“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
(Visited 34 times, 1 visits today)
Related posts:
Threat from China Is Being Hyped
Jim Rogers: 'I Suspect They’ll Take the Pension Plans Next; I'm Taking Preparations'
“Are You Willing to Die So That the CIA . . .
Jim Bovard: The Pro-War Media Deserve Criticism, Not Sainthood
Jacob Hornberger: From Crises Comes Leviathan
Ron Paul: If You Like The Surveillance State, You’ll Love E-Verify
Do Immigrants Have the Right to Pursue Happiness?
Australia Joins The War On Cash While Venezuela Backtracks Cash Ban
Ron Paul: House Chooses New Cold War With Russia
Pepe Escobar: Burn, burn - Africa's Afghanistan
Where Will QE3 Take Us?
War Profiteers, Slavery, and the Hypocrisy of Imperialism
The American Democracy Pitch
"Tax Justice” Report Provides Renewed Justification for Offshore Crackdown
Where, Oh Where Are People Going to Go to Escape the Clutches of Expanding Government?