Not all empires die in Afghanistan?
Published: 05 August, 2009, 22:16
Edited: 06 August, 2010, 00:58
TAGS: Military, NATO, Politics, Terrorism
Unlike Britain and the Soviet Union in the past, America's goal in Afghanistan is not to occupy the country, but to prevent it from harboring terrorists, says Megan Ortagus of the Institute for the Study of War.
Meanwhile, calls are being made to increase forces on the ground to help those already there beat back the insurgency.
NATO's new secretary general has recently visited Afghanistan, saying the situation there is the alliance's highest priority. Speaking in Kabul, where he met the Afghani president, Anders Fogh Rasmussen said he regretted the number of civilian causalities during the war.
The unannounced trip comes as Taliban militants step up attacks across the country ahead of presidential elections later this month.
05.08.2009, 18:40
4 comments
“Russian subs near US waters is normal procedure” – Russian NavyThe Russian Navy says there is nothing unusual about its submarines patrolling international waters, including those off the US coast. |
05.08.2009, 23:09
5 comments
“Dollar’s future unstable”The dollar’s role as the world's main currency is over and its future is unstable, says author and journalist Webster Tarpley. |
Not all empires die in Afghanista, THEY MAY JUST GET FATALLY WOUNDED TO DIE LATER?












Megan Ortagus's comment is outrageous. We're in Afghanistan to control the illicit (and legal) drug trade. It's all about complete control. Anything anybody ever wants, must eventually come under the complete control of the United States government. So far, they're 90% successful. Gaining control of YOU is their next goal, and they're doing a rather successful job of that too, simply by lying to you. The government is NOT your advocate, but your enemy. They want to remove the power you have living a free and independent life.