“Isn’t it shocking that Obama has threatened to change American policy just because Karzai is being difficult? Should a policy that allegedly has fulfilled US vital security interests be drastically altered because of mere personal animosity? Yet we have been down this erratic policy road before. The Obama administration argued that keeping a residual postwar US military force in Iraq was vitally necessary, only to nix a settlement when the Iraqi government refused to exempt US soldiers from Iraqi law in the event they committed crimes—a rather imperial request to say the least. We can thus surmise that perhaps such residual occupation forces were never very vital to US security.”
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=4664
Related posts:
Paul Craig Roberts: Washington Thinks You Are Stupid
American Cops Don't Belong in Canada
Trump Wants to Make It Easier to Start a Nuclear War. This Should Petrify Us
U.S. Officials Are Above the Law of Nations and Ordinary Laws
Gerald Celente: Sneak Peek At New Trends Journal & Boston Tragedy
Bankruptcy Litigation Does Not Generate New Wealth
What Happens After the Housing Bubble Reflates?
Mining Stocks: Fool’s Gold or Diamonds in the Rough?
On The Fed's (Tentative) End to Bond Purchases in October
Condi Rice Is Expert At Obscuring Truth
Millennials Don’t Trust Uncle Sam, and That’s Good
Jacob Hornberger: The Big Obstacle to Peace in Korea
Will Facebook Bring Down the Government?
Pardon Me? It isn’t Snowden Who Needs Clemency
Boston Herald: Scandal-ridden FBI must be abolished
