Subject: »NEWS AROUND THE WORLD

Now both the Russians and the Americans have failed once in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a total failure, a second Vietnam.

I wasnt meaning about the exit or failure on the attack. But on the logic inside this attack.

i mean, if you are attacked by Jhon, i would understand that you react attacking Jhon ( it dosent mind if you win or lose, i would understand your reaction). But if your reaction, after being attacked by Jhon, is to attack paul, it would be a lack of logic

So after the attack to the Twin Tower, made by Jhon ( the talibans), i understand USA attacking Jhon ( Afghanistan), but i dont understand USA attacking paul ( Irak). Well, i understand there must be other hidden reasons, but the official reasons are lack of logic

I understand what you meant, no need to explain. All I'm saying is that invading Afghanistan was an emotional political decision, instead of rationalizing the situation and then pick whatever is most favorable for the States. They could have known Afghanistan was going to fail. They could have avoided the disgrace.

Defeating the Taliban on the short run was easy, just like Assad could be defeated fairly easy in the case of an international coalition. The point is what happens next. They were not prepared for post-Taliban Afghanistan (though the Taliban was never really gone) and they are not prepared for post-Assad Syria. And I'm not even blaming them for not being ready for that, one cannot be prepared for such a mess. That's why they shouldn't get in the mess in the first place. I hope the Americans have learned that from Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. I hope they have had enough war.

So I surely hope the Congress stops that hypocrite in the White House. For America's sake.

but i dont understand USA attacking paul ( Irak). Well, i understand there must be other hidden reasons, but the official reasons are lack of logic

Let's say that there are more powerfull organisations that benefit from chaos in the middle east and then I mean especially people behind big oil companies.

I agree with you, just my notes:

-attack on Afganisthan---> pretty logic. It was the talibans the ones who bombed the Twin Towers, so i plenty understand this attack

It werent Talibans who bombed the twins. According official version it was Al Qaeida. Taliban is indeed organistation hardly compatible with western standards and its generally good riddance, but their ideas and interests were different, mainly because its localness.

-attack on Irak--> lack of logic. Irak was a laicist dictature. Now islamism is stronger in Irak than before the attack, so its just a lack of logic. Or maybe it is logic because there were another reasons?

Saddam Hussein should be deposed already 2 times, when he started two bloody wars (Iran and Kuwait). He wasnt and he massacred opossition. It was general knowledge that he is willing to support terrorists. While war againist Iraq should be for wrong reasons, by morals it should be viewed as late good riddance.
(edited)

by morals it should be viewed as late good riddance

They (the US) never said anything on Saddam using gas in the Iran-Iraq war (not only against the Iranians but also against the Kurds in northern Iraq). They sold ingredients for chemical weapons to Saddam, because (I quote Reagan): "The US cannot afford Iraq to lose the war". They even tried to blame the chemical attacks on Iran. At that point, you no longer have a moral high ground.
(edited)

I am not taking US perspective. It well known that US helped even Iran with some intelligence and deliveries.

Well, reasons matter too. Not only results count (and the results aren't even a success, really). When will the Americans learn that removing a person from office doesn't change a thing if the regime doesn't change or if the next regime is as evil as the one removed?

And yeah, it seems like the US is going to war, again. Republicans and Democrats seem to have an agreement. The Republicans could have used their majority useful for once. They failed. But then again, it's sad that one has to count on the Republicans to avoid a new war. Where's that change, Obama? Nobel peace prize, my ass.
(edited)

---

Not to mention the content of the drone bombs, as it looks like even chemicals are used in these bombs ....
as in chemicals that are outlawed by the Geneva Protocal?
hogwash. PLEASE, cite a legit source on this.

Ask your government I am sure that they know much more or worse...that they are involved.
if you dont have evidence, make some evidence
(this is NOT an 'old US proverb)

please, do not just make stuff up because it may sound good

Syria another country with OIL thats why US are so intrested to make a part in this conflict

and just how much oil did the US get from Kuwait, or from Iran? only what we paid for on the open market

Now both the Russians and the Americans have failed once in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is a total failure, a second Vietnam.
I am not sure why the Soviets invaded Afganistan, however I think they were seeking political power/control of the country.
The US was not/is not at war with afghanistan, rather the Taliban who allowed al-Quida in the country.

maybe there is time for big chemical or another attack in europe and USA so we can open our eyes...
you ARE kidding. however, I wish you would not make remarks such as this

I had to add....

It werent Talibans who bombed the twins. According official version it was Al Qaeida.
That Al Qaeida which is now supported by US in Syria on rebel side :-DD ?

During Iraq problem I said that Saddam has no nuclear weapons on sokker forum and some people told me something similar like you say me now.

but now all world know that there was no nuclear weapons... :-)

It can take some time, dont worry, we know it is yours .... :-)

but please remember what did Saddam before US attack him!
He was starting coalition for not selling oil in dollars. This would destroy USA of course and Gaddafi was trying to do same, so US need stop them, both.