“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:
It's Official: Facebook Is the Department of PreCrime
Internet Sales Taxes Are Economy-Sapping Domestic Tariffs
Nigel Farage: Nigel Lawson calls time on the three-pint Eurosceptic heroes
The Surveillance State: How The War On Drugs And The War On Terror Go Hand In Hand
Marxism didn’t die. It’s alive and well and living among us
US Attorney files dismissal of Swartz’s case, refuses to comment on his death
Personal Retirement Accounts Are Great only if You Can Stop Confiscation
Ron Paul: If You Like The Surveillance State, You’ll Love E-Verify
What's in the Vault?
The Cunningness of the CIA’s JFK Assassination Cover-Up
Why Doesn't Outrage At U.S. Imprisoning Children Extend To U.S. Killing Children?
The Madness of Twitter
Ron Paul: Iraq Collapse Shows Bankruptcy of Interventionism
Google's 'principles' on AI weapons, mass surveillence, and signing out
TSA: Ask the Fed for Relief...From the Fed?