Is Obama Just Another Warmonger, or Is He a Peace Candidate?

The following debate originally took place on my Facebook wall, upon my post, “Obama to Send At Least 30,000 More Troops to Afghanistan!“…

RaynObama to Send At Least 30,000 More Troops to Afghanistan!

As I said in my October article, entitled, “Barack Obama – America’s False Anti-War Candidate“:

If you were seduced into Obama’s illusion of “hope” and “change” and actually voted for him, under the false impression that he would actually END AMERICA’S WARS… it’s finally time to finally admit that YOU WERE NOT ”FOOLED” or “TRICKED” by this man. YOU JUST WEREN’T PAYING ATTENTION!!!!

Obama has been very busy working on all the promises he made, and all is going exactly according to planned!

Here are some of the statements Obama made when he was still just a candidate on the campaign trail, looking to secure YOUR vote:

Speaking from Afghanistan in a July 20, 2008 interview on “Face the Nation,” Obama said:

“It’s time for us to withdraw some of our combat troops out of Iraq, and deploy them here in Afghanistan, and I think we have to seize that opportunity. Now’s the time for us to do it.”



Before that, speaking on August 1, 2007 in an address to the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, DC, Obama stated the same exact agenda, taking it a step further:

“The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”



According to Obama:

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act,we will.”



Obama even went as far as saying:

“We must not turn a blind eye to elections that are neither free nor fair – our goal is not simply an ally in Pakistan; it is a democratic ally.”

Read transcript of entire speech here:


In August of 2007, in an article entitled “Renewing America’s Leadership,” published in the Council on Foreign Relations’ (CFR) “Foreign Affairs” Magazine, Obama wrote:

I will not hesitate to USE FORCE, UNILATERALLY if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened. We must also consider using military force IN CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND SELF-DEFENSE in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability — to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities.”

Read transcript of entire speech here:

In this same article, Obama also claimed:

“We must develop a strong international coalition to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons and eliminate North Korea’s nuclear weapons program. Iran and North Korea could trigger regional arms races, creating dangerous nuclear flashpoints in the Middle East and East Asia. In confronting these threats, I will not take the military option off the table. But our first measure must be sustained, direct, and aggressive diplomacy — the kind that the Bush administration has been unable and unwilling to use.”


OBAMA has always been just another BUSH, hell-bend on expanding America’s Imperialistic Wars in the Middle East. I tried to warn as many individuals as I could not to vote for this blood-thirsty war-pig, but very few took the time to review my research!

However, it’s NEVER too late to turn this SLIME BALL into the LAME DUCK he deserves to be! We can prevent his re-election if we spread the TRUTH about his WAR AGENDA, and let Americans know that they were fooled by this FALSE PEACE CANDIDATE!

Jordan K.: Change…

Katherine C.: Ok, so I’ve been keeping track of your various postings regarding Obama and generally disagree, but have said nothing. So here goes my argument.


He’s saying this because that’s where we should’ve gone in the first place. And at this point he’s not even continuing the war there; he’s trying to end it. Bush made a huge mess for eight years! Obama is merely trying to clean up his mess. We cannot simply pick up and leave Afghanistan. We made a mess there, messed with the people there, and now we’re simply supposed to say ‘ok, we’re leaving now. sorry about the mess we made! we’re sure you’ll be fine though.’ Most Americans who think this tend to forget about the brown people over there who we’ve screwed over. (And no, I don’t mean you, Rayn. I know you’re not that type of person.) I do not like the idea of more troops going in there, but it’s like what we did in Vietnam. We picked up and left and forgot to take with us a bunch of land mines that were planted that are still active to this day just laying around for civilians to step on.


You’re reaching here. Just because he said we would do something does not mean we’re going against Pakistan. And that clip you put up for ‘Face the Nation’ about what Obama said about Pakistan before he was ever elected (I think your quote was something along the lines of ‘Obama’s murderous plans for Pakistan’ a couple of months ago), he never said he planned to do anything violent. The only thing he did say he’d do was cut off some of the money we give them if they won’t help us with the taliban and al qaida.


I think you’re reaching again. All he’s saying is that corrupt elections shouldn’t be tolerated. Going towards nation-building and regime change is way out there. I’d believe you if it was Bush you were talking about.


He didn’t say ‘unprovoked’! Yes, he said beyond self-defense, but that doesn’t mean for no good reason. We have people all over the world getting info on attacks geared towards us. So, if we find out that there’s another plan to attack us, we’re not supposed to do anything?? Seriously now. And if (IF! Because he only said that they should be considered, not automatically used), he does use military force, it’s why? ‘to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities’. What you’re reading into this is pure assumptions, which after Bush, I understand why, but you cannot judge him just because of the crap Bush pulled.


Again, reaching! He said ‘aggressive diplomacy’ not ‘war’. And you would prefer that they do acquire nuclear weapons? Even though in Japan people are still feeling the effects from the last one we dropped? Your arguments are not convincing and you make many grandiose statements, which, may be your personal views, but not necessarily what he’s saying. And I don’t know how badly he may screw up, but we’re all just waiting and watching. All we can do is judge his actions to date and sending more troops to Afghanistan is a clean-up after Bush. And even before he was elected he said he would train the Afghan armies and that’s what he’s doing now. The quotes you have are taken out of context and are very selective.

Jordan K.: Well, Rayn was saying he said he was going to do this from the very beginning.

Outlining this strategy more clearly before election would have changed voting results for the worse.

Bush DID make a mess, which is why so many people were eager for Obama to bring the troops home like he said he would. – Rayn is simply highlighting that we should have been listening closer because he was outlining this all along.

If you doubt that outlining this strategy would have changed voting results, the current approval rating can be used to support my theory.

I respect your opinion but what we’re doing is not cleaning up land mines, we are going back to Afghanistan en force… this is being explained by the need to address threats – preemptive is the word that comes to mind.

Katherine C.: Ok, but there is still a mess there which we have to clean up. I didn’t say we’re cleaning up land mines over there, but it is in shambles. And the elections wouldn’t have made that much of a difference. Right now people’s opinions are mostly against Obama because Americans always think that everything is gonna happen overnight. He is gonna pull the troops, but it takes time. People don’t seem to grasp this. We have to retreat responsibly. And Obama did say what his agenda was, but at the same time he’s not gonna rally his entire presidential campaign on Afghanistan. We have other problems right now. And how do you know exactly that it is preemptive? He is listening to the troops that are actually over there. I think they know a little better what’s going on over there than we do, and they’re the ones requesting more troops. I sympathize with you, and I get it, but strongly disagree with simply picking up and leaving. And I apologize if I’m getting a bit riled up, but it’s very irksome how some Americans can disregard countries that quickly after all the crap we’ve done over there.

Earlene E.: Rayn stop Obama bashing please

Jordan K.: I dont understand how you can build a campaign around changing Bush tactics and then repeat the same mistakes Bush made while capturing the hearts of the nation.

Bank Bailouts ?
Stimulus ?

People don’t want to accept the truth. I never even bothered arguing about politics before the bush/obama situation.

I was against Bush – I am against Obama.

I wouldn’t say Rayn is Obama bashing… If you read closely and pay attention to what she has been saying all along, the majority of her attention focuses on the establishment of power ABOVE Obama.

The forces behind the false story for 9/11, and Bush as well. Obama moved into position during Rayn’s attempt to show people some of the questionable things that have been taking place in the global scheme.

Jordan K.:  Politics and War always stir lots of emotions – I’d like to reach out to all who may oppose my views and say thank you for being a part of what makes humanity great. Opposing views are one of the driving forces of change, which is what we’re all hoping to find and prove in this discussion.

During my criticism, I’ve always reminded myself that it’s very probable that Obama doesn’t have as much control over the decisions as we are lead to believe.

The Federal Reserve and Chairman Bernanke have the power to pull the economic rug out from underneath this country’s feet at any moment. Whether they will or not is not relevant to the point I am trying to make. I am simply pointing out that there are far greater risks to our security than the arguments we are delving into. Our entire financial system placed in the hands of an offshore global banking institution has been the single greatest threat to our survival since the idea first formed in the minds of the men who created it.

Let’s all sit back tonight and enjoy Saturday night!!! 🙂:) Much respect to all who form their own opinions. Whatever that opinion is, America needs more people like you. Rayn has a good heart, and I believe most people do.

Good wishes to left wing, right wing, undecided, and progressive libertarians all at the same time. It’s not just about Obama, it’s about individual freedoms vs global coporate / industrial interests. Whatever your beliefs, as long as your ok with my opinions I’m ok with yours!! 🙂:)

/politely stepping out of this argument – goodnight

Keith M.: Selah!

Keith M.: No Idolatry & Apologetics!

Kenny C.:  It isn’t bashing if it is true~
This SOB goes and promises, and every single promise he made to get where he is now, he broke. 
The only thing i see him doing now is Pushing us further into debt, continuing bush’s legacy, and being an overall scum bag.
ensuring a black man will never see presidency again.
I would rather take some random drug dealer off the street and make him president, would do half the damage that obama is doing (and allowed to do)…

Kenny C.: Thank goodness H.W Bush didn’t get a second term, because we would have been where we are now back in the early 90’s
The internet might be exclusive for military only.
We might be controlled even more than we are now
Honestly (i kno ppl will agree)
I thought Obama was gonna b our next Clinton, coming in cleaning the messes (instantly) and good times for American Life(for most).
Now times are hard, OBama is making things worse at the expense of our future, and we have a systems of “Checks and Balances” — Totally Flawed, we need to rethink the idea, (put a 4th branch)
Simple idea really, allow everyone to login and vote for legislation, and the majority will either veto or accept the bill.

Rayn: First, I will respond to you, Katherine. If you generally disagreed with me about Obama, you should have spoken up sooner!

I’ll do my best to address all of your concerns. However, you don’t make my mission easy, as you appear to be against America’s wars, while at the same time, “for” them. My response to you is going to take some serious time and effort, so I respectfully ask that you not to just skim through what I am about to write . All of the details will be important. So, without further ado, let’s start from the top, shall we? You stated the following, Katherine:

“[Obama’s] saying this because [Afghanistan’s] where we should’ve gone in the first place.”

I’ll start with three simple question:

Since you apparently support America’s military efforts in Afghanistan, why have you never enlisted for deployment there?
Why did we invade Afghanistan in the first place?
Why are we still in Afghanistan?

Explain to me exactly why “we” should have ever crossed the sovereign borders of Afghanistan in the first place. Does your reasoning have anything to do with the Osama Bin Laden, with “his” 19 “Al Qaeda” hijackers story propogated by the Bush Administration? Well, before you answer any of my questions, here is some less-know information that you should be aware of:

(A) 15 of the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian citizens:

So, why did the Bush adminstration choose to attack Afghanistan in the first place? What made our government believe that they would find Bin Laden in Afghanistan?

(B) Osama Bin Laden was born in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, as the son of BILLIONAIRE BUSINESSMAN (Saudi Arabia’s wealthiest construction magnate), Mohammed bin Awad bin Laden:

Again, I ask: why exactly did the Bush administration choose to attack Afghanistan in the first place? Why would Bin Laden hide in Afghanistan? And, what is this Saudi-US-Afghani connection to 9/11? Isn’t our government on friendly terms with Saudi Arabia because they provide us with a great deal of our OIL (the 3rd US supplier, after Canada and Mexico)? And, since the Bush family is involved in the OIL business with the Saudi Royals, could this somehow play an unknown role in everything?

(C) And, here is where it gets complicated. In 1979 Osama Bin Laden joined Afghanistan’sMujahideen” (translated as: “Freedom-Fighters,” or more literally, “People Engaged in Jihad,” or “People Engaged in the Struggle”). Finally! A real Afghani connection! But, wait! If you’ll recall, this is the same Mujahideen that the CIA trained and funded during the Cold War to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan! The same group that allegedly disbanded after the defeat of the Russians. Hmm… Obviously, there is something a little more complex at work here. Let’s do some research:

If you’ll notice, Wiki states:

“The Mujahideen were significantly financed and armed (and are alleged to have been trained) by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) during the Carter and Reagan administrations, the government of Saudi Arabia, Zia-ul-Haq’s military regime in Pakistan, Iran, the People’s Republic of China and several Western European countries. The Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) was the interangent used in the majority of these activities to disguise the source of support for the resistance. Under Reagan, U.S. support for the Mujahideen evolved into an official U.S. foreign policy, known as the Reagan Doctrine.”

(Oh, and, by the way, Wiki is very censored – controlled and moderated by corporations, political parties, the Pentagon, and government intelligence agencies, so when something like this allowed through the filters, it’s because it is unavoidable to do so without the entire Wiki project losing credibility!)

The CIA’s actions were carried out under the military directives of OPERATION CYCLONE, implemented as policy from 1979-1989 (with bipartisan support – both Carter and Reagan were on-board), and, later, through the executive directives of the Reagan Doctrine:


According to the Wiki:

“[OPERATION CYCLONE] relied heavily on using the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) as an intermediary for funds distribution, passing of weapons, military training and financial support to Afghan resistance groups.”

It is interesting to note that, to this day, OPERATION CYCLONE is still considered “one of the longest and most expensive covert CIA operations ever undertaken.” For more on the Reagan Doctrine, go here:

After joining the Mujahideen, Osama Bin Laden went on to co-found “Maktab Al-Khidamat” (Afghan Services Bureau, or MAK) with Abdullah Azzam in 1984, which was AGAIN indirectly funded by the US:

Even Wiki notes:

Maktab Al-Khidamat maintained a close liaison with Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency through which the CIA funneled money to Afghan Mujahideen. The MAK paid the airfare for new recruits to be flown into the Afghan region for training.”

Also notice how the article states:

MAK became the forerunner to Al-Qaeda and was instrumental in creating the fundraising and recruitment network that benefited al-Qaeda during the 1990s.”

As you can see, our CIA, Pakistan’s ISI, Afghanistan’s Mujahideen, the MAK and Osama Bin Laden were partners of sorts during the Cold WarBin Laden was involved in two separate military-based, CIA-through-ISI backed Islamic fundamentalist groups that were funded and networked through our tax dollars by our government.

Rayn: Between 1987-1989, the Soviets pulled out of Afghanistan. In 1988, Osama Bin Laden split from Maktab Al-Khidamat and formed the group that would later come to be known as “Al-Qaeda.” He was having differences with Abdullah Azzam over how to proceed with the MAK now that Afghanistan was liberated. Interestingly, Azzam wanted to expand militarily and Bin Laden wanted to expand non-militarily. In 1989, Bin Laden from returned to his birthplace, Saudi Arabia, while Azzam was assasinated.

Only a year later, the Saudi government allowed American troops to position themselves on Saudi soil for the first US war against Iraq and Saddam. Bin Laden was highly against this, and began to write papers that challenged the actions of the Saudi Arabian government and US military presence. The Saudis attempted to have him silenced, and by 1992, he was pressured into moving to Sudan, where he could continue on with his anti-western, anti-Saudi sentiments. The Saudi Royals then had Bin Laden’s Saudi citizenship fully revoked.

As you can see, not every citizen in Saudi Arabia was pleased with our government’s military occupation of their homeland! Hmm… Another Saudi-US-Afghani connection! Apparently, certain Saudis felt that their government was being a little too friendly with the US, and those who spoke out against either nation were soon censored and banned from their own country. The Saudi government could not risk any dissent from foreign policy, as their entire economy is based on OIL EXPORTS:

For the sake of the stability and solvency of their country’s economy, the Saudi Royals needed to keep their oil flowing out and money flooding in. To do this, they would need to keep friendly relations with our government, and also, a public appearance of support for the U.S. Anything less would lead to chaos.

Now, to continue with Bin Laden: Al-Qaeda, a word that means “the base” (apparently, short for “database”) was a name given by the CIA to the list of Mujahideens trained and recruited with the help of the CIA to fight against the Russians during the Cold War. Around 1988-1989 (shortly after Russia began to withdraw from Afghanistan), many of the men on the list began “allegedly” operating independently of CIA direction, and under the direction of Osama Bin Laden – holding highly extreme jihadist ideologies, and looking to expel all foreign troops from Middle-Eastern soil. They were given this title and tied together as a terrorist organization by our intelligence community (aka theCIA), so that members of the list could be tried by our government in their absence (for bombings, and other terrorist activities) in accordance with law. This information can be accessed here:

Bin Laden was tried in this way (in his absence) in 1998 for the bombings of two US Embassies in Africa.

Of course, we must understand another connection between Al-Qaeda and our government: Under Bill Clinton, Al-Qaeda was indirectly funded through our government’s collaboration with Kosovo’s Liberation Army (KLA):

Clinton-Supported KLA Rebels of late 1980s Trained in Terrorist Camps Run By Bin Laden (1999):

According to the article:

“The KLA members, embraced by the Clinton administration in NATO’s 41-day bombing campaign to bring Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic to the bargaining table, were trained in secret camps in Afghanistan, Bosnia-Herzegovina and elsewhere, according to newly obtained intelligence reports.

The reports also show that the KLA has enlisted Islamic terrorists — members of the Mujahideen –as soldiers in its ongoing conflict against Serbia, and that many already have been smuggled into Kosovo to join the fight.”

The article also states:

“The intelligence reports document what is described as a ‘link’ between bin Laden, the fugitive Saudi millionaire, and the KLA –including a common staging area in Tropoje, Albania, a center for Islamic terrorists. The reports said bin Laden’s organization, known as al-Qaeda, has both trained and financially supported the KLA.”

Al Qaeda’s Balkan Links:

The Crimes of the KLA: Who Will Pay?

As you can see, just like the Mujahideen and the MKA, our government indirectly funded the KNOWN TERRORIST GROUP, Al-Qaeda, in an effort to fight a proxy war against Yugoslavia.

Now, the Taliban, on the other hand, formed in 1994 as a movement bringing peace between previously warring factions of Mujahideen. It evolved into a political party that controlled Afghanistan from 1996 to late 2001 (when our military invaded Afghanistan, along with the British).

As you may have noticed in the earlier Wiki article on the Mujahideen, that after they beat the Soviets:

“[Mujahideen] did not establish a united government, and many of the larger mujahideen groups began to fight each other…After several years of devastating infighting, a village mullah organized a new armed movement with the backing of Pakistan. This movement became known as the Taliban, meaning “students” (in Arabic), and referring to the Saudi-backed RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS known for producing extremism.”

Read about the origin of the Taliban:

Wiki acknowledges the following:

“Some basis for military support of the Taliban was provided when, in the early 1980s, the CIA and the ISI (Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency) provided arms to Afghans resisting the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and the ISI assisted the process of gathering radical Muslims from around the world to fight against the Soviets [Mujahideen]. Osama Bin Laden was one of the key players in organizing training camps for the foreign Muslim volunteers. The U.S. poured funds and arms into Afghanistan…by 1987, 65,000 tons of U.S.-made weapons and ammunition a year were entering the war.”

With just a little research, we discover the truth about the real extent of our involvement with the Taliban:

How Washington Funded the Taliban in Fighting the “War on Drugs”:

Hmmm… in May of 2001, the our government gave $43 million dollars to the same Taliban government that would be overthrow only a few months later!

What does all of this mean? Well, for one, it reveals the fact that Osama Bin Laden was at least indirectly supported, funded, armed, trained and networked with other extremists by our own military consistently over time, using our tax dollars – through the CIA using the Pakistani ISI. However, it also reveals that Osama did this through his involvement in three different groups tied to our government’s proxy wars and meddling in the Middle-East. It also illustrates the fact that the Taliban is a completely separate entity from Al-Qaeda, and was also indirectly supported, like Al-Qaeda, but was also directly funded by the our government, unlike Al Qaeda.

Rayn: To begin tying all of this into our government’s historical “presence” in the Middle East, we must understand that Saddam Hussein and Iraq were financially and militarily-supported by our government with our tax dollars in order to win the Iraq-Iran War (1980-1988). And, after our government armed this dictator, our military eventually went to war with him. The similarities between Saddam and the Ex-Mujahideen-based Taliban and Al-Qaeda are remarkable:

Shaking Hands with Saddam Hussein:
The U.S. Tilts toward Iraq, 1980-1984:

United States Support for Iraq During the Iran–Iraq War:

And…sadly, the reason our government supported Saddam was because it was still trying to clean up the GIGANTIC MESS IT STARTED THIRTY YEARS EARLIER! This goes back to 1953, when our CIA, at the request of the BRITISH GOVERNMENT (and its OIL companies), OVERTHREW THE DEMOCRATICALLY-ELECTED GOVERNMENT OF IRAN!!! This endeavor was called “OPERATION AJAX“:

With the help of our CIA, the popular Prime Minister Mosaddeq was outsted in a coup d’état, and replaced by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi as an authoritarian monarchy. This was done because the elected leader dared attempt to throw the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company out of his country, and let the nation control it’s own natural resources. Hmm… More CIA meddling, and another OIL connection!

During the Iraq-Iran war, Iranians started a revolution, and tried to take their government back to install the democracy they once had (and our government had taken away). Our government’s response: our tax dollars should pay for pay Saddam Hussein to stop the Iranians!

Can you see a pattern forming here?

If not, then, allow me to direct your attention to some less-known recent information:

Bush Sanctioned ‘Black Ops’ Against Iran to Achieve “Regime Change” (2007):

Reporter Details Congressionally Approved Covert Funding of Terrorists in Iran to Bring About “Regime Change” (2008):

As you can see, our government continues to apply the same failing military tactics to Iran, Iraq, and Afghanistan, while apparently pinning them all against each other as much as possible in the process!

Here is another example that I will expand upon later:
US Indirectly Funding Al-Qaeda Linked Sunni Groups in Move to Counter Iran:

Now, here are some important articles on CIA “Blowback” in relation to Bin Laden:
(the unintended consequences of the our government’s international activities that have been kept secret from us)


Bin Laden Comes Home to Roost:
Note that this article is from 1998! All of the politics and emotions of 9/11 are nonexistent at this point!

Terror ‘Blowback’ Burns CIA:
Note that this article, too, is from 1998!

Bin Laden, Taliban Created During Cold War Era:
Note that this article is from Oct. 2001, right after 9/11!

As we’ve observed so far, we have a repeated pattern of non-disclosure by our government on the matter of Osama Bin Laden. All real connections between him and our government have been made through independent discovery (by those with the patience, dilligence and time to sort through all of the facts).

So, the next questions are:

Why is our government not being forthcoming about the connections between the CIA, Osama Bin Laden and the Taliban?

Why has our gov’t not taken responsibility for the fact that Bin Laden was indirectly created by out proxy war with Russia (aka “Cold War)?

Why does our gov’t deny culpability?

Rayn: To answer these questions, we’ll have to dig a little deeper – starting with our government’s denial.

While the CIA can claim that it had no real involvement with Bin Laden until the sky falls, logically, we must admit to ourselves, first and foremost, that they are, in fact, professional liars and murderers. With that understood, we must realize how they accomplish these goals. The CIA compartmentalizes all of their information for protection so that no agent can be individual broken, turned, or become a threat to national security by “knowing too much”:

This is an important aspect of “plausible deniability“:

CIA agents are the MASTERS OF THIS ART! One of the main reasons that the CIA outsourced and filtered most of their proxy wars in the Middle East through the Pakistani ISI is because it lays the groundwork for PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY!

For example, would you be able to deny responsibility for any of the jihadist extremism and anti-western sentiments prevalent in the Middle-East if you took actions like these:

US Educates Afghanistan’s Children on Violent Jihad During Cold War:

According to this article

“In the twilight of the Cold War, the United States spent millions of dollars to supply Afghan schoolchildren with textbooks filled with violent images and militant Islamic teachings, part of covert attempts to spur resistance to the Soviet occupation. The primers, which were filled with talk of jihad and featured drawings of guns, bullets, soldiers and mines, have served since then as the Afghan school system’s core curriculum. Even the Taliban used the American-produced books, though the radical movement scratched out human faces in keeping with its strict fundamentalist code. The textbooks were developed in the early 1980s under an AID grant to the University of Nebraska-Omaha and its Center for Afghanistan Studies. The agency spent $51 million on the university’s education programs in Afghanistan from 1984 to 1994.”

Even if you didn’t know about this brainwashing corruption of the Afghani youth en masse through violent religious propoganda… knowing now, does that not change everything? Being responsible for the HATE ITSELF, does our government not owe it to Afghanis to show them LOVE, NOT WAR? To give them PEACE, NOT OCCUPATION? These are individuals with a life-expectency of 43 years old, ravaged by poverty for a very long time. It is sad to know that after Afghanis helped our military to win the Cold War, and our government’s actions and policies had thoroughly changed the landscape of their religion, politics and culture in the process, we simply left them high and dry. Our government moved forward in prosperity to become the unchallenged “superpower” of the world, while Afghanistan was left in war-torn shambles, with little in the way of even basic infrastructure. Running water, plumbing and electricity were never even considered something our government could help these “proxy-allies” to establish. For our government, cooperation can only be established and achieved through MILITARY ACTION, and NEVER THROUGH GENUINE GOODWILL & DIPLOMACY.

The only reason the our government is able to dissociates themselves from these completely irresponsible and unethical pre-violent-jihadi books they had our tax dollars manufacture is because the plans to make them were carried out in secret by the CIA – working in collaboration with our military. The military gave the orders to make them, but assigned agents in the CIA then went on to hire civilians and private businesses to carry out the foot-work, and devise the specifics. And, in the spirit of true compartmentalization, it is likely that no one civilian or business will have written the entirety any of the books mentioned in the artcle. In the spirit of true compartmentalization, it is much more plausible that each of the chapters were assigned to unrelated parties, so that no one person would become aware of exactly what sort of work they were contributing to, and how it was to be used. This would prevent anyone from leaking information to the Soviets, the Afghanis, or even the American public at a time when “national security” was vital – during wartime.

There is reoccuring evidence of our government’s support for Islamic Extremism in the Middle-East, with a strong desire to completely conceal it. The whitewash of our CIA’s original involvement in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Pakistan, and OUR MILITARY’S SUBSEQUENT WARS (or directed hostilities) against these countries strong indicates a desire to continue meddling in all of their political affairs (along with others), and an absolute refusal to use any means other than covert & overt aggression to do so.

Rayn: If you’ll recall: shortly after 9/11, the Bush Administration claimed that the Taliban were “harboring Bin Laden,” who they wanted to bring to “justice,” along with other high-ranking Al-Qaeda members. THIS WAS THEIR PRETEXT FOR OUR WAR IN AFGHANISTAN. HOWEVER, WHERE’S THE PROOF!?

Preliminarily, you’ll discover that the Taliban asked for either proof of Bin Laden’s connection to 9/11 (and the American embassy bombings) in order to hand him over, or a legal petition to have him extradited to another country. The Taliban also offered our government the option of an Islamic trial in Afghanistan for Bin Laden. The Bush camp refused all such offers, and instead, attacked the sovereign nation of Afghanistan UNPROVOKED, under the fallacious, false dichotomy that “you’re either with us, or you’re with the terrorists.” The Bush Administration claimed that they wanted to put Osama on trial, but this is the same Bush Adminstration that fed us the lies about Saddam Hussein holding WMDs in Iraq! There is no reason in the world to trust their judgement anymore! And, there IS good reason to hold their entire justifications for all of their wars under great scrutiny!

So, here are the real truths about the lead-up to our invasion of Afghanistan:

October 17, 2001 – New Offer on Bin Laden:

As you can read in the article:

“A senior Taliban minister has offered a last-minute deal to hand over Osama bin Laden during a secret visit to Islamabad, senior sources in Pakistan told the Guardian last night. For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan’s military leadership said. But US officials appear to have dismissed the proposal and are instead hoping to engineer a split within the Taliban leadership.”

Apparently, the Bush adminstration wasn’t really interested in capturing Osama Bin Laden after all!

Indeed, Bush admitted, less than six months after the invasion of Afghanistan, when he stated:

“I don’t know where Bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don’t care. It’s not that important. It’s not our priority.” – 3/13/02

In fact, even now, the FBI does not even list the attacks of 9/11 on Osama Bin Laden’s Most Wanted Listing:

FBI Says, It Has “No Hard Evidence Connecting Bin Laden to 9/11″:

It looks like Osama Bin Laden’s only TRIAL so far in regards to 9/11 has been in the COURT of PUBLIC OPINION! This is the one place where our governments has provably collaborated with the mainstream media monopoly, and together, have utilized the most insidious, fear-mongering and deceitful tactics possible to trump up support for the unnecessary bloodshed of Middle-Easterners.

Is this the sort of “democracy” that we hope to bring to Afghanistan? Mob rule?

With this information, we only have “Al Qaeda” left as an excuse for the Bush Adminstration’s invasion of Afghanistan after 9/11. But, without the ability to name names and specific crimes, this excuse hold little weight. Also, as Al Qaeda isn’t a centralized group and is not really “based” in Afghanistan – being adaptable, portable, spread out and networked – searching for them in Afghanistan would only be as temporary, as members would certainly retreat upon just a few losses. Strategically, it is not smart to occupy Afghanistan, as it is a waste of resources, and will not bring our government any closer to capturing or killing members of Al Qaeda. Because of our military occupation of Afghanistan alone, Al Qaeda recruitment levels have dramatically risen. Killing more Al Qaeda today than before 9/11 is now meaningless because there are more members being recruited than before 9/11.

Besides, since catching Al Qaeda certainly doesn’t call for the removal of the Taliban, what is really at work here?

To gain a better understanding of what I mean, I’ll note the following information:

Taliban Foreign Minister Warned U.S. of Terrorist Attack in July 2001:

Why would the Taliban warn us of an impending attack by Al Qaeda if they weren’t “with us”? Why would they tell us of imminent danger if they were “with the terrorists”? And, even more importantly, why would our government ignore their warning?

Rayn: As you can see, our government had other plans in the works for the Taliban and for Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan even before 9/11:

US Planned Attack on Taliban and Osama Bin Laden in July 2001, Months Before 9/11:

U.S. Established Plans for World-Wide War Against Al-Qaeda:
(Bush was Expected to Sign Them Into Action Just Days Before 9/11, But Was Delayed)

British Aircraft Carrier & Fleet head for the Middle East for War Exercise September 3, 2001:

In fact, our government was well on its way to war with Afghanistan before 9/11, even as they were funded with our tax dollars in the “War on Drugs”:

US Attack Aimed at Bin Laden in Afghanistan (1999):

India Joins US and Russia in Invasion of Afghanistan –
Collaboration with Northern Alliance to Drive Taliban Out (March 2001):

And, just like our military plans against Afghanistan before 9/11, we learn that our government had plans for war against Iraq before 9/11:

Bush Planned Iraq Invasion Before 9/11:

A Buried 60 Minutes Interview / Indictment:

And specific strategy planning before the propogation of the “Saddam has WMDs” lie:

Bush Began to Exact Plan of Attack Against Iraq Three Months After 9/11:

Why were the plans to attack the Afghanistan already written in the months before 9/11, even as our government provided the country with funding? If Al-Qaeda is really so dangerous, why did our government indirectly create them, hide this fact, and even now, indirectly funds them to fight Iran?

U.S. Funds Sent from Iraq Ended Up with Al-Qaeda:

US Indirectly Funding Al-Qaeda Linked Sunni Groups in Move to Counter Iran (mentioned earlier):

Reporter Details Congressionally Approved Covert Funding of Terrorists in Iran to Bring About “Regime Change” (also mentioned earlier):

Apparently, fighting terrorism isn’t a true part of our government’s agenda, or else they would pursue it whole-heartedly, and our tax dollars would never be used to actively fund terrorism!

Rayn: If Bin Laden, indirectly funded by our government, was no longer “important” to Bush, and if our government funded the Taliban while secretly planning to attack them, even as the Taliban warned us about Al-Qaeda, who our government also indirectly funded, and still continue to do so in indirectly, what is really going on here? If we fund terrorists in Iran, but condemn terrorism, what is the so-called “War on Terror” really all about? What is our government really doing in the Middle-East? And, what are they really after in Afghanistan? Also, what about the OIL connection between the US and the Middle East?

Some information contained within our own Congressional Record might help us with all of these questions:

Is An Oil Pipeline Behind the War in Afghanistan?

According to the article:

“On February 12, 1998, John J. MARESCA, vice president, international relations for UNOCAL oil company, testified before the US House of Representatives, Committee on International Relations. Maresca provided information to Congress on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and how they might shape US foreign policy. UNOCAL’s problem? As Maresca said: ‘How to get the region’s vast energy resources to the markets.’ The oil reserves are in areas north of Afghanistan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia. Routes for a pipeline were proposed that would transport oil on a 42-inch pipe southward thru Afghanistan for 1040 miles to the Pakistan coast. Such a pipeline would cost about $2.5 billion and carry about 1 million barrels of oil per day.

Maresca told Congress then that: ‘It’s not going to be built until there is a single Afghan government. That’s the simple answer.’

Dana Rohrbacher, California congressman, then identified the Taliban as the ruling controllers among various factions in Afghanistan and characterized them as ‘opium producers.’

Then Rohrbacher asked Maresca: ‘There is a Saudi terrorist who is infamous for financing terrorism around the world. Is he in the Taliban area or is he up there with the northern people?’

Maresca answered: ‘If it is the person I am thinking of, he is there in the Taliban area.’ This testimony obviously alluded to Osama bin Laden.

Then Rorhbacher asked: ‘… in the northern area as compared to the place where the Taliban are in control, would you say that one has a better human rights record toward women than the other?’

Maresca responded by saying: ‘With respect to women, yes. But I don’t think either faction here has a very clean human rights record, to tell you the truth.’

So women’s rights were introduced into Congressional testimony by Congressman Rohrbacher as the wedge for UNOCAL to build its pipeline through Afghanistan.”

Remember the name of the Vice President of UNICOL, MARESCA, because we will get back to him. Later in the article:

Beginning in 1998 UNOCAL was chastized, particularly by women’s rights groups, for discussions with the Taliban, and headed in retreat as a worldwide effort mounted to come to the defense of the Afghani women. This forced UNOCAL to withdraw from its talks with the Taliban and dissolve its multinational partnership in that region. In 1999 Alexander’s Gas & Oil Connections newsletter said: ‘UNOCAL company officials said late last year (1998) they were abandoning the project because of the need to cut costs in the Caspian region and because of the repeated failure of efforts to resolve the long civil conflict in Afghanistan.’ [Volume 4, issue #20 – Monday, November 22, 1999]

Three days following the attack on the World Trade Centers in New York City, UNOCAL issued a statement reconfirming it had withdrawn from its project in Afghanistan, long before recent events. [ September 14, 2001 statement]

UNOCAL was not the only party positioning themselves to tap into oil and gas reserves in central Asia. UNOCAL was primary member of a multinational consortium called CentGas (Central Asia Gas) along with Delta Oil Company Limited (Saudi Arabia), the Government of Turkmenistan, Indonesia Petroleum, LTD. (INPEX) (Japan), ITOCHU Oil Exploration Co., Ltd. (Japan), Hyundai Engineering & Construction Co., Ltd. (Korea), the Crescent Group (Pakistan) and RAO Gazprom (Russia).”

Here is another interesting quote from UNOCAL:
In August 2001, U.S. State Department official Christina Rocca met with the Taliban, at their last negotiation over U.S. energy giant Unocal’s planned oil and gas pipeline through Afghanistan. She said:


All I can say is: WOW! That’s a powerful statement! Also, as we can see, there is business collaboration between UNOCAL Oil Company and our government in dealing with foreign nations, just like the cozy relationship between the British government and Anglo-Iranian Oil Company!

Rayn: All of this information ties together pretty neatly:

U.S. Policy Towards Taliban Influenced by Oil:

In the article:

Bush’s family has a strong oil background. So are some of his top aides. From the U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, through the director of the National Security Council Condoleeza Rice, to the Ministers of Commerce and Energy, Donald Evans and Stanley Abraham, all have for long worked for U.S. Oil companies. Cheney was until the end of last year president of Halliburton, a company that provides services for oil industry; Rice was between 1991 and 2000 manager for Chevron; Evans and Abraham worked for Tom Brown, another oil giant.”

Watch “Farrenheit 9/11″ by Michael Moore if you want some background on the Bush family’s connections with oil companies and the Saudi Arabian Royal family!

Race to Unlock Central Asia’s Energy Riches:

According to the article:

American oil companies, together with Pakistan, have shown strong interest in an alternative route that would carry Turkmen gas, via Afghanistan, to the Pakistani port of Karachi.”

1998 – US Attack in Afghanistan Closes UNOCAL Oil Pipeline Project:

Suprisingly, there is even a Bin Laden OIL BUSINESS connection to Bush and the US:

Bush’s Former Oil Company Linked To Bin Laden Family:

According to the article:

“Salem bin Laden, Osama’s older brother, was an investor in Arbusto Energy. – the Texas oil company started by George W. Bush. Arbusto means ‘Bush’ in Spanish. Salem bin Laden died in an airplane crash in Texas in 1988.”

And, REMARKABLY, only six months after the invasion of Afghanistan:

Afghan Pipeline Given Go-Ahead (May 2002):
(Most of Afghanis still don’t have running water, but I bet this pipeline is halfway built!!)

And, OF COURSE, our current US Ambassador to Afghanistan, Zalmayis Khalilzad, was once a UNOCAL EXECUTIVE:

In the article, “The So Called War On Terror,” the connection is made clear:

“The first ambassador to Mr. Karzai’s government was MR. JOHN J. MARESCA, a vice president of UNOCAL. The next ambassador to Afghanistan was Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad. Mr. Khalilzad had been a UNOCAL consultant.”


With our country picking oil executives as ambassadors to Afghanistan, it doesn’t take a leap of faith to understand what is really being sought after. And, apparently, as President Karzai works with these OIL EXECUTIVES, he is nothing more than the figure-head of a puppet government, chosen by our government to serve the corporate interests of the United States.

If you’ll also note, Ambassador Khalilzad is also a member of the “Project for a New American Century” (PNAC), as well as a co-author of the INFAMOUS September 2000 PNAC document, “Rebuilding America’s Defenses.” (Others members of PNAC who signed this document include: Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, John Bolton, “Skooter” Libby, Richard Pearle). After Bush “won” the 2000 election, he put at least 17 member of PNAC into his cabinet:

Then, Bush began to make a reality the entire outline of the PNAC document:
“Rebuilding America’s Defenses” – A Summary

Bush Planned Iraq ‘Regime Change’ Before Becoming President

“Rebuilding America’s Defenses” calls for a “new Pearl Harbor” on American soil, a war in Iraq, two theaters of war at once, the removal of Saddam Hussein, expansion efforts in the Middle-East, the challenging of North Korea and Iran, and much, much more. This paper is either the most accurate piece of PROPHECY IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND, or it, as a much more simple explanation, it is really just an outline (a playbook, if you will), illustrating plans of things to comemade by the same exact men who would later gain control of the executive branch of the United States.

Here’s a Damning Indictment Against the Bush Adminstration’s Wars:
The So-Called War on Terror: A Masterpiece of Propaganda

The moral of this story is pretty obvious: Liars lie about lying, and never tell the truth! This entire theater of war that our government is conducting in the Middle-East is completely lacking in CREDULITY, MORALITY and LEGALITY! Our military shouldn’t be occupying Afghanistan now, and they never should have entered its sovereign borders for the excuses layed out by the BUSH ADMINSTRATION in the first place! And, the same goes for Iraq!

“Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.” – Voltaire

“All war is based on deception.” – Sun Tzu

Rayn: Now, to address rest of your response, Katherine, regarding Obama:

Obama is not trying to end the wars – as in, stop the wars – he’s trying to win the wars – as in, conclude them! (hence, “ENDING” the wars). There is a huge difference! Obama has been engaging in political double-speak all along, and the public has been “had.” By sending more troops to Afghanistan, he is, by definition, CONTINUING and ESCALATING that particular war! As I illustrated above, our government has made a lot more than a “mess” of Afghanistanthey have absolutely redefined its existence and future through constant meddling; and, they have also militarily, politically and culturally tampered with Iran, Iraq, and Pakistan, too! America, like an eagle, is operating from a “bird’s eye view,” on top of the world!

In order to finally have PEACE, we need to do a great deal more than STOP THE OCCUPATION OF AFGHANISTAN to make REPARATIONS for what we have already done. Our government must FINALLY CONDEMN ITS ACTIONS, HUMBLY APOLOGIZE and WORK TO HEAL the wounds it created. That is a concept our government NEVER SEEMS TO UNDERSTAND. TRUE REDEMPTION COMES FROM TRUE HEALING! We can’t just walk away from Afghanistan, and we can’t continue to occupy it, either! We must stop meddling in their politics, first and foremost, as that is where this whole thing started. We owe Afghanistan stability in the form of infrastructure, hospitals, schools, agriculture, and financial aid, NOT OCCUPATION, AND NOT “FRIENDLY” PUPPET GOVERNMENTS that sell those living there out to American corporate interests! Our government has no right to do these things!

The societies of Afghanistan are predominantly centered around the strong religious beliefs of those who live there – many of which adhere to the Qur’an, and their religious leaders. In the past, to our shame, our government has used this information to forment extremism, violence, and hate in these individuals for our own selfish purposes, but in reality, the religion of the Afghanis should have been seen the key to forming a true and solid bond with those who live there, and toward the eventual creation of a true and solid “form” of “government” for Afghanistanone actually formed by and representative of “the people,” to their own satisfaction. Our government’s “Founding Fathers” were all strongly-faithed, practicing Christians who used their religious convictions, and understanding of other religions, to come upon the self-evident truths “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. That among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Founders were sure to use the unspecific term of “Creator” in an obvious effort to describe the main character of todays most prominent MONOTHEISTIC RELIGIONSwithout exclusion. So, Afghanis already have something important in common with early America, and incidentally, the ideal groundwork for the HONEST ESTABLISHMENT of a Constitutional Republic all their ownIF AND WHEN THEY are ready! (As a side note, just like much of the Middle-East today, the Founding Fathers also reserved all of their rights for MEN only. Wow! Something else in common!)

Our government and citizens really need to stop all of this babblinhg about FORCING DEMOCRACY DOWN THE THROATS OF FOREIGN CULTURES THROUGH COVERT MEDDLING, SANCTIONS and/or BOMBING! We should illustrate the real lessons of the our Founders THROUGH EXAMPLE, NOT FEAR! If not, then we need a HISTORY LESSON OURSELVES! The only reason Middle-Easterners are so angry with us is because our government has raped and pillaged their lands and their culture for decades, just as they did with the Native Americans! And, as of yet, we have not even acknowledged it, let alone given Afghanistan JUSTICE! We can’t just keep covering this fact up with military action after military action!

Einstein put it perfectly when he said:

“You can’t solve a problem with same mind that created it.”

It’s time to surprise ourselves as Americans! Maybe it’s time we learned a real lesson from all of our government’s actions!

All we can do now that we have meddled so gravely in the affairs of Afghanistan is to communicate with the individual communities of the Afghanis (not the governments we create for them), and to help them build from there. The religious leaders of the mosques of Afghanistan have already been the “governors” of their respective towns all along, with most communities centered around the mosques they attend. If we appeal to those who have already been trying to bring peaceful order to nation of Afghanistan long before we arrived, we will have a great deal more success than doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results! If we really help those living in Afghanistan, believe me, they will no longer hate us as they do!

By the way, our military didn’t just pick up and leave Vietnam – WE LOST! But, don’t get me started on this topic!

Rayn: You quoted me, then replied with the following, Katherine:

You’re reaching here.”

In no way did I reach. The Obama Administration is already covertly bombing Pakistan! Just as Bush did during his presidency! Obama started the bombings as soon as he took office:

Drone Attacks in Pakistan:

President Obama ‘Orders Pakistan Drone Attacks’

From a Few Days Ago:

Saleh Somali Killed in Pakistan Drone Attack: US–bi-04

These strikes are causing an unknown number of civilian casualties, because our government isn’t releasing, or possibly even keeping track of the numbers. We have even been attacked by the UN on the issue, just as they criticized us on Iraq. There are some estimates, though:

Report: One-Third of People Killed in Pakistan Drone Strikes Are Civilians

Brookings Report on Drones Confirms High Civilian Death Rate in Pakistan and Misses the Point

These bombings are an act of WAR. We can call it the “WAR ON TERROR” all we want, but when it happens on PAKISTANI SOIL and KILLS PAKISTANIS IN THE HUNDREDS THROUGH MILITARY MEANS, IT IS WAR ON PAKISTAN!!! And, how long do you think our military will be able to keep up the bombing of civilians before Pakistanis demand that their government throw our military out of their land? And, if they dare try, how do YOU think our government will react?

And, if you’ll remember the links I posted earlier, this is the same approach that our government took with the same Al Qaeda as they hid in Afghanistan when the Taliban ruled there. And, just like our government financially supported the Taliban up until our troops invaded their entire Afghanistan, we currently financially support the Pakistani government (which has been going on for a while), and are well on our way towards losing their support because of our military endeavors.

Keep that in mind while I reiterate this quote from earlier:
Speaking on August 1, 2007 in an address to the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington, DC, Obama stated the same exact agenda, taking it a step further: “The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in AFGHANISTAN and PAKISTAN.”

With Obama willing to lump Pakistan and Afghanistan together, and our government historically treating them both very similarly, and our military now currently at war with Afghanistan, IT IS ALSO NO REACH to view Pakistan’s GOVERNMENT as the next target of our military (or CIA), since Pakistanis are already being ATTACKED! In the cases of unlearned mistakes and governments, history is known to repeat itself over and over again!

Look at these very recent headlines:

Blackwater Operating at CIA Pakistan Base, Ex-Official Says:

CIA admits Blackwater presence in Pakistan:

Rayn: You stated the following, Katherine:

“That clip you put up for ‘Face the Nation’ about what Obama said about Pakistan before he was even elected (I think your quote was something along the lines of ‘Obama’s murderous plans for Pakistan’ a couple of months ago), he never said he planned to do anything violent.”

You are mistaken. The “Face the Nation” clip I linked was about Afghanistan. And, I didn’t say “Obama’s murderous plans for Pakistan,” (though, it is not far off), I said the same thing that I said in this article: “Translation: NEW ILLEGAL COVERT WAR OF AGGRESSION AGAINST PAKISTAN!

Either way, I believe this is the video clip and quote you are referring to is (since it is the only one I posted in regards to Pakistan):

According to Obama:

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf will not act, WE WILL.”

Obama’s plans sound pretty “violent” to me.

And, as I stated above, Obama has done exactly what he said he would by authorizing drone strikes and Blackwater troops inside of Pakistan! And, by attacking “targets” in Pakistan with bombs, and murdering innocent civilians, he is already engaging in a “violent” WAR WITH PAKISTAN! Just because Obama hasn’t attacked the puppet government of Pakistan does not mean that our military is not now engaging in WAR WITH PAKISTAN!

You also quoted me, and replied with the following:

I think you’re reaching again. All he’s saying is that corrupt elections shouldn’t be tolerated. Going towards nation-building and regime change is way out there.”

No. Again, I’m not reaching. If Pakistan doesn’t play by our government’s rules in the “War on Terror,” or isn’t friendly to western oil interests, our government will simply have whoever is in power replaced in a coup d’état, just as it did in Pakistan in the past:

Military coup in Pakistan with U.S. support. Army Chief Gen. Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq overthrows the civilian government and hangs Prime *Minister Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto in 1979 after a sham trial.

Our military also used this method to overthrow the governments of Iran, Bolivia, South Korea, etc, and tried to do so unsuccessfully to the governments of Cuba, Venezuela, Chile, etc. In most cases, we installed a dictator. In all cases, our government uses the CIA to do this.

Here is a recent article discussing the possibility of regime-change in Pakistan:
A Military Coup in Pakistan?

And, if you’ll recall, our government funnels millions of dollars of aid into the same Pakistani Intelligence Service that now threatens to overthrow the current Pakistani government! This might as well scream CIA, who work hand-in-hand with the Pakistani ISI!

So, you tell me. Is my conclusion “way out there,” as you say, or, alternatively, are you simply lacking in information on the subject?

Rayn: You stated the following, Katherine:

“He didn’t say ‘unprovoked’! Yes, he said beyond self-defense, but that doesn’t mean for no good reason. We have people all over the world getting info on attacks geared towards us.”

I know he did say that. I DID! And, for good reason. Our war against those living in Afghanistan, along with the Taliban, was unprovoked. Neither were not responsible for 9/11, directly or indirectly, no matter how you look at it.

What Obama said was:

I WILL NOT HESITATE TO USE FORCE, UNILATERALLY if necessary, to protect the American people or our vital interests whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened. WE MUST ALSO CONSIDER USING MILITARY FORCE IN CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND SELF-DEFENSE in order to provide for the common security that underpins global stability — to support friends, participate in stability and reconstruction operations, or confront mass atrocities.”

As you can see, Obama defines “self-defense” as “whenever we are attacked or imminently threatened.” What this means is that any “plans to attack us” that you refer to fall under the catergory of “self-defense.” Therefore, when he says, “WE MUST ALSO CONSIDER USING MILITARY FORCE IN CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND SELF-DEFENSE,” he is no longer speaking about using military force to stop “plans to attack us,” but something entirely different.

Now, why and when would our government “consider” using “military force in circumstances beyond self-defense,”where America is not even “imminently threatened” or “attacked”? To answer the first part of the question: according to Obama, “military force” should be used to “provide for the COMMON SECURITY that underpins GLOBAL STABILITY.” If you’ll notice, by “COMMON SECURITY” Obama means “COLLECTIVE SECURITY.” However, since he uses this phrase in reference to our use of military force, he obviously doesn’t include all nations into this “collective” he speaks of, or this “global stability” he references.

Also note that, by “[collective] SECURITY,” Obama does not just mean “[collective] SAFETY,” but also “[collective] SECURE-NESS” (or rather, “[collectively], THE STATE OF BEING GUARANTEED“), which becomes more than apparent when he proposes the idea that our military force should be used “to support friends” and “participate in stability and reconstruction operations.” For one, supporting the wars of our allies, when America is not directly threatened, is a dangerous game. Without really being involved to know the specifics, our government runs a strong risk of acting inappropriately, or without just cause (as was the case with the 1953 Iranian coup that we covertly executed at the request of our British “allies”). Secondly, this sort of military-based alliance also defies the principles of the Founders:

“Commerce with all nations, alliance with none, should be our motto.” – Thomas Jefferson

“America goes not abroad in search of monsters to destroy.” – John Quincy Adams

“It is our true policy to steer clear of permanent allies with any portion of the foreign world.” – George Washington

The Founders would be rolling in their graves to know that our government now blindly supports Britian in its imperialistic endeavors! But, I digress!

When our government provides military supports to our “allies,” even when obviously wrong, our main goal becomes to “guarantee” and “secure” the DOMINANCE OF ALLIED NATIONS. To further this end, our government also gains a commitment of military support from the same “allies” when also obviously wrong. That is why Britian repaid us for our “help” in Iran in 1953 by “helping” our military invade Afghanistan & Iraq, even as the UN condemned the idea of an Iraq Invasion, and shunned troop support.

Obama’s other ideas about the use of “military force” to provide “[collective] security” tie into his mention of “global stability,” as well as “stability and reconstruction efforts.” But, how can military force be used to “participate in stability and reconstruction operations”? How are our armed forces actually going to “stabilize” or “reconstruct” the societies, economies or politics of foreign nations? Answer: by POLICING THE WORLD and NATION-BUILDING!

If there is to be any social/economic/political “instability” and/or “destruction” in any part of the foreign world (as Obama’s statement imply), THE USE OF FORCE by our our MILITARY (and our CIA) would BE INSTRUMENTAL IN EFFECTING the OUTCOME of the situation. However, it is not America’s situation, and we have no right to attack another country just because it happens to be going through turmoil. It doesn’t even really make sense to do such a thing as a “peaceful” and “civilized” nation. But, if you view it as AN OPPORTUNISTIC ATTEMPT BY OUR GOVERNMENT TO CASH IN ON FOREIGN CRISIS, in order to instill more puppet governments throughout the nations of the world, serving American, corporate and “allied” interests, instead of those living within the land, then it begins to make sense! And, Obama can throw “confront[ing] mass atrocities” into his rhetoric all he wants, but we all know what that means: more propoganda pieces to cook up support for war, just like the Iraqi Incubator Babies scam that helped fuel our original war against Saddam, the WMD fraud that helped fuel our second war against Saddam, and other such examples:

The Kuwaiti Incubator Hoax:

How Bush Sr. Sold the Bombing of Iraq:

Kuwaiti Incubator Babies Lie:

Are these the sorts of “mass atrocities” our military hopes to confront? This is the REAL MASS ATROCITY: OUR SOLDIERS BEING MADE TO COMMIT ATROCITIES because they were MANIPULATED & BETRAYED BY OUR GOVERNMENT! I SAY: THIS IS WAR!!!

Rayn: You stated the following, Katherine:

“So, if we find out that there’s another plan to attack us, we’re not supposed to do anything??”

Well, my last point makes this comment of yours moot. However, there is still something I should point out: INACTION AGAINST TERRORISM SUSPECTS is not America’s only alternative to BOMBING CIVILIANS IN SOVEREIGN NATIONS! Never be fooled by false paradigms! And, in case you forgot, it was our government’s military “intelligence” that got us into Iraq looking for WMDs, so forgive me if I don’t put much faith in it! If our government finds out about suspected terrorists planning attacks, we should attempt to apprehend them – first and foremost – with the goal of putting them on trial. America has laws and courthouses for a reason! And, if these suspects are not on American soil, then our government can work with other “friendly” governments to catch them using special forces. If that is not possible, then our government might have no choice but to use the intelligence gained to either catch the alleged suspects in allied nations, or to bring an appeal to the international community – not for WAR, but for the use of special forces to “extract” the suspect from the “uncooperative” nation – an “international warrant” of sorts, with the identities of the suspects already determined, the specific address(es) to be served, as well as the proof of their crimes – catalogued with the “judges” that will serve the warrant – and ready as evidence for an international trial. Besides respecting the rights of the sovereign nations, we must also display transparency in our dealings with them, as our actions may be viewed by the international community as “hostile,” “bullying,” or even “imperialistic.”

You also stated:

“What you’re reading into this is pure assumptions, which after Bush, I understand why, but you cannot judge him just because of the crap Bush pulled.”

I’m not “reading into this,” I’m coordinating Obama’s words with his actions, as well as the actions of our military. I don’t judge Obama “just because of the crap Bush pulled;” my conclusions about him are based his own actions and speeches, the “findings” and “recommendations” given to both Obama and Bush by “top brass” and “military intelligence,” the role of the CIA and Blackwater in the “War on Terror,” Obama’s embrace of Bush Administration tactics, and finally, the things our government has “pulled” in the Middle-East for decades now using our military and CIA!

Rayn: You quoted me, then replied with the following, Katherine:

Again, reaching! He said ‘aggressive diplomacy’ not ‘war’.”

Again, I am not reaching on these points, and I am the one who said “war,” as I was translating Obama’s words! As I already pointed out, America has outright violated Iran’s sovereignty and democratic process in the past! We have no right to bully them around now! And, if you’ll actually look into the fine print of our dispute with Iran, it centers around their government’s attempts to provide NUCLEAR POWER to their own country. Our government says, “NO” because the ingredients to make a nuclear weapon is contained within the technology to provide nuclear power, though it requires much further refining. Because of this fact, Iran’s government is very much dependent on the sale of its own OIL RICHES to support its nation, and relies mostly on it’s fossil fuels for electricity! Electricity is a luxury in Iran!

CIA Discovered Planning “Soft Revolution” in Iran:

CIA has Distributed $400 Million Inside Iran to Spark Revolution:

Kissinger Calls for Iran Attack if Color Revolution Fails:

Reporter Details Congressionally Approved Covert Funding of Terrorists in Iran to Bring About “Regime Change” (already linked twice earlier):

And, when it comes to North Korea, our government has the same track record as it does with most of the foreign countries that are now a “threat” to us citizens: we originally financed and “accidentally” armed them!

North Korea’s Nukes: Paid for by the US Government:

Read in the article about how “both the Clinton and Bush administrations played a key role in helping Kim Jong-Il develop North Korea’s nuclear prowess from the mid 1990’s onwards.”

You also stated:

“And you would prefer that they do acquire nuclear weapons? Even though in Japan people are still feeling the effects from the last one we dropped?”


Rayn: You stated the following, Katherine:

“Your arguments are not convincing…”

That is your own opinion, and you are entitled to it. But, if I was really trying to “argue” or “convince” anyone of my views here, I would have outlined much, much more information, as I have now done. And, there is still much that I didn’t cover! When I originally posted, I was simply trying to make some otherwise-buried information available to my friends and family on Facebook in a quick, easily digestible manner (as I am aware of the short attention spans of most individuals). You can call it a “warning” of sorts. I did not expect everyone to know, understands or even accept the dynamics of what is truly at work between our government and the Middle-Eastern world. Even with all of the information I have now laid out, there will be many who still don’t understand, and many who lack the time, attention, and/or interest to do so. Honestly, I don’t have all of the details myself, either – I only have enough to develop a fair sense of the overall picture. Noone really knows all of the inner-workings of our government’s foreign policy, along with the role of the CIA and military play in these matters (as I’m certain it would “breach national security”), and not too many are speaking up about it or even discussing the less-popular activities that have been researched, proposed then committed to with our tax dollars. The subject is too touchy and too fresh, since these covert and overt operations are still taking place to this day. RESEARCH is the only real method of discovering what has been going on with our “leaders” behind the scenes in their dealings with foreign nations, groups and individuals, and I encourage you to engage in as much of it as possible, as I don’t believe there is any real limit. The subject matter at hand is complex, and it is sometimes exhausting to sort through, even for myself – as someone who is enthusiastic to learn about our country’s historical & current “foreign policy.” And, if you add this to the fact that the information itself is not always easily or readily accessible, we are talking about hours upon hours of reading and sorting, and reading and sorting. Not everyone is equipped for such a task! With that in mind, not too many would take the time to put all of this information together for another the way that I have for you. If you begin to research for yourself, you will mostly find bits and pieces here and there.

You also stated:

“…and you make many grandiose statements, which, may be your personal views, but not necessarily what he’s saying.”

I exaggerated nothing. And, I didn’t just express my personal views – I layed out Obama’s statements side by side to show his real agenda before he even took office. I wanted to illustrate the fact that he is not the peace candidate the world is making him out to be.

You stated:

“I don’t know how badly he may screw up, but we’re all just waiting and watching.”

He has already screwed up by not following the will of “the people” of American, and the Constitution, both of which demand a withdrawal of our troops! I suggest that you DO “watch” Obama… carefully, if possible, because every second counts when our military is at war, and there is no time to waste. Our soldiers, as well as innocent civilians, are dying needlessly every day! That is why I will not “wait” on Obama to “change” our government’s policy of wars and bombings in the Middle-East. Even now, he is actively advancing Bush’s war agenda, and I will not remain silent! For that to happen, “WE THE PEOPLE” are ALL going to have to WAKE UP TO THE TRUE NATURE OF OUR GOVERNMENT!

Rayn: You stated the following, Katherine:

“All we can do is judge his actions to date and sending more troops to Afghanistan is a clean-up after Bush.”

And, that is what I am doing: judging Obama’s actions to date. “Sending more troops to Afghanistan” (and Iraq), as well as bombing Pakistan, and conducting covert ops in Iran, is an escalation of America’s wars, and the main reasoning, “a clean-up after Bush,” is ridiculously vague, like some sort of mindless talking point on the evening news. What exactly is there to “clean up,” now? The bodies of dead Afghani civilians?

You also stated:

“And even before he was elected he said he would train the Afghan armies and that’s what he’s doing now.”

Exactly my point! And, Obama also said all of the things I mentioned in my original post, and has put most of them into play, as well. And, as even indicated by the amount of troops requested, Obama plans to use them for more than just training the Afghani armies. Here are the two quotes I cited by Obama in regards to Afghanistan:

“It’s time for us to withdraw some of our combat troops out of Iraq, and deploy them here in Afghanistan.”

“The first step must be getting off the wrong battlefield in Iraq, and taking the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

As you can see, Obama describes Afghanistan as a “battlefield” that our “combat troops” must “take the fight to.”

You stated:

“The quotes you have are taken out of context and are very selective.”

I would have to strongly disagree with you. The quotes I cited from Obama are taken from three separate events, years aparts. I put them together to illustrate a pattern – they have repeating, corroborating, overlapping themes. If my provided quotes had been “selective” or “taken out of context,” I would have struggled to find repeating examples I speak of. I also read the entire transcribed speech and/or article behind each of the quotes I cited, and the the paragraphs surrounding them match their respective themes, too.

I’d have to say that your perception is what’s selective. I would even venture to say that it was selected for you. Every day, the American public is bombarded by a relentless stream of misinformation insidiously spread by the mainstream media monopoly – the same group that fed us WMDs and the Iraq War. Our information is being controlled, and most are not even aware of it, or its consequences:

Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand:

Pentagon Pundit Scandal Broke the Law:

Army Denies Journo-Iraq-Embed for Critical Reporting:

Pentagon Hired Contractors to Vet War Reporters Who Were Refused to Highlight Good News:

Rayn: In 1961, Eisenhower issued a prophetic warning in his farewell speech, saying:

“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial-[scientific*] complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” *removed from the speech at the last minute at the special request of Eisenhower’s head of science.

Eisenhower Warns of Military-Industrial-Complex:

Now, check out these statistics:

America’s Empire of Bases – “702 Overseas Bases in 130 Different Countries”:

According to the article, these bases are run by the Pentagon, who:

“has another 6,000 bases in the United States and its territories. Pentagon bureaucrats calculate that it would require at least $113.2 billion to replace just the foreign bases — surely far too low a figure but still larger than the gross domestic product of most countries — and an estimated $591,519.8 million to replace all of them.”

The article also notes:

“These numbers, although staggeringly large, do not begin to cover all the actual bases we occupy globally. The 2003 Base Status Report fails to mention, for instance, any garrisons in Kosovo — even though it is the site of the huge Camp Bondsteel, built in 1999 and maintained ever since by Kellogg, Brown & Root. The Report similarly omits bases in Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Qatar, and Uzbekistan, although the U.S. military has established colossal base structures throughout the so-called arc of instability in the two-and-a-half years since 9/11.

For Okinawa, the southernmost island of Japan, which has been an American military colony for the past 58 years, the report deceptively lists only one Marine base, Camp Butler, when in fact Okinawa “hosts” ten Marine Corps bases, including Marine Corps Air Station Futenma occupying 1,186 acres in the center of that modest-sized island’s second largest city. (Manhattan’s Central Park, by contrast, is only 843 acres.) The Pentagon similarly fails to note all of the $5-billion-worth of military and espionage installations in Britain, which have long been conveniently disguised as Royal Air Force bases. If there were an honest count, the actual size of our military empire would probably top 1,000 different bases in other people’s countries, but no one — possibly not even the Pentagon — knows the exact number for sure, although it has been distinctly on the rise in recent years.”

And, as you can see, the number of bases continues to rise! This article is from the same author, this time, writing about 2005 issue of the same Base Status Report:

737 U.S. Military Bases = Global Empire (Feb. 2007):

From the article:

“Interestingly enough, the thirty-eight large and medium-sized American facilities spread around the globe in 2005 — mostly air and naval bases for our bombers and fleets — almost exactly equals Britain’s thirty-six naval bases and army garrisons at its imperial zenith in 1898. The Roman Empire at its height in 117 AD required thirty-seven major bases to police its realm from Britannia to Egypt, from Hispania to Armenia. Perhaps the optimum number of major citadels and fortresses for an imperialist aspiring to dominate the world is somewhere between thirty-five and forty.”

As Americans, we have to ask ourselves an important set of questions:

What sort of government do we really want? A REPUBLIC or AN EMPIRE?

Choose wisely, because we cannot have both!

Sara: Damn, Rayn! You put in work on this reply! Good job! I like when someone is passionate about their point of view, whether you agree with it or not, you can’t hide from the facts! You should write a book about your view-points!

Genaire: As informative as ever. Good work.

Keith M.: Thank You For This Well Needed history lesson.

(update: My above replies have since been adapted into the following two articles:Questioning the Motives Behind the American Invasion of Afghanistan,”and “Under Obama, America’s Military Empire Continues to Expand“)

Creative Commons License     Fair Use     Public Domain

(All original portions of this work, by Rayn Kleipe, are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License, while all redistributed links, images, sounds, videos, and writings are protected under 17 U.S.C. § 107: Fair Use, or under Public Domain)

Tagged , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to Is Obama Just Another Warmonger, or Is He a Peace Candidate?

  1. Pingback: Bankster Hand-Selected Corporate Puppet, Obama’s, Entire Cabinet –

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Before posting, solve math below to prevent spam (and, copy comment to clipboard, just in case): * Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.