“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:
Jack Lew -- From K Street to Wall Street to Treasury
Most Bizarre Hedging Statement Ever?
Defeated By The Taliban, Washington Decides To Take On Russia And China
Ron Paul: Why Can't We Sue the TSA For Assault?
Michael Scheuer: U.S. leaders’ fingerprints are on the detonators
A Modest Step in the Direction of Gun Control
Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda link allegations - 2008 Pentagon report
‘Inside the law enforcement bubble’
Government Imposed Disaster: Price Controls in the Wake of Sandy
Mexican Version of Obamanomics Won’t Work any Better than US Version
Paul Craig Roberts: Washington’s Latest War Crime
“Currency Wars” heating up again! What it means for you
Expansion of Directed History: Now UN General Assembly to Act on Syrian Overthrow
Pepe Escobar: Dogs of war versus the emerging caravan
The Real Reason College Costs So Much