Albionshores' Profile

►►►"While officials from the two allies offered few details on Wednesday about what was decided or even discussed at the meeting — including any new strategies, tactics, weapons or troop deployments — the star-studded list of participants and the extreme secrecy surrounding the talks underscored how gravely both nations regard the growing militant threat.

The leading actors in the day-long conference were Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani, chief of staff of the Pakistani Army.

Joining them aboard the carrier Abraham Lincoln were General David Petraeus, the top American commander in Iraq, who will soon become the senior officer in the Middle East; General David McKiernan, NATO's top officer in Afghanistan; Admiral Eric Olson, head of the Special Operations Command; Lieutenant General Martin Dempsey, acting commander of American forces in the Middle East; and Rear Admiral Michael LeFever, the senior American military liaison to Pakistan. Kayani was accompanied by ranking officers from Pakistan......American commanders in Pakistan and Afghanistan have sounded alarms about the growing militancy in both countries.

Major General Jeffrey Schloesser, the top American commander in eastern Afghanistan, said in a telephone interview last week that American and allied forces continued to see a growing number of foreign fighters flowing into Afghanistan from Pakistan. These foreign fighters — Arabs, Uzbeks and Chechens — were carrying out ever more sophisticated strikes, he said.◄◄◄

A divided house cannot stand. Notice who was not mentioned amongst the foreign fighters? PERSIANS. And yet the argument to war continues to roll....even in the McCain's latest attack (and inaccurate) ad.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHVrQOlApp4

So which is it to be? A new cold war with Russia, Pakistan-Afghanistan, Iran? Because they're all campaigns that'll be fought against by different groups on different fronts. And don't think they won't cross over to fight were and when they can. Just as they are already doing in Afghanistan. And that means putting those serving in Iraq in much greater risk and what for?

•Oil?
It's the breaking dollar that is hiking oil up, the profiteers and the threat of war. Regime change under the guise of bringing democracy doesn't work; fighting for regional and resource hegemony is a catalyst to resentment and cause for hostility.

•9-11?
The 9-11 commission doesn't even identify who funded the attacks. The presumed hijackers didn't come from Iran, Iraq, Russia or Afghanistan....so the argument of a continuation on a War on Terror has outgrown those baby rompers.

•The Taliban?
Cruel and oppressive backward looking culture, yes for those of us that have observed humanitarian values and enlightenment. Threat to the West? No. They have nothing and recent studies show that extremism that threatens the West is not formed that way. The domestic counter reaction to aggressive foreign intervention is an issue. Not so long back in the 1990s Benazir Bhutto was actually arguing that it was the Taliban in Afghanistan that helped keep extremism in Pakistan contained. One war on the Taliban later and heroin production is sky high and the Taliban are working with extremists. Not to destroy the West but just as Afghanistan has always done in its history (AND SUCCESSFULLY)....fighting off occupation.
http://www.mixx.com/stories/1873861/mi5_report_blows_the_terrorist_myth

Why follow on this interventionist approach when the disclosed aims have been lost and the foreign policy is not congruent. There are plenty of reasons for war. None of them are honourable and none of the previous alleged public arguments for it seemingly apply anymore. It is not a single war on tactic [terrorism], it's turning into a war on many fronts justified to the electorate with many alleged reasons.

It's another attack ad which I can't believe they're still doing (either side) but that said....

McCain's campaign is wrongly advised on this one. The thing is; an unprevoked Iran isn't a threat to America or Europe. It really, really isn't. And comparatively on the conventional front they are tiny.

There is no evidence of an active nuclear weapons programme....NONE. They have time and time again been misquoted about wiping Israel from the map. Again, every time I have seen a breakdown of what was actually said rather than attributed there have been references to regime...never nation. But hey, Ahmdainejad's rhetoric wayward...DAMN RIGHT....so we'll give that one a second chance. Not that Ahmadinejad need be a problem. He got hammered in the government election this year for just that and more - he faces a presidential election next year. The only way he'll stay in power is if he is seen to be strong for Iran in the face of adversity which is adamant about imposing ANOTHER regime change - and right now the current US administration and McCain in continuation are providing exactly that adversity!!!

Consider:
•The EU, Iran, the IAEA are still holding talks. A few months back Iran even announced its own negotiation package offer through the IAEA. It involved sharing information regarding terrorism and arbitrating in the peace process to secure stability between Israel and Palestine.
•Al-Qaeda don't forget TARGETS Iran....it does not work with them. Iran has its own terrorist problem.
•Iran has even been thanked by the US for their work against drug runners coming from Afghanistan aiming for Europe. They spend fortunes fighting it every year stopping the drug money from being turned into gun money for the so-deemed terrorists in Afghanistan.

So why would McCain specifically mention Iran and an Israeli flag when there are talks being held contrary to his claims and moral equivalence clearly does not apply? It's ANOTHER foreign policy faux pas from the McCain camp.

But more than anything else, it's just another attack ad.....

Albionshores

MixxFriends

Followers

Get To Know Us

Fun with Mixx

The Kitchen

The Legal Stuff