Hi All,

>>"President Barack Obama is quietly deploying an extra 13,000 troops to Afghanistan, an unannounced move that is separate from a request by the US commander in the country for even more reinforcements."<<

According to conversations between the Washington Post and Pentagon officials, these troops are 'enablers'; engineers, medical staff, intelligence officers, military police and about 300 explosive specialists to combat roadside bombs. Still, it increases by more than 50% the original 21,000 troops President Obama sent earlier.

Now we are waiting to see how many additional troops will be sent before the end of the year and whether Pres. Obama accedes to Gen. McCrystal's wishes.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/13/obama-afghanistan-troop-deployment

Clem

Mike,

Mike,

I cannot imagine the Italian Authorities would pay bribes or give backhanders to those considered terrorists -there is no history of any Italian dealings with criminality.

They are in the EC after all !!!!!!

Do I detect a note of cynicism/humor here.<g>

Can you say Trafigura?<s>

Besides, I read this morning that Canada has also now been similarly accused in the media.

When you think about it, perhaps it's a lot cheaper to pay for peace in Dollars/Lire than pay with the blood of our soldiers.  

It's also cheaper than the Pentagon paying $400/gallon of petrol to be delivered in Afghanistan as I read this morning.

Clem

Good Evening Mike,

Supplies and fuel etc are provided for the military by a chain of contractors-some may be owned by the enemy -as it's tax payers money  (mainly yours)  it makes war profitable for some. (Including Politicians  and some military  about to retire.

That's why the price is so high and billions are spent and lost.

You also read about family members representing companies which do business with the military as contractors.

Which means those who make the decisions are also the ones who reap the profits from those decisions.

Clem

Mike,

It's called Flexibility!..................you don't hire a good lawyer to keep the law-but to circumnavigate it -at a fee.

A good case can be made for that for the Carter-Ruck Law firm for its super injunction against the Guardian in trying to suppress not just an MP's question but to suppress the Guardian from reporting that a super-injunction has been placed upon the Newspaper.

The Brits must surely wonder how a sitting judge could issue such and order and how many other super-injunctions are out there, which have nothing to do with national security but are solely based on a private company's bottom line?

Clem

Mike,

The Official Secrets Acts are designed to cheat or deprive the taxpayer for what goes on  ..English Law can be very flexible  and when the lawyers are sure of receiving unlimited fees -well !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Money Talks-merit Walks....always

But there is a difference between the Official Secret's Act and these 'super injunctions'. I can understand that they don't want the media to blab about national security issues, but preventing the media from reporting on parliamentary questions posed by an MP, which are supposed to be on the public record, that's a different matter alltogether.

Clem

Mike,

In other words -a theory that has to become legal fact !!

That is the meat and potatoes of the Highest Appeal Courts.

Speaking of High Courts, such a case has been filed with the Pakistani High Court this week claiming that the Pakistani government has failed in its duty to protect the population against US drones and also against the illegitimate operation of Xe or Blackwater on its soil.

Should be interesting to see what if anything happens there.

Clem

Mike,

Oh yes it will keep the rich families amused -and provided employment for the retained lawyers.

Do I detect a note of cynicism?<s>

But you're probably right. Those judges also know which side their bread is buttered on and won't do anything to upset the apple cart. Neither will the political leaders or the military.

As you say, the ones who will line their pockets are the lawyers.

The only high profile case right now is at the Hague and Mr. Karadzic has decided to run his own case and defend himself against alleged war crimes. He is also boycotting the court. All part of the grand theater. If the legal maneuvering continues, he'll be dead before a verdict is ever pronounced, just like Mr. Milosovec.

Clem

Mike,

The serbs are renowned for being stubborn  and not giving up -bit like the AFGHANS IN SOME WAYS.

I don't know about the Serbs but everything I've read over the years about the Afghans is that they are a very determined people. Otherwise they would be speaking Russian in Afghanistan right now.

Clem

Mike,

I suppose many are individuals -and that does not fit in with modern ways !<

Well, if you apply it to Afghanistan or Pakistan, I remember a cite in AT i think. To paraphrase it, the contention was that when the Cordesman, the Gates and the Eickenberry types talk about winning or losing the wars, they forget that they don't own the countries or the people.

The cite went on to say that ."..the promised economic aid gets funnelled to multi-national corporations or is syphened off by corrupt government offices, which leaves little for the Afghan peasant, not enough to win allegiance, let alone, 'hearts and minds'.

This also tallies with the latest I have read that the Obama administration may now only decide to defend the 10 main cities in Afghanistan, instead of a state wide campaign. Apparently they have already ceded Nuristan(?) a province in the far North where they had a couple of outposts which they recently abandoned.

It seems it's preserving the elite in Afghanistan versus the peasant when it's all said and done. 

Clem