Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
January 22, 2012
From Torturing Terrorists To Killed French Soldiers

Afghan soldier 'killed French troops over US video'

KABUL — An Afghan soldier who shot dead four French troops has said he did it because of a recent video showing US Marines urinating on the dead bodies of Taliban insurgents, security sources told AFP.

The attack on the soldiers, who were unarmed, came on Friday at a base in eastern Afghanistan and left 15 other French troops wounded, eight of them seriously.

"During the initial interrogations by French soldiers, he told them he did it because of the video in which American soldiers were urinating on bodies," an Afghan army officer said.

The Afghan soldier had also referred to a video showing British soldiers allegedly abusing Afghan children, the source with access to Ministry of Defence information said.

Less than a week after news of the US Marines video broke, British military police arrested two servicemen over allegations that they abused an Afghan boy and a girl, both aged about 10, and filmed the incidents.

The French will not be amused about this. Getting tarred with the same brush than those uncultured Americans and the perverts from the perfidious Albion is below their self perceived dignity. Add some freedom fries to that. (In their real behaviour in wars, the French are of course not much different the the Americans or the British.)

Sarkozy is facing a contested presidential election that may well kick him out. The French public is widely against the colonial adventure in Afghanistan. The French troops in Kapisa have had little success in their attempts to root out the Taliban there. Even before the motive of the Afghan soldier was known Sarkozy had threatened to pull the French troops out. Give today's news he will be under even more pressure to do so. I expect the French troops to leave Afghanistan by the end of the year.

With some 4,000 soldiers the French contingent is the fourth biggest after the U.S., British and German one. It is responsible for the province of Kapisa which is described as the Taliban's gateway to Kabul. The French leaving there will leave a quite big hole in the eastern front. Them leaving will be a serious loss for the U.S. effort there.

The U.S. military once had the idea of the strategic corporal. Low level leaders that win counterinsurgency wars by doing the right things and not doing the wrong stuff. Essentially German Auftragstaktik at its best. But in reality there is little incentive in the U.S. military to do the right thing and there is lack of enforcement of discipline, beginning at the very top, against doing wrong.

When the policy at the very top is to torture the living terrorists, without ever going after the perpetrators, it is difficult to explain to the soldiers on the ground not to piss on the dead ones.

Various wars have shown that losing the moral ground at the top filters through the chain of command and loses the war on the ground. One wonders why that lesson has to be relearned so often.

Comments

Let’s be honest though: this faux outrage at the peeing on the dead, expressed by the US media/establishment is merely a smokescreen thrown up in order to maintain the by-now ridiculous fiction that both groups are composed of supposedly ‘moral people’. This faux-outrage merely attempts to obscure the fact that the majority of members of such groups are essentially scoiopathic if not outright psychopathic
Ted Rall gets it right : “Name the Morally Objectionable Action”

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jan 22 2012 20:11 utc | 1

Slightly OT . .
“consider the lily!”
Dot 1) Is Israel Planning ‘Pearl Harbor’ False Flag Attack in the Persian Gulf?
“In a January 9 op-ed in the Jerusalem Post magazine, Avi Perry, a former intelligence expert for the Israeli government, appears to be hinting how Israel plans to induce the United States into attacking Iran: “
Dot 2?) US to send old warship to Persian Gulf“US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta has vowed to maintain a fleet of eleven warships despite budget pressures, mostly to project sea power against Iran.
On board of the oldest US aircraft carrier, the USS Enterprise, Panetta told the crowd of 1,700 sailors that the 50-year-old ship is heading to the Persian Gulf region in a direct message to Tehran.”

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jan 22 2012 20:56 utc | 2

I despair of the constant repetition of “they never learn!“. I would rather argue that the whole point of the degrading of discipline is to produce a morally degraded force.
Such would seem to be necessary to use that force at home as it is being used abroad; to violently suppress any and all dissent.
Much the same process can be seen in the visible moral descent of those forces that already operate at home, the Police, the FBI, and so forth…

Posted by: ScuzzaMan | Jan 22 2012 22:28 utc | 3

“Winning their hearts and minds” is as ridiculous a premise as “we are fighting them there so we don’t have to fight them here”.
Its like a kid poking the family dog with a stick, until the dog finally takes a piece of the brat’s face off. Of course, the dog is blamed and euthanized, with nary a second thought about the actual provocation.
This ain’t rocket science. Anyone that has more than two brain cells to rub together must surely see that we are earning the hatred of quite a few billion of the Earth’s inhabitants, and that sooner or later we are going to get bit, hard and deservedly.
Makes one wonder if genocide, a modern crusade, is in fact the motive behind our current policies in regards to the Muslims. Surely, its obvious that our current course in the Middle East cannot fail to estrange us further from the global community of Muslims. Can anyone actually believe that the last two decades of foreign policy trangressions, blunders, travesties, and crimes has made our nation safer, or won any “hearts and minds”???? Common sense, simple deduction, says otherwise. Only through the massive and treasonous complicity of the ill-monickered “Fourth Estate” have these despicable maggots in DC been able to hoodwink such a huge contingent of American citizens into buying into this GWOT line of shit.
This is PRECISELY why Ron Paul has these bastards soiling their knickers, holding transparently fraudulent primary polling, and doing their damnedest to silence his message and sideline him. In regards to our policies in the Middle East, he “gets it”, and they know he “gets it”. Their biggest worry??? That because of his clear and unwavering honesty in regards to our foreign policy, he might enable John Q Public to “get it”.
To be honest, with all the domestic opinions and policy advocations of Ron Paul’s that scare the shit out of me, his foreign policy stances have earned my vote. And the fact that he is so adamant about the individual states having the power to legislate representative to the state’s citizenry’s wishes goes damned far in allevating any fears I harbor due to the domestic policies that I disagree with.
Watching the primary debates, one really realizes the extent of the ignorance that has been nurtured within the ranks of the right wing. I mean, you gotta be a blithering idiot to buy into the horseshit being thrown by Romney, Gingrich, or Santorum. At least this sack of shit Obama had a convincing demeanor when he lied and conned his way into the Oval Office. He never managed to con me, but I learned “people science” on the streets, not by consuming the garbage our modern day American version of TASS shoves up our asses. When this glib and smooth shyster Obama was being marketed, I never liked the sensational packaging, so I figured the product couldn’t be much if thats what it took to sell it. But these mucus coated worms currently “representing” the best and the brightest from the right aren’t even being packaged in an appealing manner. They are so obviously scum that it defies the imagination that they can actually find a contingent of idiots willing to hold up signs and cheer them on.
Isn’t it just a bit terrifying to witness such enmasse stupidity??? Holy shit, what kinda country are we going to have when the blindest and the dumbest do the steering? Well, thats where we’re headed.
We’re toast.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Jan 23 2012 0:26 utc | 4

Slightly OT again re. #2
I was in the US Air Force when the USS Enterprise was commissioned. I forget where I was when the first World Trade Center was “commissioned”. Old and obsolete but iconic mega-artifacts are now expendable to the owners; but also difficult and highly expensive to decommission or mothball. Perfect objects for easy and relatively inexpensive false flag demolition with highly valuable post-PR exploitation solving several problems with “one stone” so to speak. If I were a conspiracy nut I would say Panetta is setting the stage. Guess I better don my tin foil hat again. I’m going overboard.
I can only shutter and hope I am truly a deluded conspiracy nut but even if I am it seem still only a matter of time before the psychopaths pull some Pearl Harbor equivalency to effect their “mission”.

Posted by: juannie | Jan 23 2012 1:09 utc | 5

Good catch, b.
The AFP article reiterates the claim that ‘Sarkozy reacted angrily’ (to the killing and wounding of French troops). I’d like to know why he was angry and who he was angry with? Himself, perhaps, for believing Yankee bullshit and ordering French soldiers to slouch around Afghanistan unarmed?
The Germans revised their Afghan policy after a German commander called in an airstrike on civilians helping themselves to petrol from a hijacked tanker truck. If France goes the Germans won’t be far behind.
The Afghan fake war is a dead duck. The Afghans haven’t lost and the greedy, stupid, amoral Yankee 1%-ers can’t win.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 23 2012 1:29 utc | 6

@2 – interesting that Israel is already set up by the Pentagon to take the blame for any false flag provocation. and that Enterprise is already scheduled for decommission in FY13: link
so what’s a year, eh?
whilst trying to learn about some other things, i happened upon a presentation by Edwin Black at the Western Automobile Journalists, pimping his book for his version of the Pickens Plan: link
it’s kinda long, so here’s an interview text from elsewhere: link
there’s a few things i find myself disagreeing with, but what he says about the Straight of Hormuz is interesting. he’s saying it would be such a disruption that America would go into a Mad Max tailspin. that seems a bit of a stretch. perhaps it would make Obama another Jimmy Carter, but with stuff like the NDAA, FEMA camps, vacant fields stacked with burial vaults… someone appears to either be thinking about it, or wanting others to think about it. also, he extends the targets from 1 to 3, adding the Abqaiq oil processing plant in SA and the Ras Tanura oil terminal.
but, you’ve still got the possibility of someone turning Obama into Jimmy Carter or worse. without a war, that’s the end of his presidency. with a war, it’s probably an automatic re-election. either way, Israel gets its way with a regime change in America leading to a regime change in Iran, or just a regime change in Iran.
and of course, all this makes me think about who the environmentalism movement in this country really serves. why are there threats to the oil pipeline from Canada? that would surely enhance our national energy security. as would more offshore drilling (was the BP oil disaster a false flag?). as would drilling that tiny (compared to the whole state) little region in Alaska christened ANWR. what is the real motivation for these poor national security decisions? well, it seems to me that it just keeps us more involved in the M.E., more dependent on what happens in the SoH.

Posted by: Proton Soup | Jan 23 2012 2:33 utc | 7

@ Hu Bris
Beware pronouncements from Pinetta. “Direct messages” from him are usually a sort of joke, and there have been many such from him so far in his new job.
CVN-65 Enterprise was in the Arabian Sea in November, returned to Norfolk, departed on Jan 11 and is now in the Atlantic. So there is no direct message to Tehran.
CV locations Jan 22 2012:
Enterprise WestLant, Nimitz Bremerton, Eisenhower Norfolk, Vinson Arabian Sea, Roosevelt Newport News, Lincoln Andaman Sea, Washington Yokosuka, Stennis Arabian Sea, Truman Norfolk, Reagan Puget Sound Shipyard, Bush Norfolk
Four on station, seven in port
Enterprise was scheduled for decommission FY2013 (Pinetta will delay?)
Ford scheduled to enter fleet FY2015 (keel laid Nov 14, 2009)
Two more are planned, Kennedy and unnamed.
Four carriers on station or enroute is a recent high.
They require a lot of maintenance apparently and spend most of their time in port.
The United States has a battle fleet larger than the next 13 navies combined, 11 of which belong to allies and partners. The newest Ford Class costing from $8-$11 billion each, plus hundreds of millions for annual upkeep not to mention many billions more for planes and escort ships, the rest of the fleet suffers accordingly.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 23 2012 3:02 utc | 8

The current turmoil in Libya might boil over at an inopportune time for Sarkozy, emphasizing the failure of his support for wrongful military aggression abroad in Afghanistan.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 23 2012 3:16 utc | 9

WTF is going on with the website??? Even with the smallest text size I can’t diminish a pageenough to fit the window now.

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Jan 23 2012 3:24 utc | 10

Who will be America’s lapdog in Europe if Sakozy l’Americain goes down?
Despite all the humiliations inherent in assuming the position of lapdog (belly up), I expect the competition to be intense. Cameron has to have the inside position.
What continues to baffle me is why any European leader would choose to be America’s lapdog. Maybe presidencies and prime ministeries are only a stepping stone to highly lucrative post-incumbency emoluments…

Posted by: JohnH | Jan 23 2012 3:35 utc | 11

news report, Jan 17, 2012
Coalition limits details on troops killed by Afghans — Military commanders in Afghanistan have stopped making public the number of allied troops killed by Afghan soldiers and police, a measure of the trustworthiness of a force that is to take over security from U.S.-led forces.
There have been four US troop deaths reported this month without specified causes such as “when enemy forces attacked his unit with small-arms fire.” They could be accidents or they could be something else.
–Spc. Keith D. Benson, 27, of Brockton, Mass., died Jan. 18, in Paktika province, Afghanistan. The circumstances surrounding his death are currently under investigation.
–Pfc. Neil I. Turner, 21, of Tacoma, Wash., died Jan. 11, in Logar province, Afghanistan, of injuries sustained from a non-combat related incident.
–Pfc. Michael W. Pyron, 30, of Hopewell, Va., died Jan. 10 in Parwan province, Afghanistan.
— Spc. Pernell J. Herrera, 33, of Espanola, N.M., died Dec. 31, in Helmand province, Afghanistan, of injuries suffered in a non-combat incident.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 23 2012 4:07 utc | 12

Test.

Posted by: Gaianne | Jan 23 2012 4:55 utc | 13

WTF is going on with the website??? Even with the smallest text size I can’t diminish a pageenough to fit the window now.
Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Jan 22, 2012 10:24:05 PM | 9
You did it in a previous post. Today it’s “Proton Soup”. Don’t post humungous URL strings. There are alternatives like tinyURl.

Posted by: DM | Jan 23 2012 7:04 utc | 14

@ 11.
I wouldn’t discount “friendly fire” (the Yankee euphemism for frenzy fire) to explain these casualties. Being taught and encouraged to shoot first and ask questions later encourages cowardice and cover-ups.
AfPak is an unmitigated disaster from a military standpoint. There is no doubt whatsoever that the Yankees have been in panic mode, 24/7, for several years. McChrystal got sick of all the gratuitous bullshit, incompetence and aimlessness.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 23 2012 12:05 utc | 15

Suggestion: Embed URL’s, unless they are relatively short. HTML works well, and
once the code is memorized it’s pretty easy to type.
Since b has preview, it’s also easy to see when one’s made a typo. IF one checks….
I can’t type out an actual example as the HTML prints it out as a hyperlink, as seen in comments 1 and 2.
But the bottom example of allowed HTML tags shows how to do it — and capital letters are not required.
Some say the tinyurl’s are subject to changing over time, not working. The hyperlinks keep the original
URL’s — and only the newspaper or other originator can, well, change them.

Posted by: jawbone | Jan 23 2012 15:17 utc | 16

@Horsewhisperer 14
Excellent on McChrystal — the ‘hidden agenda’ of weak management from the top, plus he was pals with Petraeus who (even given his faults) is the polar opposite of the bereft Beltway Bozos.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 23 2012 15:25 utc | 17

Just go to TinyURL,com to shorten huge URLs. Who cares if they are dumped in five years. This is a tempest in a teapot.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 23 2012 15:28 utc | 18

Any history buffs here know the last time Iran launched a war of aggression?
Not a was of defense against another nation’s attacks, but one of aggression?
I seem to recall it’s been, well, centuries.

Posted by: jawbone | Jan 23 2012 15:30 utc | 19

This western cooperation campaign for Israeli hegemony will continue until we elect an American patriot,Dr.Ron Paul or someone like him.Till then,expect more of the same humanity diminishing tactics by poison ivy league miseducated draft dodging morons.
We have entered ludicrous speed with dual citizen traitors calling for the Israeli enabler Obombas assassination by Mossad,and our MSM fails too cover it,another example of the total MSM control by foreign schemers of irreligious fantasies,and our wacko moonie loonie SCarolinians voting in mass for nation economy destroying monster extremist whores of Israeli fealty.
Absolutely ludicrous.

Posted by: dahoit | Jan 23 2012 16:15 utc | 20

@POA – as far as I can see there is nothing wrong with the website –
As a test I’ve used Firefox AND Opera running in XP and firefox, Konqueror AND Opera running in Linux to view both of the threads you have complained about in the last few days and cannot see ANY problem, irrespective of how long the URL’s are – perhaps the problem lies with the browser you are using or there is something about the combination of your browser choice and your OS-configuration that is causing the problems you are claiming to experience?

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jan 23 2012 17:05 utc | 21

@ Hu Bris #21
I had the same problem with the comments display that POA described yesterday. When reading comments. I did not attempt to post. So stopped reading. Today, the display is normal again.
The only aberration today seems to be a slight lag as I type this. And a jumpy delete key.

Posted by: smoke | Jan 23 2012 18:33 utc | 22

looks fine to me too, even on an ipad. but then, someone edited my post, so who knows.

Posted by: Proton Soup | Jan 23 2012 18:39 utc | 23

@19
Anglo-Persian war of 1856 perhaps? Or Russo-Persian war of 1826?
Of course, aggression is a fluid term. In both these cases the Persians send out their army to reverse the result of previous conflicts. So aggression or liberation?

Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Jan 23 2012 18:45 utc | 24

@ smoke #22 – the problems you are describing seem to be Browser-problems or Operating System problems – they really don’t seem to be ‘Website-problems’ – they could be caused by a multidude of things – anything from simply not having enough ram to some process running in your computer that is hogging all the resources/cpu-time. Maybe you should simply just try a different browser – or even just empty/delete the cache and cookies from whatever browser you are currently using

Posted by: Hu Bris | Jan 23 2012 19:14 utc | 25

@ Proton Soup 7 ” you’ve still got the possibility of someone turning Obama into Jimmy Carter or worse.”
A scary thought. You may have put your finger on exactly the “Carter dilemma” scenario that Likud & neocons intend to box Obama into.
Bill Keller in NYT op-ed today, points to a similar set up, though not nearly so explicitly as do you. In the oddest, mealy-mouthed exposition by an experienced writer, he buries his lede, minimizes the sort of threat that extended oil sanctions represent to Iran, overlooks entirely the regime change goal, but finally, in his last 2 paragraphs seems to come to the point he wishes to make.

the mistrust is so deep, and the election-year pressure to act with manly resolve is so intense, that it’s hard to imagine the administration would feel free to accept an overture from Tehran…. Likewise, if Israel does decide to strike out on its own, Bibi Netanyahu knows that candidate Obama will feel immense pressure to go along… … Over at the Pentagon, you sometimes hear it put this way: Bombing Iran is the best way to guarantee exactly what we are trying to prevent.

Nor does one forget the deal that Republicans made with Iran in 1982, NOT to release US hostages until after elections. And, as we learned more recently, it was not the first time that Republicans secretly interfered in international negotiations in order to improve their chances for success in elections and to stall peace. In 1968 they persuaded South Vietnamese President Thieu to refuse to participate in Paris negotiations until after the election, which brought Nixon to office.

Posted by: smoke | Jan 23 2012 19:27 utc | 26

@smoke 26 –
yeah, Nixon was one crazy mofo. crazy enough to rattle Kissinger’s cage.

Posted by: Proton Soup | Jan 23 2012 21:06 utc | 27

karma sucks! The french were behind the war on Libya…and finally some the french get what they deserve

Posted by: brian | Jan 23 2012 22:13 utc | 28

vote Ron Paul? Wake up fools.
2 inescapable facts:
1/ Ron Paul is a whore just like alla the rest of the scum inhabiting congress. This is revealed in his failed attempt to gain recognition as an unashamed racist. He published his twisted attacks on unwhites for years, back when more than a few wannabe pols thought that racism was the way to mobilise the right. The fact that he now claims that he never supported racist policies makes his position worse not better cause he has shown us he will use any platform including those he is “vehemently opposed to” (Ron Paul’s words) to get elected.
2/ Everyone including Ron Paul knows that he cannot win the prez beauty contest as a rethug or an indie. He has also acknowledged this is his last campaign. So why is he running?
His son Rand Paul who holds conventional rethug opinions and policies is just getting into the game.
Ron wants to establish a dynasty. Despite his dad alienating most of rightists’ & corporatists’ amerika, Rand has no difficulty getting support from trad rethug machine loyalists or their corporate backers
and dumb voters have already demonstrated (during Rand’s last campaign), that being the son of Ron is enough to win him the support of most libertarians plus a big chunk of lefty peace activists, That despite the fact Rand is a vocal supporter of the military industrial whosit.
Just as the colour of Oblamblam’s skin wrongly convinced most voters that scumsucking low life piece of shit must have some vaguely humanist tendancies ‘deep down’ in 2008; in 2016 ‘Paulies’ will brainwash themselves into believing that voting for a Rand prezdency will give them a ‘leader’ who deepdown supports the self-contradictory policy bandwagon Ron had jumped onto in the last decade of his largely inconsequential political career.

Posted by: debs is dead | Jan 24 2012 0:04 utc | 29

Ron Paul scares the shit out of jackass RW idjits like you, doesn’t he, Debs?

Posted by: PissedOffAmerican | Jan 24 2012 3:08 utc | 30

@smoke 26 –
the American hostages in Iran were released in 1981, on the day of Reagan’s inauguration. The deal they made was likely in 1980.

Posted by: Susan | Jan 24 2012 3:22 utc | 31

@ 29.
The trouble with Ron Paul is that if his overarching principle (self-preservation) comes into conflict with a political principle, he’ll do an about-face on the political ‘principle’ as in the case of the Afghanistan resolution. His last-minute ‘yay’ vote suggests that he is unpredictable – even to himself.
from Xymphora’s post The Isolationist, Dec 29, 2011.
Ron Paul was opposed to the War in Afghanistan, and to any military reaction to the attacks of 9/11.
He did not want to vote for the resolution. He immediately stated to us staffers, me in particular, that Bush/Cheney were going to use the attacks as a precursor for “invading” Iraq. He engaged in conspiracy theories including perhaps the attacks were coordinated with the CIA, and that the Bush administration might have known about the attacks ahead of time. He expressed no sympathies whatsoever for those who died on 9/11, and pretty much forbade us staffers from engaging in any sort of memorial expressions, or openly asserting pro-military statements in support of the Bush administration.
On the eve of the vote, Ron Paul was still telling us staffers that he was planning to vote “No,” on the resolution, and to be prepared for a seriously negative reaction in the District. Jackie Gloor and I, along with quiet nods of agreement from the other staffers in the District, declared our intentions to Tom Lizardo, our Chief of Staff, and to each other, that if Ron voted No, we would immediately resign.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 24 2012 3:33 utc | 32

re #32
Maybe there is a problem with Paul after all. He obviously cannot find good staffers and instead ends up with whiny backstabbing bitches. Lizardo? chief of staff?

Posted by: dan of steele | Jan 24 2012 7:37 utc | 33

@30,
Dkos has an opening.

Posted by: Biklett | Jan 24 2012 8:36 utc | 34

proton, doesn’t it make sense to save our own domestic oil, which is far more expensive to extract than foreign oil, till a time when oil really becomes scarce, or high priced? Think about scarcity. Why should we blow our wad so soon? Oil prices will someday get much more expensive, then, the economic value of that oil we have will be far greater, and the return on extraction will be greater.

Posted by: scottindallas | Jan 24 2012 15:31 utc | 35

debs, what you fail to recognize is that every substantial change in this country was brought about by failed 3rd party challenges. The socialist threat led to Social Security’s development as well as many of the worker’s rights we enjoy. The Granger and Populist movement is responsible for the birth of our farm policies. It was Ross Perot who’s key issue was the national debt and deficits, if you remember it wasn’t on Clinton or Bush’s radar. But wacky Ross Perot bought national TV time to explain this to the American people, and it finally sunk in.
Ron Paul’s foreign policy message, his arguments in support of civil right, a sensible policy to the war on drugs, his call for us to consider the cost of our punitive punishments in light of their unprecedented scope and in their excessive failure. In case you missed it, this article by Paul Craig Roberts endorsing Ron Paul is worth a read. http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/01/23/how-libertarian-dogmatists-are-sabotaging-ron-pauls-campaign/

Posted by: scottindallas | Jan 24 2012 15:52 utc | 36

@Susan 31
Yes. 1980. Thank you.

Posted by: smoke | Jan 24 2012 19:31 utc | 37

@29 debs –
i’m really sick of all the racist mud-slinging at RP. the real, overt racism comes from peeps like Eric Cantor and his dehumanizing speech at AIPAC, condemning not just Hamas, not just Palestinians, but ALL Arabs as potential terrorists. what he did is equivalent to what the Fuhrer and his gang did to Cantor’s ancestors, but this received thunderous applause. so here’s what i’m throwing back at that crowd: everyone receiving money from AIPAC, or any other Israel Lobby or Zionist organization is a knuckle-dragging racist. likewise, anyone else supporting this so-called “war on terrorism” which is really nothing but a propaganda tool to secure all the middle east and caspian petroleum reserves, and to make sure it all trades in Fed money generated from thin air, as opposed to hard assets like gold.
and the fascists playing this game have gone too far now. because now we have zionist rednecks actually fantasizing, publishing openly their desires to see the Mossad take a shot at our President. it has gone too far. and it must be stopped.
@35 scottindallas –
yeah, that is certainly an argument. but as we see, it puts us in a precarious position if our imports can be cut off. at a minimum, we need a backup plan that allows us to quickly switch over to domestic energy solutions in a very short timeframe. if that means maintaining coal-to-oil fischer-troph plants in mothballs, then so be it. it can’t be more expensive than maintain our obese military. likewise, build whatever pipelines and extraction equipment are needed for ANWR. heck, do as you say and further exploit foreign supplies – build that Bering Straight tunnel and pipeline to get fuel from Russia. btw – there are also some other rather huge deposits of methane ice on the bottom of the sea around Japan and other places. supposedly, methane ice could keep us going another 400 years or so, assuming the tech is there, and the thermodynamics make extraction a net energy gain.
oh, and regarding that Canada oil-sands pipeline, recent news indicates that much of the ado may be so that Warren Buffet’s company can ship the oil in by rail – a less efficient method than using a pipeline.

Posted by: Proton Soup | Jan 24 2012 19:58 utc | 38

Scientific American has a story about the OTR route in and out of there. The present hubbub seems to be about getting the equipment in, but more than likely, the justification for bringing the equipment in the route they’ve chosen, at substantial cost to Exxon and it’s Canadian subsidiary, is to reinforce the roads for the tankers that would no doubt carry supplies in and out. The rail is perhaps another option as well.
That is not a problem free source of oil. Those technologies require the despoiling of substantial volumes of water, that we HOPE will never be seen again. Ultimately, oil is just for fun, but water is necessary for life. We will see wars fought in this century over water as we saw wars fought over oil in the last. As is, global petrol demand is down, it’s down in the US by almost 6% from last year, yet b tells us speculation is not an issue. Our demand lag far outpaces China’s (lagging) demand and we should all be incensed at this novel way to rape us all. Anyhow, our supplies of fresh water may well prove more economically valuable than our petrol reserves

Posted by: scottindallas | Jan 25 2012 5:02 utc | 39

@39
China’s lagging demand? Not.
BEIJING, Jan 11 (Reuters) – China’s apparent crude oil consumption could accelerate in 2012 from a year earlier due to ongoing strong demand for energy and chemical products, forecasts from an industry association showed on Wednesday.
The China Petroleum and Chemical Industry Federation estimated that apparent crude consumption will increase 5.3 percent year on year to 480 million tonnes in 2012, or 9.6 million barrels per day, compared with its forecast of a rise of around 3.5 percent in 2011.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 25 2012 5:16 utc | 40

@39
apparently, there is already a water war: http://www.waterwarcrimes.com/

Posted by: Proton Soup | Jan 25 2012 19:28 utc | 41

@scottindallas – yet b tells us speculation is not an issue.
Where did I ever say that? Link?
Sinking demand, by the way, doesn’t say much about prices when supplies are also sinking.

Posted by: b | Jan 25 2012 20:45 utc | 42

France, Breaking With NATO, Will Speed Afghan Exit

President Nicolas Sarkozy announced on Friday that France would break with its allies in NATO and accelerate the French withdrawal from Afghanistan, pulling back combat troops a year early, by the end of 2013.

The moves followed an attack a week ago by a rogue Afghan soldier who fired on unarmed French troops embedded with Afghan forces on a training mission in Kapisa, killing 4 soldiers and wounding 15, 8 of them seriously. The attack was a major blow for France, and occurred amid a tough re-election campaign for Mr. Sarkozy. His main rival for the presidency, the Socialist François Hollande, has promised to pull all French troops out by the end of this year, contending just last Sunday that “our mission there is finished.”

Posted by: b | Jan 28 2012 5:12 utc | 43

Sarkozy has gone further than that:
The French president, Nicolas Sarkozy, said on Friday that France and Afghanistan have agreed to ask Nato to bring forward the handover of all combat operations to Afghan forces to 2013.//
Of course the Afghan forces are completely hopeless, which makes this interesting.

Posted by: Don Bacon | Jan 28 2012 5:21 utc | 44

“Of course the Afghan forces are completely hopeless, which makes this interesting.”
Predictable would be closer to the truth.
The (selectively thrifty) Base & Bunker Buffoons have been paying peanuts and getting the “Afghan Army” monkeys they deserve. Afghans have a well-established reputation for fighting superpowers to a standstill. Only dumbass Yankees and their simpering, risk-averse, EU friends could have believed their own bullshit about a pro-occupation Afghan Army at bargain-basement prices. The entire fiction was nothing more than a PR exercise for the consumers of Faux News.
Apart from anything else, training and replacing hundreds of deserters per month from a largely imaginary Afghan Army would have tied up valuable resources.

Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Jan 28 2012 6:20 utc | 45