THE US MEDIA HAS PAID AS MUCH ATTENTION
TO THE AFGHAN DRUG CANCER
AS THE WHITE HOUSE ~
THAT IS, BETWEEN ZILCH AND ZIP
June 13, 2011
THE WAR IN AFGHANISTAN: DRUG PROFITS MUST STILL BE GOOD BECAUSE AMERICAN GOVERNMENT WANTS ITS TROOPS TO STAY FOR DECADES TO COME!
There has been a constant push over the last few years to have the soldiers begin a withdrawal from Afghanistan and bring them home. However, according to this latest article, from the Guardian online news service out of the UK at www.guardian.co.uk, it seems that the US Government has just entered into secret talks with their puppets in the Afghan government that will see US troops stay in Afghanistan for decades to come! This is absolutely sickening, and here is that article in its entirety for my own readers to view:
SECRET US AND AFGHANISTAN TALKS
COULD SEE TROOPS STAY FOR DECADES
(Noor: Let us not discuss Hillary’s track record for honesty and reliability! :
Though not publicized, negotiations have been under way for more than a month to secure a strategic partnership agreement which would include an American presence beyond the end of 2014 ~ the agreed date for all 130,000 combat troops to leave ~ despite continuing public debate in Washington and among other members of the 49-nation coalition fighting in Afghanistan about the speed of the withdrawal.
American officials admit that although Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, recently said Washington did not want any "permanent" bases in Afghanistan, her phrasing allows a variety of possible arrangements.
"There are US troops in various countries for some considerable lengths of time which are not there permanently," a US official told the Guardian.
Although they will not be "combat troops" that does not mean they will not take part in combat. Mentors could regularly fight alongside Afghan troops, for example.
Senior NATO officials also predict that the insurgency in Afghanistan will continue after 2014.
There are at least five bases in Afghanistan which are likely candidates to house large contingents of American special forces, intelligence operatives, surveillance equipment and military hardware post-2014. In the heart of one of the most unstable regions in the world and close to the borders of Pakistan, Iran and China, (Noor: AND RUSSIA!) as well as to central Asia and the Persian Gulf, the bases would be rare strategic assets.
News of the US-Afghan talks has sparked deep concern among powers in the region and beyond. Russia and India are understood to have made their concerns about a long-term US presence known to both Washington and Kabul. China, which has pursued a policy of strict non-intervention beyond economic affairs in Afghanistan, has also made its disquiet clear. During a recent visit, senior Pakistani officials were reported to have tried to convince their Afghan counterparts to look to China as a strategic partner, not the US.
American negotiators will arrive later this month in Kabul for a new round of talks. The Afghans rejected the Americans' first draft of a strategic partnership agreement in its entirety, preferring to draft their own proposal. This was submitted to Washington two weeks ago. The US draft was "vaguely formulated", one Afghan official told the Guardian.
Afghan negotiators are now preparing detailed annexes to their own proposal which lists specific demands.
"We are facing a common threat in international terrorist networks. They are not only a threat to Afghanistan but to the west. We want a partnership that brings regional countries together, not divides them," said Rangin Spanta, the Afghan national security adviser and the lead Afghan negotiator on the partnership.
"prosperous Afghanistan" was a lesser priority. "It is our goal, not necessarily theirs," he said.
Though Ghani stressed "consensus on core issues", big disagreements remain.
Another is the question of US troops launching operations outside Afghanistan from bases in the country. From Afghanistan, American military power could easily be deployed into Iran or Pakistan post-2014. Helicopters took off from Afghanistan for the recent raid which killed Osama bin Laden.
"We will never allow Afghan soil to be used [for operations] against a third party," said Spanta, Afghanistan's national security adviser.
A third contentious issue is the legal basis on which troops might remain. Afghan officials are keen that any foreign forces in their country are subject to their laws. The Afghans also want to have ultimate authority over foreign troops' use and deployment.
"There should be no parallel decision-making structures ... All has to be in accordance with our sovereignty and constitution," Spanta said.
Nor do the two sides agree over the pace of negotiations. The US want to have agreement by early summer, before President Barack Obama's expected announcement on troop withdrawals. This is "simply not possible," the Afghan official said.
There are concerns too that concluding a strategic partnership agreement could also clash with efforts to find an inclusive political settlement to end the conflict with the Taliban. A "series of conversations" with senior insurgent figures are under way, one Afghan minister has told the Guardian.
A European diplomat in Kabul said:
"It is difficult to imagine the Taliban being happy with US bases [in Afghanistan] for the foreseeable future."
The Afghan-American negotiations come amid a scramble among regional powers to be positioned for what senior US officers are now describing as the "out years".
Mark Sedwill, the NATO senior civilian representative in Afghanistan, recently spoke of the threat of a "Great Game 3.0" in the region, referring to the bloody and destabilizing conflict between Russia, Britain and others in south west Asia in the 19th century.
NTS Notes: This is absolutely atrocious. The Afghan people absolutely do not want these foreign invaders to stay in their country, and have still been joining the freedom fighting Taliban in droves.
And you really have to love the BS excuses about needing to fight their phoney "Al Qaeda", and so called "insurgents"... But people everywhere are well aware that there is no "Al Qaeda" which was created by the CIA and Mossad for the phony war on terror.
If anyone has any doubt about exactly WHY the US and NATO forces are in Afghanistan, I want to present the following photo expose that comes from www.whatreallyhappened.com, that shows explicit proof of troops protecting Opium fields:
Between the crosses.
NTS Notes: It does not take a rocket scientist to see that the US and NATO are definitely on the wrong and evil side in the war in Afghanistan. This war shows how much the Rothschilds are in total control over world governments when they can call on their minion slaves to go to war and die to ensure their continuing drug profits.
Again it is up to the alternative media to get the real truth out about the evil war in Afghanistan and to push the citizens of this and other countries to demand the immediate withdrawal of our forces, and bring them home. That time is NOW!
NARCO AGGRESSION: RUSSIA ACCUSES THE U.S. MILITARY OF INVOLVEMENT IN DRUG TRAFFICKING OUT OF AFGHANISTAN
OPIUM OF THE MASSES, ERIC WALBERG LOOKS AT THE REPERCUSSIONS OF THE SOVIET OCCUPATION OF AFGHANISTAN