PDA

View Full Version : Karzai to Be Sworn in As Afghan President



lucky wilbury
12-06-2004, 08:45 PM
http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/w-asia/2004/dec/06/120607022.html


Karzai to Be Sworn in As Afghan President
By STEPHEN GRAHAM
ASSOCIATED PRESS

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) -

Hamid Karzai's inauguration as Afghanistan's first popularly elected president opens a new chapter in the battle to rescue this impoverished country, which became a haven for international terrorism and now risks turning into a narco-state.

Karzai is to be sworn in Tuesday in the capital's war-scarred former royal palace in front of 150 foreign guests, including Vice President Dick Cheney, the highest-ranking American official to visit Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld also will be on hand.

Afghanistan's red, black and green flag has been hung from lampposts in downtown Kabul, a commemorative blue stamp featuring a triumphant-looking Karzai has been issued, and Tuesday's proceedings will be shown live on national television - rickety power supplies permitting.

Fearful of attacks by Taliban or al-Qaida militants, Afghan and international forces have launched their biggest security operation since the Oct. 9 presidential election that gave Karzai a landslide victory.

Police have sealed off the 2 1/2-mile route from Kabul's airport to the palace, NATO armored vehicles have taken up position throughout the city, and U.S. helicopters have been patrolling the surrounding mountains.

"I'm sure that the terrorist elements would like to disrupt that, but I also think we've got the highest level of security here in Kabul and in the key parts of the country related to the inauguration that we've ever had," said Lt. Gen. David Barno, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

The installation of the U.S.-backed Karzai is the culmination of a three-year drive to transform Afghanistan from a training ground for al-Qaida extremists into a moderate Islamic republic.

Under Karzai's interim leadership, Afghans have adopted a new constitution labeled by the United States as the most progressive in the region and held their first Western-style vote, despite militant attacks that killed at least 15 election workers.

Some 3 million Afghan refugees displaced by more than two decades of warfare have returned home, and women and girls are back in jobs and schools from which they were barred under the previous regime. The economy also shows signs of recovery.

But Karzai faces daunting challenges during a five-year term likely to determine whether billions of dollars spent maintaining foreign troops here and on painstaking relief and development programs have been in vain.

Insurgents continue to harass U.S. and Afghan forces across a broad swath of the south and east. American officials expect to keep their force strength at about 18,000 at least until after parliamentary elections slated for the spring.

However, Karzai has said the country's booming drug economy, which now accounts for an estimated one-third of national income, is now a bigger threat than the insurgents and will be the top priority for the coming years.

"We are confident that we will continue to work with President Karzai and support him, particularly in his campaign to eradicate drugs," Bill Rammell, the leader of the British delegation to the inauguration, said after watching police burn seven tons of seized heroin, opium and hashish in Kabul on Monday.

U.N. surveys show cultivation of opium poppy in Afghanistan, from which most of the world's heroin is refined, jumped more than 60 percent this year, and warn that the corrupting power of drug smuggling mafias are taking an iron grip on the country.

In a show of urgency, Karzai has called hundreds of elders from around the country to meet Thursday in Kabul with U.S. and British officials honing plans to destroy poppy fields and refining labs, arrest traffickers and wean farmers off the lucrative crop.

He has also pledged to unveil a new Cabinet shorn of ineffective ministers who owed their place in the post-Taliban government to their control of militarized factions and who many Afghans and foreign observers view as warlords with no place in government.

Some Western diplomats say this is key to invigorating the government and tackling the drug problem - and to keeping the confidence of the international community on which Afghanistan remains chronically dependent.

"I'm sure the president realizes the aspirations of his people and his supporters," said Francesc Vendrell, the European Union's Special Representative to Afghanistan. Foreign donors' long-term support "should not be taken for granted."

--

DEMON CUNT
12-08-2004, 07:57 PM
Praise the Lord! Another puppet government!

Jesus and Democracy for everyone!

Karzai, just like Bush, Cheney, and Rice, worked in the OIL business, specifically Unocal. Coincidence? I don't think so.

Warham
12-08-2004, 08:57 PM
According to your thought processes, the US government was created as a puppet government by the English.

You are a stupid cunt, aren't you?

DEMON CUNT
12-09-2004, 05:26 AM
Originally posted by Warham
According to your thought processes, the US government was created as a puppet government by the English.


Simple version:

European born North American settlers rebeled against English rule and established their own government. We were not invaded and forced to accept the Declaration of Independence (it was the native Americans who were forced into that). Manifest destiny! (http://www.pbs.org/kera/usmexicanwar/dialogues/prelude/manifest/d2aeng.html)

The Iraqi people didn't vote for the situation that we have put them in.

You completely missed the point of my post: Western Oil interests seem to be taking over the world.

Warham
12-09-2004, 05:57 AM
Debunking The War For Oil Theory
By John Hawkins (01/16/03)

As I read the latest & greatest piece of diarrhea to be penned by one of the 'war for oil" crowd, I was struck by how shallow and ill-thought out this theory it is.

In fact, when I called it the "war for oil theory" in the title of this editorial, I probably gave the whole idea more credit that it's due. That's because there's really nothing more to the whole "theory" than,

A) The United States uses oil
B) Iraq has a lot of oil
C) Bush & Cheney are former oilmen

We're actually lucky that Cheney never owned a Major League baseball team and that Iraq doesn't have any talented, young players or we'd probably be treated to the "war for baseball" theory by the anti-war left.

But "war for baseball" makes about as much sense as "war for oil" when you think about it. Just ponder the OBVIOUS question that the proponents of the 'war for oil' theory never ask. That question is, "What are we accomplishing with a war for oil that we couldn't achieve more easily via peaceful means?"

-- We can't be going to war to get Saddam to sell us oil because he already does.

-- Do we want him to sell us MORE oil? Well then all we'd have to do is ask. Iraq is desperate to acquire more revenue.

-- Do we want to increase the price of oil to make the oil companies more profitable? Again, that's easy to do. We could simply destroy the Iraqi oil fields in retaliation for their attacks on our planes in the "no fly" zone. That would cause a large temporary spike in the price of oil.

-- Do we want to get more oil on the world market so we can buy cheaper oil? We could easily convince the UN to remove the sanctions and Iraq would quickly double their oil production. They're currently producing way under capacity.

-- Do we want to get the oil field contracts that the French and Russians have? Behind the scenes, Bush could have offered to have the sanctions lifted if Hussein would have torn up the contracts he had with the French and Russians. If we didn't want the sanctions in place they'd be gone and the contracts Saddam made with the French and the Russians? They don't mean anything when you're dealing with a dictator like Hussein -- unless you've got a military capable of enforcing the deal. Also, just as a side note, the war, the occupation, and aid we'll give Iraq will end up costing us much more than those oil fields are worth even if we would have gotten them all (which we won't).

-- Do we want to control the country that has the 2nd largest supply of oil in the world so we'll still have a source of oil after much of the rest of the planet has gone dry? Well, this makes no sense at all in world where relationships between nations change regularly. Think about how our relationships with Pakistan, Russia, South Korea, & Germany have changed just since 9/11. The only way we could insure that we would still have access to Iraq's oil decades from now would be to make them into a US colony with a puppet ruler who actually takes orders from us. Is there anyone out there who actually thinks this is going to happen despite the fact that we're not doing it anywhere else in the world today?

The reason I've had to toss out all these different options in the first place is because there is no consistent, rational theory coming from the 'war for oil' people. They themselves don't even understand what they mean by "war for oil".

If you want to expose how little thought these people have put into this, just use the Socratic Method on them. I'm sure your conversation will sound something like this…

Anti-War Protestor: This is a war for oil! That's what this all about!

You: Why do you say that?

Anti-War Protestor: Because Iraq has oil and we want it! Bush and Cheney, they're oilmen!

You: So how does invading Iraq help us get their oil?

Anti-War Protestor: After we invade, we can just take it!

You: So you're saying we're going to invade Iraq and just take over their oil fields? Then we're never going to pay Iraq for their oil? That doesn't sound very likely….

Anti-War Protestor: I'm not saying that…we will pay for the oil but…

You: But, we already pay for the oil. How is that different from what we're doing now?

Anti-War Protestor: We'll have all that oil under our control!

You: How will it be under our control?

Anti-War Protestor: Iraq's leader will be a puppet of the United States! They'll have to sell us oil!

You: But they already sell us oil. So why should we…

Anti-War Protestor: He tried to kill Bush's daddy! That's what this really about!

The 'war for oil theory' isn't a serious theory for people who pay attention to foreign policy. It's really nothing more than a bumper sticker slogan that through parrot-like repetition has managed to impress liberal partisans, people who don't like Bush, and those who don't really understand foreign policy.

DEMON CUNT
12-09-2004, 02:45 PM
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92372,00.html

Cheney Energy Task Force Documents Detail Iraqi Oil Industry
Friday, July 18, 2003

WASHINGTON_—_Vice President Dick Cheney's energy task force appeared to have some interest in early 2001 in Iraq's oil industry, including which foreign companies were pursuing business there, according to documents released Friday by a private watchdog group.

Judicial Watch (search), a conservative legal group, obtained a batch of task force-related Commerce Department papers that included a detailed map of Iraq's oil fields, terminals and pipelines as well as a list entitled "Foreign Suitors of Iraqi Oilfield Contracts."

The papers also included a detailed map of oil fields and pipelines in Saudi Arabia and in the United Arab Emirates and a list of oil and gas development projects in those two countries.

The papers were dated early March 2001, about two months before the Cheney energy task force completed and announced its report on the administration's energy needs and future energy agenda...

More here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,92372,00.html

See the map here:
http://www.judicialwatch.org/IraqOilMap.pdf