“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
Did you like this?
Tip Freedomwat.ch Staff with Bitcoin
Tip Freedomwat.ch Staff with Bitcoin
Related posts:
Which Countries Can The NSA Whistleblower Escape To?
NDAA: It Still Makes a Mockery Of American Values
Bill Bonner: What the Papers Aren't Reporting About the NSA Scandal
Defeated By The Taliban, Washington Decides To Take On Russia And China
The Real National Security Interest of America
Bill Bonner: Gold 2.0
The Deeper Meanings of Cyprus
Rep. Cantor Steals Condi Rice’s Iraq Lines for Syria
U.S. Helping Iranians With Surveillance Circumvention Technologies
Syria supports Kurdish self-rule vote that US labels 'illegitimate'
Do QE Markets Validate A Buy And Hold Strategy?
Why Isn't The Murder Of An American Boy An Impeachable Offense?
Lessons from the First Jobs of Financial Gurus
Glenn Greenwald: Why the CIA is smearing Edward Snowden after Paris
Justin Raimondo: The Lies Behind This War