====================================================================== Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. ======================================================================
So you think people didn't notice that you let fly and then dropped your 'theory' of an anti-Russian motive for US intervention in Afghanistan. Whom do you think should deliver to some Taliban the military defeat that they so desperately deserve (they have killed 70% of the innocent civilians in Afghanistan, set up their own thuggish courts and turned the other eye in the face of rape and carried out or supported terrorist actions in Pakistan, Bali, Europe and the US)? Do you think the Afghan National Forces should and can do it? Do you think the Pakistani military will do it? Do you think the ISI can be convinced to rein in its proxies if they see that they can proceed unimpeded? Are you confident that the only thing holding up SCO backed negotiations is the NATO mission? It's a horrible and horrifying mess, and part of the problem for Obama is the free rider attitude of the Europeans who could at least help by all legalizing heroin and the reactionary governments in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Yes, yes, it's possible that Obama is attracted to this war not due to any imminent threat posed by the Taliban (though don't be so sure) but by the possibility that bleeding America's enemies will earn him all the electoral and political privileges that Thatcher's skirmish over the Falklands got her. But this is not about a pipeline, the imperialist export of capital, and counter-power to Russia as you claimed on a whim or as a result of flashback. Rakesh ________________________________________________ Send list submissions to: [email protected] Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com
