Petraeus Supports July 2011 Timetable, Sends Faint Signal On Strategy Change

OK. It's an occupation for oil, and for cementing out dominion over the Middle East, and for perfecting the abasement of a certain failed culture in the clash of civilizations. If it's all of those, what difference does it make?

=====================================



If it means it's for oil, for imperialism, as Lt. Colonel Karen Kwiatkowski (retired U.S. Air Force lieutenant colonel whose assignments included a variety of roles for the National Security Agency & who spent her last 4 1/2 years working at the Pentagon with Donald Rumsfeld) said:



"If you map the proposed pipeline route across Afghanistan & you look at our bases? Matches perfectly. Our bases are there to solve a problem that the Taliban couldn't solve. Taliban couldn't provide security in that part of Afghanistan -- Well now that's where our bases are. So, does that have to do with Osama Bin Laden? It has nothing to do with Osama Bin Laden. It has everything to do with the longer plan, in this case a strategy which I wouldn't necessarily call neoconservative, however it fits perfectly in with the neoconservative ideology which says, 'If you have military force and you need something from a weaker country, then you need to deploy that force and take what you need because your country's needs are paramount'. It's the whole idea of unilateralism, of using force to achieve your aims." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUxI3rSLDO8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SltOy_F6ZII



Then who the heII are we?
About Afghanistan
Read the Article at HuffingtonPost