[Peace-discuss] No permanent enemies, just permanent interests
E. Wayne Johnson
ewj at pigsqq.org
Fri Jul 27 12:27:50 UTC 2012
No doubt he's one of them there "Domestick Terror-ists".
And like that guy Hemingway, and now, D. J., he's been down there in Cuba,
yes he has, and doing who-knows-what.
Eatin' them chilly peppers, drinking that foreign beer, smokin' them
ill-eagle see-gars...
Hell, I'd bet half of them Cubans ain't even Mexican.
A bit suspicious, at the least, if ya wuz ta ask me.
On 7/27/2012 7:37 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
> Funny as always, if perhaps unfair to Sean Penn, who was good in "Gone
> Baby Gone," even if he couldn't get the accent right. (Tim Robbins did.)
>
> And AFAIK he's a sworn enemy only of Madonna, as who wouldn't be...?
>
>
> On Jul 27, 2012, at 6:14 AM, E. Wayne Johnson wrote:
>
>> I'd like to see an option on the 1040 form to donate a
>> to the terrorist organization of one's choice.
>>
>> 42. Would you like to donate $2 to one of the following terrorist
>> organizations?
>> If so, please check one (only one):
>>
>> ( ) al-Qaeda
>> ( ) Hamas
>> ( ) Sinn Fein
>> ( ) Sean Penn
>> ( ) Drunken Rednecks with Guns
>> ( ) AIPAC
>>
>> *
>> Ok, ok. Some of those are sworn enemies of the American people.
>> Which makes them no different from the presidential candidates.
>>
>> *
>>
>> 43. Have you ever had the Chicken Pox?
>>
>> ( ) y ( ) n
>>
>> If so, how many? _________
>>
>>
>> On 7/27/2012 6:39 PM, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>>> "BAN, BAN, TALIBAN / HAS A NEW MASTER: GET A NEW MAN"
>>>
>>> The ironies are replete. The US, surreptitiously fighting on the
>>> side of al-Qaeda to overthrow the Alewite government in Syria, is
>>> quietly arranging with the Taliban to oppose together al-Qaeda in
>>> Afghanistan, according to Anatol Lieven.
>>>
>>> AQ owes its existence to the US, descending as it does from the
>>> fanatical and ruthless Islamists whom the Carter administration
>>> gathered together and sent into Afghanistan in the 1970s (before the
>>> Russian invasion) "to give to the USSR its Vietnam war," as Zbigniew
>>> Brzezinski, Carter's National Security Adviser, said. "What is
>>> most important to the history of the world?" he asked later. "The
>>> Taliban or the collapse of the Soviet empire? Some stirred-up
>>> Moslems or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold
>>> war?"
>>>
>>> When the stirred-up Muslims counterattacked on 9/11/2001 for a
>>> generation of US depredations of the Mideast - for murderous
>>> sanctions against Iraq, suppression of the Palestinians, and the
>>> military investment of Saudi Arabia, as AQ claimed - the US launched
>>> what George Bush called a "crusade" against "terrorists" - i.e.,
>>> against the armed opposition to a generation-long US attempt to
>>> control the energy producing regions of the world.
>>>
>>> But the terrorists are not homogeneous, and Lieven points here to
>>> the gap between the Afghan national resistance to foreign invasion -
>>> the Taliban - and the international terrorist groups, like al-Qaeda.
>>> "... on certain key issues the Taliban leadership and the US
>>> administration are far closer than most analysts believe. The chief
>>> obstacle to a peace settlement is likely to come not from Taliban
>>> links to al-Qaeda but rather from the question of how to divide up
>>> power within Afghanistan."
>>>
>>> US policy - as flexible in strategy as it is in ethics, as torture
>>> and assassination make clear - is consistent as to goals: the
>>> Obama administration will work both with and against al-Qaeda, the
>>> great Satan of the War on Terrorism (or as the Obamanians prefer to
>>> call their broader and more brutal version, "overseas
>>> contingency operations") its object all sublime to achieve in time -
>>> control of the Mideast. --CGE
>>>
>>> ========
>>> /http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/45b83f50-d59b-11e1-af40-00144feabdc0.html#axzz21obxqphU/
>>>
>>> July 25, 2012 7:57 pm
>>> Lessons from my talks with the Taliban
>>> By Anatol Lieven
>>>
>>> To judge by discussions I had with figures close to the Afghan
>>> Taliban in Dubai last week, on certain key issues the Taliban
>>> leadership and the US administration are far closer than most
>>> analysts believe. The chief obstacle to a peace settlement is likely
>>> to come not from Taliban links to al-Qaeda but rather from the
>>> question of how to divide up power within Afghanistan.
>>> My colleagues and I spoke with four people: two former members of
>>> the Taliban government (one of them a founder member of
>>> the movement), a senior former Mujahedin commander with close ties
>>> to the Taliban, and a non-official Afghan mediator with the
>>> Taliban. All emphasised the realism of the Taliban leadership, born
>>> of their experiences of the past decade, and their willingness to
>>> break with al-Qaeda and exclude it and other international terrorist
>>> groups from areas under their control.
>>> All said that Taliban commanders and fighters would accept such an
>>> order if it came from Mullah Omar. A former Taliban minister
>>> said that reports of a continued presence of al-Qaeda elements could
>>> be referred to a joint commission of Isaf, the Taliban and the
>>> Afghan government, which would verify the reports and decide what
>>> action to take.
>>> Such action might even be taken by US troops within Afghanistan.
>>> For perhaps the most striking thing to emerge from our
>>> discussions was that three of our four interviewees said the Taliban
>>> would consider agreeing to US bases and military advisers in
>>> Afghanistan after 2014 – something that contradicts every previous
>>> Taliban statement.
>>> However, all our interviewees emphasised that the Taliban would only
>>> agree to this as part of an overall peace settlement and that
>>> they “will never accept anything that looks like surrender”. They
>>> also all said the Taliban would be willing to commit to continuing
>>> existing health and education programmes, including for women, as
>>> long as separation of men and women was guaranteed.
>>> This new pragmatism includes acceptance of the present
>>> Afghan constitution. All our interlocutors said the Taliban had no
>>> serious problem with the constitution as such – but would never
>>> agree to it as a precondition of talks, as hitherto demanded by
>>> Washington. They expect the constitution to be debated and approved
>>> as part of a national debate including themselves.
>>> All this is very encouraging. However, it reflects something else,
>>> which is essential for a settlement, but much more problematic.
>>> The Taliban like the present, highly centralised constitution
>>> because they want a strong central government in which they will
>>> play a leading part. They do not expect this to be an exclusive
>>> part. Three interviewees said the Taliban knew they could not govern
>>> without other forces’ participation, and that government must
>>> include educated technocrats. They want a strong national army –
>>> even one trained by the US – to hold Afghanistan together, prevent a
>>> return to warlord rule and deter interference by neighbours.
>>> But with whom would the Taliban be willing to share power?
>>> Our interviewees said that the Taliban recognised the need to
>>> guarantee a share of power to other groups from the existing regime,
>>> but were vague on which those groups might be. All said that
>>> particular “very corrupt and brutal people” would be utterly
>>> unacceptable, but that others, less compromised, could take part.
>>> Above all, they stressed the Taliban will never
>>> accept Hamid Karzai as a legitimate interlocutor, or participate in
>>> a grand national assembly or national elections while he is
>>> president. They fear – with good reason, given his record – that he
>>> would rig these processes.
>>> So this apparent new pragmatism leaves two huge questions open.
>>> The first is whether the Taliban could possibly agree to the US
>>> using bases in Afghanistan to continue drone attacks
>>> and raids against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Such an
>>> agreement would outrage many Pashtuns and give Pakistan a strong
>>> motive to wreck any peace settlement through its allies in the
>>> Haqqani network; while our interviewees stressed the Taliban’s
>>> obedience to Mullah Omar and his comrades, they were studiously
>>> evasive about the Haqqanis.
>>> The second question is whether, or how, Washington could agree to
>>> force its existing Afghan allies to accept a deal with the Taliban
>>> that would exclude many of them from power. Would a promise of
>>> luxurious retirement to the US or the Gulf be enough to persuade them?
>>> Above all, any settlement will end the rule of Mr Karzai and his
>>> clan. An agreement on this between Washington and the Taliban is
>>> not impossible, given the contempt for Mr Karzai felt by many
>>> leading US officials and soldiers. Many in Washington oppose the
>>> idea of him trying to arrange a succession to the presidency for a
>>> family member.
>>> So there seems real room for agreement on a caretaker government
>>> of neutral figures to supervise constitutional discussions leading
>>> to elections. But with the next elections due in 2014, there is not
>>> much time to lose. As soon as the US presidential elections are
>>> over, Washington should do its best to open substantial talks with
>>> the Taliban and find out whether what we heard in Dubai really
>>> does represent their position and can be the basis for peace.
>>> /The writer is a professor in the War Studies Department of
>>> King’s College London. His latest book is ‘Pakistan: A Hard Country’/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>> <mailto:Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net>
>> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/mailman/listinfo/peace-discuss
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20120727/8f5cb25b/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the Peace-discuss
mailing list