claims and when asked to back up said claims throw crap at the wall to see if it sticks and if that fails just evade. Why am I not surprised to see this from you.

 

[DaveFagan]

Such convincing proof of your claims.

Typical CT nonsense. Make claims and when asked to back up said claims throw crap at the wall to see if it sticks and if that fails just evade. Why am I not surprised to see this from you.

My apologies there braindrain, but I didn't realize that you couldn't read. Each of the links had Congressional testimony, not CT. Sorry to burst your bubble.

 

[braindrain]

My apologies there braindrain, but I didn't realize that you couldn't read. Each of the links had Congressional testimony, not CT. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Yes testimony that said nothing about the CIA selling drugs to fund operations. Which is your claim.

 

[DaveFagan]

Yes testimony that said nothing about the CIA selling drugs to fund operations. Which is your claim.

Now, you are lying.

 

[braindrain]

Now, you are lying.

Really well how about you quote the part that says the CIA sold drugs to fund operations. The fact that you have not done so is rather telling. Unfortunately it's not surprising as CT nut jobs never back up their crap.

 

[PoS]

I am. I still have to graduate high school(one more year) but I'm joining up after that.

Good for you, perhaps you will finally experience what the world is really like and how everything works.

 

[iguanaman]

The international community was ready to accept a reorganization of global security. Obama totally blew it.

If you mean they were hoping for a break from "cowboy " diplomacy you are getting some where.

So what happened? The most obvious answer is that the Bush Doctrine foundered in the principal place the U.S. tried to apply it.
Though no one in the White House openly questions Bush's decision to go to war in Iraq, some aides now acknowledge that it has
come at a steep cost in military resources, public support and credibility abroad. The Administration is paying the bill every day as it
tries to cope with other crises. Pursuing the forward-leaning foreign policy envisioned in the Bush Doctrine is nearly impossible at a
time when the U.S. is trying to figure out how to extricate itself from Iraq. Around the world, both the U.S.'s friends and its
adversaries are taking note--and in many cases, taking advantage--of the strains on the superpower. If the toppling of Saddam Hussein
marked the high-water mark of U.S. hegemony, the past three years have witnessed a steady erosion in Washington's ability to bend
the world to its will.

https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~bmayes/pdf/End_Cowboy_Diplomacy_TIME.pdf

Bush left Obama with a foreign policy in shambles.

 

[joG]

If you mean they were hoping for a break from "cowboy " diplomacy you are getting some where.



https://facultystaff.richmond.edu/~bmayes/pdf/End_Cowboy_Diplomacy_TIME.pdf

Bush left Obama with a foreign policy in shambles.

Interesting read. But it does not address the point, except that it tends to compliment the observation that you seem to dislike.

As to the "high water mark" it is important to understand that we had analysed that this point would come at approximately that time in the mid 1990s. That was unavoidable without massively dangerous actions at that time that nobody would have wanted. So, what you see now is only the playing out of the expected. What is true is that we could have saved the cash and slowed the process of multipolarization. What we missed was a good chance at trying to take the danger out of multipolarization.

 

[Objective Voice]

OMG! He wasted it??!?!? That's terrible! When and where did THAT happen?

Pity...damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

The opposition bitched at him for pulling combat troops out of Iraq when in their opinion he: 1) did so too soon (which he then gets blamed for allowing ISIS to come to power); and 2) didn't without consultation with military leaders (Generals) on the ground beforehand. Now, when he decides to leave combat troops in Afghanistan presumably when he listens to his Generals to prevent Al Quaida or the Taliban from regaining strength, now he's being bitched at for not keeping a campaign promise and for wasting a situation he inherited?

I distinctly remember members of the GOP ridiculing him for "never letting a crisis go to waste". But when he tries to do the right thing, he's condemned for it.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.