WTF are we fighting for?

The Good War

Hussein Obama: its no longer about winning

76 US soldiers have been killed in the last two months

Americans are getting fed up with the war in Afghanistan. Americans are tired of the conflict – and being demonized by Muslims. (I think the demonization comes more from the far left f*kcwits in the media- we are our own worst enemy!) – Americans now feel that fighting on behalf of the Afghan people is no longer worthwhile. (Was it ever?) Afghanistan, like Iraq, is a failed nation like Iraq,  Bangladesh or Pakistan, like Somalia or Algeria, the Sudan and so many  Islamic disasters. That’s what happens under Islam. Because Islam doesn’t built anything, Islam destroys.  There is nothing we can do to  make these places livable, no amount of money, aid or soldiering can cure this disease called Islam. I have questioned the wisdom of these failed policies because  It grieves me to see unbelievable amounts of money, men and materiel squandered, and as a result I got vilified or got booted off blogs wherever I posted these opinions.

Pattons “you don’t go to war to die for your country, you go to war to make the other bastard die for his country” is as appropriate and true as it ever was. But the idea to “win the hearts and minds of the Afghan peope”,  (or any Muslims) is from the realm of the bizarre. To waste our scarce resources for “nation-building” in the Hindukush, to build mosques and madrassas, hospitals and dams  and other infrastructure for our implacable enemy is sheer madness. I said it many times and I’ll say it again: whether we leave Afghanistan tomorrow, in 10 years or in 20, it will be as if we never been there. Democracy under shari’a? Our Taliban are better than theirs? You gotta be kidding, pal. The moment we established “democracy under sharia” this whole expedition was lost. The situation in Iraq is of course no better, and propping the totally corrupt, mustachioed Paki generals up with billions is  insane. But so are our leaders who remain clueless about the  goals of our enemy. It is the idiots who run the asylum, and the asylum is run like the Titanic: full steam ahead.


by Linda Chavez

Afghanistan was supposed to be the good war — the one Democrats said we should be fighting instead of Iraq. We heard it over and over again during the presidential campaign, as if to exorcise the image that a Democrat wasn’t tough enough to assume the role of commander in chief. Candidate Comrade Obama repeatedly called the war in Iraq “a dangerous distraction” from the fight we should be waging and promised to “tak(e) the fight to al-Qaida in Afghanistan and Pakistan.” But with a new poll out showing that a majority of Americans now think the war in Afghanistan isn’t worth fighting, it won’t be long before Democrats decide to turn tail.

Afghanistan has always been as difficult a challenge as Iraq, if not more difficult. It is both larger and more populous than Iraq, with a population that is less educated, more tribal, and used to repelling foreign invaders over the centuries. The war in Afghanistan was originally conceived as a necessary war after nearly 3,000 Americans lost their lives in an attack planned there, so rooting out the Taliban supporters of al-Qaida was viewed as justified. Now, however, some Americans have changed their minds.

A Washington Post-ABC News poll taken in mid-August shows that a bare majority, 51 percent, now question whether the fight in Afghanistan has been worth waging. But the poll reflects an interesting divide. Democrats are far more skeptical than Republicans. Seven in 10 Democrats now say the war hasn’t been worth the costs, while 70 percent of Republicans say it is worth fighting, with Independents evenly split 49-49 percent.

The U.S. has doubled the number of American troops in Afghanistan, which now stands at 68,000, but more are needed. Even with the additional 33,000 NATO troops in Afghanistan, the numbers of security forces in the country are far smaller than similar forces in Iraq. And the fact is, Americans only support wars they think they’re winning. Public opinion turned against the war in Iraq when Americans believed it could not be won.

As National Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Max Boot observed recently at Commentary Magazine’s Contentions, “the same dynamic applies as that which held in Iraq and in most of our other wars: the public is skeptical because they don’t see enough signs of progress. … Only by adequately resourcing the war effort and pursuing an effective counterinsurgency strategy can the U.S. armed forces make the progress necessary to raise public support for the war effort and win what President Obama has just described as a ‘war of necessity.'”

It is easy to believe that the danger posed by terrorism is waning — we have not had an attack on American soil in nearly eight years, after all. But it would be foolhardy to believe that those intent on the destruction of our way of life have simply moved on or are so weakened that they pose little threat to us.

Iraq has been racked with violence in the last several days, with lethal attacks aimed at toppling the government there. The remaining American forces have been left on the sidelines unable even to assist the wounded and dying without being directly asked to do so by Iraqi leaders. And the fight in Afghanistan is proving difficult, especially since so few Afghan forces are trained to help, and NATO troops have shown themselves, as Boot points out, “unwilling either to fight or to provide the resources for fighting effectively.”

President Obama sold the American electorate on the notion that he was tough enough to take on America’s enemies. But if he wants to keep America safe, he will have to challenge his own supporters — Democratic voters and members of Congress — to support his efforts in Afghanistan. He’s done the right thing to date by increasing U.S. troops, but he has to convince the public that this war is winnable in order to continue the fight. And the only way to do that is for the president to give his military commanders in the field the added resources and troops they need to prevail, even if it proves temporarily unpopular. It remains to be seen whether the president will do so.

(Some of) todays exploits by the RoP:

Dutch Beauty Salon Attacked by Qur’an-Quoting ‘Disturbed’ Man…

The Good War?

Tired of the conflict – and being demonized by Muslims – Americans now feel that fighting on behalf of the Afghan people is no longer worthwhile. How will Democrats respond?

13 thoughts on “WTF are we fighting for?”

  1. I thought it was about stopping murderous hate-filled Mahometans from using the country as a base to launch further terrorist attacks such as the one that killed thousands of people in New York… am I mistaken?

  2. I have to agree with this article. It pains me to do so because that is what the US and her allies are all about…bring peace and justice to the people of the world.

    But, I have had it with these muslim countries. I have been watching my brother leave and return from Iraq…and soon Afghanistan for too long now. These brave men and women from all over are going to these cesspool countries that are ruled by despots and dictator, and for what? NOTHING will change. NOTHING can change. Sharia is written into their constitutions…it is the law of the land. Sharia breaches EVERY single human right out there. These islamic republic countries are not suited for civilization. They cannot function like the rest of the planet does.

    It seems to be hopeless. I cannot take much more of it. I am tired of the asskissing and the handing out money to these failed nations. I hate to say it, but SCREW THEM. When they are ready to play nice with the rest of the world..then they deserve our help. Not until then.

  3. Theresaj, the pipeline will never happen.

    Gongfarmer, if only we would stick to stopping them from what they are religiously obliged to do we would all be a lot better off, but still not safe. Note: I’m not saying stop bombing them, all I’m saying is stop aiding them. “Nation-building” is not our business. Our business is only to protect ourselves.

    uberinfidel: they don’t deserve our help. They don’t need education either because they got Islam. If they remain illiterate, ignorant and poor they are less of a danger to us then when they are educated and better off.

  4. Uberinfidel…it must be very very difficult for you having a brother go there. My friends daughter is married to an American military was so stressful for them the whole time he was in Iraq..every phone call was a cause to worry.

  5. Theresa, my bro has been a Marine for 24+ years. He likes what he does and he has a great appreciation for the troops from other countries. He HAS left his own blood spilled in the Iraqi desert. He tells me that most in Iraq want them there. I think the only thing that keeps me from going totally ballistic is hearing from the people who are actually there with boots on the ground. The media blows. I feel if these countries want to live that way, let them. BUT no immigrating to infidel countries. Keep your wife beating, child molesting, camel boinking asses on your side and we will do fine without you. Is it obvious that I am frustrated beyond belief??

    Sorry for the rant folks, I just cant take anymore from “those in charge”. Asskissers…all of them.

    And Sheik, they are not remaining poor and illiterate. They are getting visas to western countries and getting educated. The only ones who aren’t are the women. I pray to God above that one day the women of these nations will rise up and crush those who have kept them down for centuries. I honestly feel that change over there will not happen until the women get seriously pissed and fight back. I would rather die on my feet as a free woman than on my knees as a muslim slave. That is why we in the west need to aim our focus on the women….the men are lost. COMPLETELY. Those who hold power never want to let go.

    Again..sorry for the rant. lol

    1. “the women of these nations will rise up “- LOL! You wish!

      Qur’an (33:36) – “It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision.”

      Here’s what Allah decided:

      Men are the maintainers of women because Allah has made some of them to excel others and because they spend out of their property; the good women are therefore obedient, guarding the unseen as Allah has guarded; and (as to) those on whose part you fear desertion, admonish them, and leave them alone in the sleeping-places and beat them; then if they obey you, do not seek a way against them; surely Allah is High, Great.

  6. Until the morons that Govern us wake up and realise that the enemy is ISLAM the CULT and no some god forsaken country where the CULT rules the War can never be won. Now with a Mohammedan as the BOGUS POTUS that will never happen. Killing a few Afghans is just a sop to occupy the minds of people who might otherwise ask difficult questions if nothing was happening and the Mohammedans continues their Terrorist WAR on us just like they are doing.

  7. Simply deport the muslim from our countries – return them to point of origin and see if they can create a vibrant economy etc etc. We do not need them in our

  8. Agree totally with ÃœberInfidel – the women are the key – that is probably why the islamic male tries to cage them.

  9. Uberinfidel
    No need to apologize..this is a good place for you to vent. Many of us feel strongly about these things but they are all much closer for you. Can you join with other like minded people? Isolation is never a good thing.
    I was thinking of reccommending an article to you..on the Australian protectionist Party site in their identity would be depressing but may be enlightening for you. It is titled ”Is Obama lying?” and is written by a regular poster named Peggy. In one part , it mentions him reaching some city and not having enough money to pay for a hotel , then very soon after flying off to Indonesia and then Pakistan. He went to Pakistan when Americans were not allowed to travel there so questions are being asked about what passport he travelled on…..and more in the same vein.

  10. I call it the Unicol War: Genocide of Western males…

    Testimony By
    John J. Maresca
    Vice President, International Relations,
    UNOCAL Corporation

    To House Committee On International Relations,
    Submmittee On Asia And The Pacific
    February 12, 1998
    Washington, D.C.

    Mr. Chairman, I am John Maresca, Vice President, International Relations, of Unocal Corporation. Unocal is one of the world’s leading energy resource and project development companies. Our activities are focused on three major regions — Asia, Latin America and the U.S. Gulf of Mexico. In Asia and the U.S. Gulf of Mexico, we are a major oil and gas producer. I appreciate your invitation to speak here today. I believe these hearings are important and timely, and I congratulate you for focusing on Central Asia oil and gas reserves and the role they play in shaping U.S. policy.

    Today we would like to focus on three issues concerning this region, its resources and U.S. policy:

    The need for multiple pipeline routes for Central Asian oil and gas.

    The need for U.S. support for international and regional efforts to achieve balanced and lasting political settlements within Russia, other newly independent states and in Afghanistan.

    The need for structured assistance to encourage economic reforms and the development of appropriate investment climates in the region. In this regard, we specifically support repeal or removal of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act.

    For more than 2,000 years, Central Asia has been a meeting ground between Europe and Asia, the site of ancient east-west trade routes collectively called the Silk Road and, at various points in history, a cradle of scholarship, culture and power. It is also a region of truly enormous natural resources, which are revitalizing cross-border trade, creating positive political interaction and stimulating regional cooperation. These resources have the potential to recharge the economies of neighboring countries and put entire regions on the road to prosperity.

    About 100 years ago, the international oil industry was born in the Caspian/Central Asian region with the discovery of oil. In the intervening years, under Soviet rule, the existence of the region’s oil and gas resources was generally known, but only partially or poorly developed.

    As we near the end of the 20th century, history brings us full circle. With political barriers falling, Central Asia and the Caspian are once again attracting people from around the globe who are seeking ways to develop and deliver its bountiful energy resources to the markets of the world.

    The Caspian region contains tremendous untapped hydrocarbon reserves, much of them located in the Caspian Sea basin itself. Proven natural gas reserves within Azerbaijan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan equal more than 236 trillion cubic feet. The region’s total oil reserves may reach more than 60 billion barrels of oil — enough to service Europe’s oil needs for 11 years. Some estimates are as high as 200 billion barrels. In 1995, the region was producing only 870,000 barrels per day (44 million tons per year [Mt/y]).

    By 2010, Western companies could increase production to about 4.5 million barrels a day (Mb/d) — an increase of more than 500 percent in only 15 years. If this occurs, the region would represent about five percent of the world’s total oil production, and almost 20 percent of oil produced among non-OPEC countries.

    One major problem has yet to be resolved: how to get the region’s vast energy resources to the markets where they are needed. There are few, if any, other areas of the world where there can be such a dramatic increase in the supply of oil and gas to the world market. The solution seems simple: build a “new” Silk Road. Implementing this solution, however, is far from simple. The risks are high, but so are the rewards.

    Finding and Building Routes to World Markets

    One of the main problems is that Central Asia is isolated. The region is bounded on the north by the Arctic Circle, on the east and west by vast land distances, and on the south by a series of natural obstacles — mountains and seas — as well as political obstacles, such as conflict zones or sanctioned countries.

    This means that the area’s natural resources are landlocked, both geographically and politically. Each of the countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia faces difficult political challenges. Some have unsettled wars or latent conflicts. Others have evolving systems where the laws — and even the courts — are dynamic and changing. Business commitments can be rescinded without warning, or they can be displaced by new geopolitical realities.

    In addition, a chief technical obstacle we face in transporting oil is the region’s existing pipeline infrastructure. Because the region’s pipelines were constructed during the Moscow-centered Soviet period, they tend to head north and west toward Russia. There are no connections to the south and east.

    Depending wholly on this infrastructure to export Central Asia oil is not practical. Russia currently is unlikely to absorb large new quantities of “foreign” oil, is unlikely to be a significant market for energy in the next decade, and lacks the capacity to deliver it to other markets.

    Certainly there is no easy way out of Central Asia. If there are to be other routes, in other directions, they must be built.

    Two major energy infrastructure projects are seeking to meet this challenge. One, under the aegis of the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, or CPC, plans to build a pipeline west from the Northern Caspian to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossisk. From Novorossisk, oil from this line would be transported by tanker through the Bosphorus to the Mediterranean and world markets.

    The other project is sponsored by the Azerbaijan International Operating Company (AIOC), a consortium of 11 foreign oil companies including four American companies — Unocal, Amoco, Exxon and Pennzoil. It will follow one or both of two routes west from Baku. One line will angle north and cross the North Caucasus to Novorossisk. The other route would cross Georgia and extend to a shipping terminal on the Black Sea port of Supsa. This second route may be extended west and south across Turkey to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan.

    But even if both pipelines were built, they would not have enough total capacity to transport all the oil expected to flow from the region in the future; nor would they have the capability to move it to the right markets. Other export pipelines must be built.

    Unocal believes that the central factor in planning these pipelines should be the location of the future energy markets that are most likely to need these new supplies. Just as Central Asia was the meeting ground between Europe and Asia in centuries past, it is again in a unique position to potentially service markets in both of these regions — if export routes to these markets can be built. Let’s take a look at some of the potential markets.

    Western Europe

    Western Europe is a tough market. It is characterized by high prices for oil products, an aging population, and increasing competition from natural gas. Between 1995 and 2010, we estimate that demand for oil will increase from 14.1 Mb/d (705 Mt/y) to 15.0 Mb/d (750 Mt/y), an average growth rate of only 0.5 percent annually. Furthermore, the region is already amply supplied from fields in the Middle East, North Sea, Scandinavia and Russia. Although there is perhaps room for some of Central Asia’s oil, the Western European market is unlikely to be able to absorb all of the production from the Caspian region.

    Central and Eastern Europe

    Central and Eastern Europe markets do not look any better. Although there is increased demand for oil in the region’s transport sector, natural gas is gaining strength as a competitor. Between 1995 and 2010, demand for oil is expected to increase by only half a million barrels per day, from 1.3 Mb/d (67 Mt/y) to 1.8 Mb/d (91.5 Mt/y). Like Western Europe, this market is also very competitive. In addition to supplies of oil from the North Sea, Africa and the Middle East, Russia supplies the majority of the oil to this region.

    The Domestic NIS Market

    The growth in demand for oil also will be weak in the Newly Independent States (NIS). We expect Russian and other NIS markets to increase demand by only 1.2 percent annually between 1997 and 2010.


    In stark contrast to the other three markets, the Asia/Pacific region has a rapidly increasing demand for oil and an expected significant increase in population. Prior to the recent turbulence in the various Asian/Pacific economies, we anticipated that this region’s demand for oil would almost double by 2010. Although the short-term increase in demand will probably not meet these expectations, Unocal stands behind its long-term estimates.

    Energy demand growth will remain strong for one key reason: the region’s population is expected to grow by 700 million people by 2010.

    It is in everyone’s interests that there be adequate supplies for Asia’s increasing energy requirements. If Asia’s energy needs are not satisfied, they will simply put pressure on all world markets, driving prices upwards everywhere.

    The key question is how the energy resources of Central Asia can be made available to satisfy the energy needs of nearby Asian markets. There are two possible solutions — with several variations.

    Export Routes

    East to China: Prohibitively Long?

    One option is to go east across China. But this would mean constructing a pipeline of more than 3,000 kilometers to central China — as well as a 2,000-kilometer connection to reach the main population centers along the coast. Even with these formidable challenges, China National Petroleum Corporation is considering building a pipeline east from Kazakhstan to Chinese markets.

    Unocal had a team in Beijing just last week for consultations with the Chinese. Given China’s long-range outlook and its ability to concentrate resources to meet its own needs, China is almost certain to build such a line. The question is what will the costs of transporting oil through this pipeline be and what netback will the producers receive.

    South to the Indian Ocean: A Shorter Distance to Growing Markets

    A second option is to build a pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean.

    One obvious potential route south would be across Iran. However, this option is foreclosed for American companies because of U.S. sanctions legislation. The only other possible route option is across Afghanistan, which has its own unique challenges.

    The country has been involved in bitter warfare for almost two decades. The territory across which the pipeline would extend is controlled by the Taliban, an Islamic movement that is not recognized as a government by most other nations. From the outset, we have made it clear that construction of our proposed pipeline cannot begin until a recognized government is in place that has the confidence of governments, lenders and our company.

    In spite of this, a route through Afghanistan appears to be the best option with the fewest technical obstacles. It is the shortest route to the sea and has relatively favorable terrain for a pipeline. The route through Afghanistan is the one that would bring Central Asian oil closest to Asian markets and thus would be the cheapest in terms of transporting the oil.

    Unocal envisions the creation of a Central Asian Oil Pipeline Consortium. The pipeline would become an integral part of a regional oil pipeline system that will utilize and gather oil from existing pipeline infrastructure in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia.

    The 1,040-mile-long oil pipeline would begin near the town of Chardzhou, in northern Turkmenistan, and extend southeasterly through Afghanistan to an export terminal that would be constructed on the Pakistan coast on the Arabian Sea. Only about 440 miles of the pipeline would be in Afghanistan.

    This 42-inch-diameter pipeline will have a shipping capacity of one million barrels of oil per day. Estimated cost of the project — which is similar in scope to the Trans Alaska Pipeline — is about US$2.5 billion.

    There is considerable international and regional political interest in this pipeline. Asian crude oil importers, particularly from Japan, are looking to Central Asia and the Caspian as a new strategic source of supply to satisfy their desire for resource diversity. The pipeline benefits Central Asian countries because it would allow them to sell their oil in expanding and highly prospective hard currency markets.

    The pipeline would benefit Afghanistan, which would receive revenues from transport tariffs, and would promote stability and encourage trade and economic development. Although Unocal has not negotiated with any one group, and does not favor any group, we have had contacts with and briefings for all of them. We know that the different factions in Afghanistan understand the importance of the pipeline project for their country, and have expressed their support of it.

    A recent study for the World Bank states that the proposed pipeline from Central Asia across Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea would provide more favorable netbacks to oil producers through access to higher value markets than those currently being accessed through the traditional Baltic and Black Sea export routes.

    This is evidenced by the netback values producers will receive as determined by the World Bank study. For West Siberian crude, the netback value will increase by nearly $2.00 per barrel by going south to Asia. For a producer in western Kazakhstan, the netback value will increase by more than $1 per barrel by going south to Asia as compared to west to the Mediterranean via the Black Sea.

    Natural Gas Export

    Given the plentiful natural gas supplies of Central Asia, our aim is to link a specific natural resource with the nearest viable market. This is basic for the commercial viability of any gas project. As with all projects being considered in this region, the following projects face geo-political challenges, as well as market issues.

    Unocal and the Turkish company, Koc Holding A.S., are interested in bringing competitive gas supplies to the Turkey market. The proposed Eurasia Natural Gas Pipeline would transport gas from Turkmenistan directly across the Caspian Sea through Azerbaijan and Georgia to Turkey. Sixty percent of this proposed gas pipeline would follow the same route as the oil pipeline proposed to run from Baku to Ceyhan. Of course, the demarcation of the Caspian remains an issue.

    Last October, the Central Asia Pipeline, Ltd. (CentGas) consortium, in which Unocal holds an interest, was formed to develop a gas pipeline that will link Turkmenistan’s vast natural gas reserves in the Dauletabad Field with markets in Pakistan and possibly India. An independent evaluation shows that the field’s resources are adequate for the project’s needs, assuming production rates rising over time to 2 billion cubic feet of gas per day for 30 years or more.

    In production since 1983, the Dauletabad Field’s natural gas has been delivered north via Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and Russia to markets in the Caspian and Black Sea areas. The proposed 790-mile pipeline will open up new markets for this gas, travelling from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan to Multan, Pakistan.

    A proposed extension would link with the existing Sui pipeline system, moving gas to near New Delhi, where it would connect with the existing HBJ pipeline. By serving these additional volumes, the extension would enhance the economics of the project, leading to overall reductions in delivered natural gas costs for all users and better margins. As currently planned, the CentGas pipeline would cost approximately $2 billion. A 400-mile extension into India could add $600 million to the overall project cost.

    As with the proposed Central Asia Oil Pipeline, CentGas cannot begin construction until an internationally recognized Afghanistan government is in place. For the project to advance, it must have international financing, government-to-government agreements and government-to-consortium agreements.


    The Central Asia and Caspian region is blessed with abundant oil and gas that can enhance the lives of the region’s residents and provide energy for growth for Europe and Asia.

    The impact of these resources on U.S. commercial interests and U.S. foreign policy is also significant and intertwined. Without peaceful settlement of conflicts within the region, cross-border oil and gas pipelines are not likely to be built. We urge the Administration and the Congress to give strong support to the United Nations-led peace process in Afghanistan.

    U.S. assistance in developing these new economies will be crucial to business’ success. We encourage strong technical assistance programs throughout the region. We also urge repeal or removal of Section 907 of the Freedom Support Act. This section unfairly restricts U.S. government assistance to the government of Azerbaijan and limits U.S. influence in the region.

    Developing cost-effective, profitable and efficient export routes for Central Asia resources is a formidable, but not impossible, task. It has been accomplished before. A commercial corridor, a “new” Silk Road, can link the Central Asia supply with the demand — once again making Central Asia the crossroads between Europe and Asia.

    Thank you.
    Just a little research will bring maps with full details.
    That we just sit back while yet again our Western armed forces are dying for Backward islamic slumholes, fills me with rage!

  11. überinfidel67:
    Beautifully and succinctly expressed! Why should we continue to squander these precious young lives on such a fool’s errand? The moslems (so-called moderates included) hate us and everything we stand for. According to mein koranf, we are “apes and pigs, the worst beings in allah’s sight.”
    Our troops should not be blundering about and dying in these stone-age caliphates; they should instead be securing the perimeter to ensure that all these prehensile throwbacks remain exactly where they are in their camel dung caliphates, and getting on with the job of rounding up and deporting to their countries of origin all the disciples of the great paedophile we have so foolishly permitted to infest our democratic and tolerant countries.

Comments are closed.