Real Oath Keepers

Troop Deaths Continue to Rise

America troops continue to die at ever increasing rates in Afghanistan, the temporary new front for this false “war on terror”. The truth is, that Americans are being terrorized by infiltrators and usurpers all of the same stripe, not the false front al-qaida. Our traitorous “officials” are using terror to keep Americans supporting illegal wars of attrition against innocent peoples, for the gains of a number of criminals who have hijacked America.

Troop deaths have doubled recently, and with the ramp up of 30,000 more troops to the Middle East, it will only get worse. Unfortunately, there will be NO draw down of troops in 18 months, as it will take this long to get most of them in place. Not to mention the inconvenient fact that America can now look forward to fighting on yet another front in Yemen. America is being played like a stooge into the position of the bad guy for the start of WWIII. When she is all used up, and has nothing left to offer, America will be destroyed just like Germany was after WWII, and by the same group of people. You can’t help America and it’s people if you die fighting the wrong enemy.

You’ll never be fighting the right enemy until you join ROK and help us rid ourselves of the destructive parasites. The enemy is an enemy within, and can not be stopped by killing the wrong people in the Middle East. Now, more than ever, we need a real homeland defense that protects the homeland, FROM the homeland. Get our Basic Training manual and get up to speed already. We’ve been waiting for you.

Source: Yahoo
Date: 31DEC09

KABUL – U.S. military deaths in Afghanistan doubled in 2009 compared with a year ago as 30,000 additional troops began pouring in for a stepped-up offensive and the Taliban fought back with powerful improvised bombs.

A tally by The Associated Press shows 304 American service members had died as of Dec. 30, up from 151 in 2008. The count does not include eight U.S. civilians killed by a suicide bomber on a base in eastern Afghanistan on Wednesday.

Also, the annual death toll of international troops, including U.S. forces, surpassed 500 for the first time in the war. The total this year was 502 compared with 286 in 2008, according to the AP count.

Among other forces, Britain took the worst blow in 2009 with 107 deaths and Canada lost 32, including four who died Wednesday when their vehicle was blown up by a roadside bomb. Other countries in the international military operation lost a total of 59 service members.

U.S. military officials acknowledge that the insurgency has the momentum and that more troops on the battlefield means the death toll is likely to remain high in the near term. Another 30,000 reinforcements are due in coming months, raising the American presence to 100,000.

In contrast, U.S. deaths in Iraq dropped by half as troops largely remained on bases and the United States prepares to withdraw from that country by the end of 2011. There, 152 American service members died, down from 314 a year earlier, according to figures compiled by the AP from U.S. Defense Department information.

The sharply rising death toll in Afghanistan was an obstacle for President Barack Obama as he decided in November to send more forces to the war, which is increasingly unpopular in both America and Europe.

Afghan civilian deaths are more difficult to track, but according to the United Nations mission in Afghanistan, 2,021 were killed in the first 10 months of the year, nearly 1,400 of them by insurgents and 465 by U.S. and other pro-government forces.

Over the past eight years, at least 933 U.S. service members have died in the military campaign that was launched in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, according to U.S. Defense Department figures that include deaths in Pakistan, Uzbekistan and support operations elsewhere.

As the second surge gets under way, the potential carnage troops face from improvised explosive devices, or IEDs, is a major worry.

The AP count, based on daily reports from NATO’s International Security Assistance Force, found that 129 of the U.S. fatalities in 2009 — or more than 40 percent — were caused by IEDs. The homemade bombs are hidden along the roadside or near buildings and detonated by remote control or triggered when troops cross simple pressure plates.

The Taliban were slower than Iraqi insurgents to adopt IEDs, but they now appear to be the weapon of choice against the Americans’ superior artillery and armored vehicles, said a senior intelligence official with the international force. He spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the issue.

There were more than 7,000 IED incidents in 2009 — including explosions, the discovery and defusing of the bombs or civilians turning them in — compared to just 81 in 2003, the official said.

He estimated that more than three-quarters of all American deaths and injuries in Afghanistan were due to the improvised explosives.

IEDs also take a harsh toll on civilians. In the last four months of the year, 117 were killed by the devices, either deliberately or inadvertently, including 30 who died when a bus ran over an IED in September.

Although the U.S. Defense Department established a body in 2006 to oversee anti-IED efforts, a report by the Government Accountability Office in October criticized it for lacking “full visibility and coordination.”

The Defense Department’s top weapons-buyer, Ashton Carter, told reporters in November that the United States was “just beginning to get set” in developing a full-scale strategy against the bombs.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced in November that a new task force on the matter was being formed.

One initiative under way is shipping a more maneuverable version of the heavily armored vehicles known as MRAPs — Mine Resistant Ambush Protected — to Afghanistan. Although these can withstand blasts better than other military vehicles such as Humvees and Strykers, the Taliban are responding by building bigger IEDs.

The intelligence official said that 18 months ago, the explosive charges typically weighed about 25 pounds (11 kilograms), but charge weights in some recent cases have been upward of 1,000 pounds (450 kilograms) — enough to destroy an MRAP.

The declining U.S. military fatalities in Iraq reflect how the country, once almost consumed by violence, has become safer as sectarian violence has decreased. Also, the American role in the conflict has shrunk. Under a U.S.-Iraq security pact, American combat troops pulled back from Iraqi cities on June 30, as part of a plan to have all U.S. forces out of the country by the end of 2011.

Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute, said the question now is whether the security gains are permanent or whether insurgents are simply biding their time until American forces leave in order to resume the conflict.

Houston Mayor to Take Private Oath

In a move not surprising to members of ROK, Houston’s newly elected gay mayor, which the usurped media has been sure to give high regards, has decided to take the oath of office in private. Citing the cost of a public ceremony, this new gay mayor has decided it would be best to be sworn in privately, without the prying eyes of the public this person was elected to serve. Election ceremonies should have absolutely zero cost, because all one needs is a person to do the swearing in, and nothing more. Should it really be expensive just to swear a person into office, knowing it can be done for free?

The truth is, this is a ploy to avoid swearing on a bible, because America’s usurpers don’t believe in traditional American or Christian values. In fact, they absolutely abhor Christianity, as well as our now defunct Constitution. This is reminiscent of Obama’s swearing in, where his oath was not done properly, and therefore had to be redone behind closed doors. What exactly are these people swearing an oath to, if we can not see it publicly with our own eyes? Why is there no outrage from other elected officials and the media over this shady practice?

Those who have read our Basic Training manual know exactly what kind of allegiances these people have, which can only best be described as Satanic in nature, for lack of a better term. Ask yourself, do you want any elected officials taking oaths behind closed doors? Do you believe this person will take an honest oath to uphold the defunct constitution, and our way of life, if it must be done behind closed doors? Our oath is in the open for all to see, and we hide nothing. Why should they be any different?

Source: Chron
Date: 29DEC09

An overflow crowd of at least 1,000 turned out for Kathy Whitmire when she was sworn in for her fourth term as Houston mayor on Jan. 2, 1988, a Saturday. But this Saturday, when Annise Parker, the city’s first female mayor since Whitmire, repeats the oath of office, very few will be there to hear it.

Parker, said the mayor-elect’s spokeswoman Janice Evans, has opted for a private ceremony. The public, the media and even Parker’s own staff are not invited, Evans said. State District Judge Steven Kirkland will be there, but only because he will do the honors.

Evans described Saturday’s swearing in — the city’s charter mandates that office holders be installed on Jan. 2 — as, essentially, a legal formality.

Parker decided to make the event private, Evans said, in part to eliminate the expense a weekend ceremony would generate and to keep from stealing thunder from Monday’s City Hall inauguration of newly elected officeholders.

Evans could not estimate how much a more elaborate ceremony might cost, but said Parker does not want to incur any unnecessary expenses at a time when the city faces financial constraints.

State Rep. Garnet Coleman (D-Houston), co-chairman of Parker’s transition team, said unheralded swearing-ins in government aren’t unique. “I think it’s something that started a long time ago,” he said, noting that newly elected legislators routinely complete “a paper swearing in” days before their ascension is publicly celebrated.

Whitmire’s 1988 swearing in and inauguration was a very public event, with throngs of well-wishers jamming the Wortham Theater Center.

After repeating the oath of office, Whitmire swore in 14 City Council members who joined her on stage.

Iraq Commander – Pregnancy Could Mean Jail

According to new rules laid out by Major General Tony Cucolo, a U.S. Military commander in Iraq, women who become pregnant during their tours, and Soldiers who get them pregnant could face serious consequences, including jail time. In a bold move, the commander has put court martial and criminal charges on the table for any troops who might conceive a child without the Military’s permission. This comes as no surprise to many, who understand that Soldiers and their bodies are Military property, and are often treated like any other piece of Military equipment. Used and abused until it can’t be used anymore, then replaced unceremoniously.

It is not against Military rules for single Soldiers to have sexual contact with each other, but the natural results of such contact could now get you locked up by the Military you serve. The real problem with this story is Cucolo’s remark here, “I consider the male soldier as responsible for taking a soldier out of the fight just as responsible as the female soldier who must redeploy”. If you didn’t know any better, you could almost hear how he is relating Soldiers who get their female counterparts pregnant, to an enemy combatant taking out one of our Soldiers.

This is the kind of treatment our Soldiers get when serving unwittingly for the real enemy. The enemy within. If you had our Basic Training knowledge you would know who this enemy is, and why a Military commander would ever get away with making such remarks. Cucolo claims he will only use lesser punishments, but it’s just one step closer to the harshest punishments for the most menial things.

Source: Yahoo
Date: 22DEC09

BAGHDAD (Reuters) – The U.S. military commander in northern Iraq defended on Tuesday a new policy imposing strict penalties, including possible jail time, for troops who become pregnant or get other soldiers pregnant.

“In this 22,000-soldier task force, I need every soldier I’ve got, especially since we are facing a drawdown of forces during our mission,” Major General Tony Cucolo, who commands U.S. soldiers in northern Iraq, said in a statement.

Cucolo’s new directive, issued last month when he took command, lays out a long list of activities that could lead to court martial or criminal charges, from gambling to stealing historical artifacts, and applies only to his command.

The clause about pregnancy has garnered the most attention, affecting seven soldiers under Cucolo’s command, according to military spokesman Major Jeff Allen. The command includes 1,682 female soldiers, Allen said.

There are some 115,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, a number set to drop to about 50,000 by the end of August next year as the U.S. military ends combat operations. Under a deal with Iraq, a full withdrawal of U.S. troops is due by the end of 2011.

U.S. Central Command rules do not prohibit “sexual contact between consenting, single servicemembers.”

“I wanted to encourage my soldiers to think before they acted, and understand their behavior and actions have consequences — all of their behavior.

“I consider the male soldier as responsible for taking a soldier out of the fight just as responsible as the female soldier who must redeploy,” Cucolo said.

Allen said Cucolo “takes each case on its own merits, considering each set of circumstances before deciding on punishment.”

He said such punishment could, in the most serious case, include jail time. But soldiers violating the rule so far have received letters of reprimand.

In a statement to ABC News, Cucolo said he would not resort to using the court martial for such cases.

“I see absolutely no circumstance where I would punish a female soldier by court martial for a violation … I fully intend to handle these cases through lesser disciplinary action,” he wrote, according to the ABC report.

The American Dream – Homelessness and Hunger

This is what our troops have to look forward to as a reward for smashing the sovereignty of a number of Middle Eastern nations, to better serve the usurpers who have a strangle hold on America, and most of the planet. Hunger and homelessness are the new picture of America, as we head into the second engineered economic collapse, and all this by the same people as usual. Funny thing is, these traitorous infiltrators have done this to a number of other countries, and have been ejected on the order of one hundred and nine different times, from eighty four different countries for this very thing. If you knew the real story about history, and not the one printed by these criminals in your school books, you would easily be able to see the pattern. Just in the last year alone, the cry for assistance with the most basic of all needs (feeding one’s self) has jumped over 26%, yet these infiltrators would have you believe we are already recovering. As more and more people lose their jobs (half a million people per week) this problem will only continue to spiral out of control. If you really want to do something to help defend your homeland, you need to get the foxes out of the hen house, but who are the foxes? As soon as you read our Basic Training manual, all of those questions will simply fade away, and as soon as you come home and deal with the real terrorists in every facet of our lives, these problems will instantly start to subside. Of course, 25% of America’s homeless population are Veterans who gave their blood, sweat, and tears while these crooks worked to put their families on the street. How do you think you should respond?

Source: Yahoo
Date: 08DEC09

CHICAGO (Reuters) – Hunger is spreading while the number of homeless families is increasing as a result of the recession and other factors, according to a report on Tuesday.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors said cities reported a 26 percent jump in demand for hunger assistance over the past year, the largest average increase since 1991.

Middle-class families as well as the uninsured, elderly, working poor and homeless increasingly looked for help with hunger, which was mainly fueled by unemployment, high housing costs and low wages.

The 2009 report is based on a survey of 27 cities, including Boston, Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, Miami, Philadelphia and San Francisco, that comprise the group’s task force on hunger and homelessness.

Looking ahead to 2010, cities said they expect it will be difficult to meet increased demands for food due to the impact of state and local budget cuts, a decrease in grocery store donations and higher food costs.

Just over three-fourths of the cities reported a jump in homeless families due to the recession and lack of affordable housing. Individual homelessness, on the other hand, was level or down in 16 of the cities.

“This is an indication of the success of policies aimed at ending chronic homelessness among single adults with disabilities,” the report said.

Only 10 cities reported having so-called tent cities or other concentrations of the homeless.

Most of the cities in the survey received additional funding to combat hunger and homelessness from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

“Cities are using (housing funds) to develop central intake systems for homeless services, coordinate services more closely with surrounding areas, or offer homeless prevention assistance for the first time,” the report said.

18 Month Troop Build Up Equals 2-4 Years

So much for 18 months until troop draw down begins in Afghanistan. Defense Secretary Gates, another one of America’s usurpers, has made it clear that troops will likely continue fighting in Afghanistan for the next two to four years. The U.S. will not be able to turn over control of Afghanistan to it’s rightful, elected leadership known as the Taliban, because U.S. troops are there to crush the Taliban and install puppet leadership. However, since most Afghanistan citizens supported the Taliban and their ouster of the opium drug lords the U.S. was sent to protect, our troops face a major uphill battle. It is highly likely that U.S. troops will have to kill on the order of one million or more Afghanistan civilians, as they did in Iraq, to ensure there is no fight left in the people, and they will remain subdued when American forces leave control to the new puppets in charge. Gates is more than happy for the Taliban to lay low while U.S. troops secure control of all the important assets within the country. In his eyes, this will only make enslaving their peoples easier. The idea that they must renounce Al-qaida is a joke, because Al-qaida is their own creation, and is made up of mostly white skinned pretenders like Adam Gadahn a.k.a. Adam Pearlman and other fakes. Gates is planning on a long term relationship with Afghanistan, because when U.S. troops are done, the country will no longer belong to it’s people. It will belong to the same traitorous usurpers that run the U.S., and are responsible for these wars. This is what you get when you are working for the enemy while they destroy your homeland. War, war, lies, lies, and more lies, and more war. Don’t expect it to end with Afghanistan. Iran is next on the list.

Source: Yahoo
Date: 06DEC09

WASHINGTON – Defense Secretary Robert Gates says Americans should expect a significant U.S. military presence in Afghanistan for two years to four years more.

Just as in Iraq, the U.S. eventually will turn over provinces to local security forces, allowing the United States to bring the number of troops down steadily, according to Gates, who appeared on three Sunday talk shows with Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to discuss President Barack Obama’s new Afghan war plan.

That plan includes an increase of 30,000 U.S. troops, followed by a scheduled transition to a greater role for Afghan forces that would start in July 2011. Obama’s plan would increase to 100,000 the number of U.S. troops there, marking the largest expansion of the war since it began eight years ago.

Gates acknowledged that the additional U.S. forces will mean more casualties at first. He also said he’s happy with the results of an offensive in Helmand province.

“I think one of the reasons that our military leaders are pretty confident is that they have already begun to see changes where the Marines are present in southern Helmand,” Gates said.

The Pentagon chief said the initial U.S. troop withdrawal in July 2011 might involve only a small number of troops. He rejected suggestions that setting a transition date would embolden the Taliban. They read newspapers and are able to determine public opinion in the United States and Europe, he said.

Gates said he doesn’t believe the Taliban will get more aggressive, and would welcome it if they lay low until the target date in 2011 because that would give coalition troops opportunities to make great progress in stabilizing Afghanistan.

Clinton said one area that may not show much progress is winning over Taliban leaders.

They “have to renounce al-Qaida, renounce violence. They have to be willing to abide by the constitution of Afghanistan and live peacefully,” she said.

“We have no firm information whether any of those leaders would be at all interested in following that kind of a path,” she said. “In fact, I’m highly skeptical that any of them would.”

But both Clinton and Gates said having a target date will help move both countries toward a successful transition.

“What we’ve done and what the president’s direction to the commanders on the ground is very clearly: We want this to move. We want it to move quickly,” said Clinton.

Obama’s combination of a troop increase and a transition target is intended to balance “a demonstration of resolve with also communicating a sense of urgency to the Afghan government that they must step up to the plate in terms of recruiting their soldiers, training their soldiers and getting their soldiers into the field,” Gates said

“It’s an effort to try and let the Afghans know that while we intend to have a relationship and support them for a long time, the nature of that relationship is going to begin to change in July of 2011,” Gates said. “And as the security component comes down, the economic, development and the political relationship will become a bigger part of the relationship.”

Clinton and Gates appeared on ABC’s “This Week,” CBS’ “Face the Nation” and NBC’s “Meet the Press.” The interviews were taped Saturday and the networks provided transcripts in advance of the shows’ broadcast.

Value Menu Falters as Homeland Falls Apart

You know America is in trouble when McDonalds can’t even sustain it’s value menu. While our troops fight and die in the Middle East for nothing more than to serve America’s own usurpers, they are busy wrecking the homeland. Many troops will never see home again, as they will return in body bags, but those who do, won’t recognize it by the time the wars are over. With Americans losing their jobs, homes, savings, retirement plans, and everything else you can think of to the same group of crooks responsible for the wars, it’s likely there won’t be much to return to when the troops do come home. Of course, if you actually took the time to identify the real threats facing our people, you wouldn’t have troops in Afghanistan. Instead, they would be cleaning house in Washington, New York, Las Vegas, and a few other places where the crooks and terrorists are really hiding. You can’t defend the homeland from thousands of miles away, regardless of what anybody tells you. McDonalds food isn’t food, it’s garbage, but Americans eat it up like it’s going out of style, so if a company like this is struggling to sell burgers for a dollar, how do you think everyone else will fair? Maybe if we’re lucky our new communist president will buy a portion of McDonalds on our dime, just like they did with GM. If you want to solve the problem, get with our Basic Training program TODAY, and finally understand where it all stems from. If you fail to do so, don’t let us hear you complain.

Source: Yahoo
Date: 08DEC09

CHICAGO (AP) — The supersized recession that was a boon for business last year caught up further with McDonald’s Corp. in November, as high unemployment ate into sales.

While the world’s largest burger chain is still faring better than its competitors, who’ve increasingly been pushing value menus and discounts of their own, the restaurant’s fortunes likely won’t improve unless the U.S. economy does.

“I think ultimately, we’ll need job growth to get things turned around to get back in the positive territory,” said Morningstar restaurant analyst R.J. Hottovy.

On Tuesday, McDonald’s said sales at restaurants open at least a year fell 0.6 percent in the U.S. It was the second consecutive monthly decline for the measure, an important indicator of a restaurant chain’s health, and a steeper fall than October’s 0.1 percent.

November’s overseas results were better but still mixed, helped by a softening dollar that translated foreign revenue into more dollars. Around the globe, sales in locations open at least a year rose 0.7 percent.

Because of its size and its ability to trounce competitors with its increasingly popular dollar menu, McDonald’s was one of the early beneficiaries of the recession as diners traded down from pricier restaurants. In fact, last November, sales in locations open a year climbed 4.5 percent in the U.S. and 7.7 globally.

But earlier this fall, McDonald’s cautioned it wasn’t immune to the recession, either, and in October, the U.S. figure fell 0.1 percent.

Tuesday’s results were only the fourth U.S. decrease in 6 1/2 years.

The results come as McDonald’s also faces increased competition from rivals trumpeting their own deeply discounted menus. Among them: Taco Bell’s value menu that begins with items for 79 cents, and Wendy’s $2.99 combos. Burger King has also heavily pushed a $1 double cheeseburger that it touts as being a bigger and better value than McDonald’s $1 McDouble.

“It appears that after nearly six years of consistent gains, further increases in U.S. comps will be more labored,” Standard & Poor’s restaurant analyst Mark Basham said in a research note.

That’s because until the U.S. unemployment rate — which was 10 percent in November — recovers significantly, McDonald’s customers are less likely to visit the chain — picking up coffee and a McMuffin for breakfast, or dashing in for a Big Mac for lunch with co-workers.

In Europe, sales in locations open at least a year rose 2.5 percent, thanks to stronger business in the U.K. and France. But the figures were still short of forecasts and were the second-worst figures from the continent this year, said Janney Capital Markets analyst Mark Kalinowski.

“McDonald’s did not provide much in the way of explanation for the lower-than-anticipated European (figure), suggesting to us that the region may remain under a cloud of uncertainty,” Kalinowski told investors in a research note.

Sales in locations open for at least a year in the Middle East, Africa and Asia/Pacific dropped 1 percent. Last year, the figure rose 13.2 percent in the region.

Meanwhile, systemwide sales — a figured based on results at company owned restaurants as well as those operated by franchise owners — climbed 10.1 percent. Adjusting for currency fluctuations, systemwide sales were up 2.3 percent.

The company, based in Oak Brook, Ill., runs more than 32,000 restaurants in more than 100 countries.

Its shares fell $1.32, or 2.1 percent, to close at $60.61 Tuesday.

Bin Laden Becomes Where’s Waldo

Finding Osama Bin Laden, the patsy set up to take the fall for 911, has become a lot like the game “Where in the world is Waldo”. Although this man is accused of being the terrorist behind the events of 911, the facts just don’t add up that way. Considering that five Mossad agents were caught dancing and celebrating the collapse of the twin towers, with explosives in their van, it’s amazing that people still believe some guys in a cave were capable of such a coordinated attack. The truth is the terrorists are in the White House, Congress, Senate, Judicial system, private non-federal reserve bank, media, hollywood, and many other places. The real terrorists still dwell right here in America, not just amongst our people, but in positions of power all across our nation. So, why is it that we can’t seem to pin down where Bin Laden is? It’s not that hard to catch somebody hiding in the mountains with a kidney dialysis machine, and all the support equipment necessary to keep someone alive with it. Regardless of all the troops scouring the Afghanistan and Pakistan mountains and borders, this magician Bin Laden seems to be able to scoot in and out of either country at will.

The real reason Osama can’t be found is because Obama and his criminals would lose their fabled boogie man, and thus their current justification for the war. The lies that started these wars have fallen flat on their face, i.e. WMD’s and other fallacies, but as long as they have their boogie man to chase around, millions of Americans will support killing innocent Arabic peoples, without ever once thinking to take out the criminals responsible right here at home. Any Soldier worth his salt knows it’s not that hard to track down an injured enemy, wherever he may hide. Our murderous usurpers lay the ground work for continuin the war without chasing Osama (Waldo) by saying al-qaida will flourish without him. Of course it will, because al-qaida is their own creation, and Osama has nothing to do with it. Now, if you’d like to go after the real terrorists, get our Basic Training manual and fall in line. Otherwise, don’t come crying to us when you finally realize you’ve been had.

Source: Yahoo
Date: 06DEC09

WASHINGTON – National security adviser James Jones said Sunday that al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden still spends some time inside Afghanistan. Most recent U.S. estimates have placed bin Laden inside Pakistan. But Jones, a retired general, said the best estimate is that bin Laden “is somewhere in North Waziristan, sometimes on the Pakistani side of the border, sometimes on the Afghan side of the border.”

Jones described it as “very, very rough, mountainous area. Generally ungoverned and we’re going to have to get after that to make sure that this very, very important symbol of what al-Qaida stands for is either, once again, on the run or captured or killed.”

Earlier, Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the U.S. hasn’t had any good intelligence for years on bin Laden’s whereabouts. He said he couldn’t confirm reports that bin Laden had been seen recently in Afghanistan.

“If, as we suspect, he is in North Waziristan, it is an area that the Pakistani government has not had a presence in, in quite some time,” Gates said.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said it was important to kill or capture bin Laden and other al-Qaida leaders, “but certainly you can make enormous progress absent that.”

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said people in the region have told him bin Laden “moves back and forth.” He said the hunt for bin Laden has prevented him from establishing bases for training and equipping terrorists, adding, “Don’t think al-Qaida could not flourish without him if we give them a safe haven.”

Jones appeared on CNN’s “State of the Union,” Gates and Clinton were on ABC’s “This Week,” NBC’s “Meet the Press” and CBs’ “Face the Nation.” McCain was on NBC.

Congress Pushing for Conflict in Pakistan

The usurpers infesting our Congress are now screaming about what will be done with Pakistan. You thought the troop buildup in Afghanistan was meant to end the war? Sorry for the bad news. Our infiltrators have made enemies all around the globe, and the few who haven’t been completely subdued in the Middle East are left for you to trample. Just days after Obama orders 30,000 more troops into Afghanistan, these snakes want to ensure that any resistance in Pakistan will also be squashed. The crying about Pakistan nuclear weapons is not because Pakistan is a threat to the United States, but is rather because many Middle Eastern nations are positive who the real terrorists are. ROK members make no mistake about it, one Middle Eastern country is far more dangerous than all the rest. It is called one of America’s greatest allies, but the truth is, this nation has repeatedly attacked America. For instance, the USS Liberty attack on June 8, 1967 and the attacks on 9/11. In fact, the attacks of 9/11 mirror their previous terrorist attack on the King David Hotel in Palestine, which they OPENLY admit to.

You can not, and will not win a war fighting friendlies for your own enemy usurpers. Instead, you will find yourself used up and discarded. This is why 25% of America’s homeless population is made of Veterans. These people do NOT care about you, your family, or your country. While you are away destroying their few remaining enemies in the Middle East, they are setting your homeland to ruin. It’s time you step up to the plate, get with our Basic Training, and help us fight off the enemy within. Those whom you are told are your enemies will rise up in SUPPORT of your efforts, if you start going after the real problem, i.e. the termites that are eating our homeland alive, before you end up fighting a war in 10 different countries at the same time.

Source: Yahoo
Date: 03DEC09

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama’s planned troop buildup in Afghanistan came in for more skepticism on Capitol Hill Thursday with lawmakers zeroing in on how the U.S. will deal with terrorist havens in neighboring Pakistan.

“What happens in Pakistan … will do more to determine the outcome in Afghanistan than any increase in troops or shift in strategy,” said Sen. John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.

Obama has depicted the effort to defeat al-Qaida as the center of his war strategy, but his national address Tuesday contained no details on how he planned to accelerate attacks on the terror network. The U.S. has relied largely on drone-launched missile strikes in recent months, and those operations are classified.

Opening a hearing on Afghan strategy, Kerry, D-Mass., said that it is the “presence of al-Qaida in Pakistan, its direct ties to and support from the Taliban in Afghanistan and the perils of an unstable, nuclear-armed Pakistan that drive our mission,”

Sen. Richard Lugar, the committee’s ranking Republican, chimed in, saying the president and his administration “must justify their plan not only on the basis of how it will affect Afghanistan, but also on how it will impact our efforts to promote a much stronger alliance with Pakistan.”

Lugar said “it is not clear how an expanded military effort in Afghanistan addresses the problem of Taliban and al-Qaida safe havens across the border in Pakistan.”

It was the second day of hearings into Obama’s plan to send 30,000 more troops to Afghanistan — the largest expansion of the war since it began eight years ago. As with a day of hearings Wednesday before other lawmakers, the committee was questioning Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen.

Mullen used his opening remarks to assure Kerry and Lugar that the administration’s strategy takes Pakistan into account. “The linkage between Pakistan and Afghanistan is almost an absolute,” Mullen said.

“A stable, supportive Afghanistan will make a big difference on how Pakistan sees its future,” he said.

Both Gates and Mullen sought to underscore the threat that al-Qaida poses in Pakistan, which maintains its own arsenal of nuclear weapons.

Gates said he considered the dangers to be greater than they were 18 months ago because al-Qaida has become “deeply involved” with Taliban forces operating inside Pakistan that are trying to destabilize the government there.

Mullen said al-Qaida’s pursuit of nuclear weapons and interest in Pakistan is “extraordinarily dangerous.”

Kerry said he believes Pakistan cooperation is vital and that the administration needs to do a better job making that case.

Democrat Robert Menendez of New Jersey gave one of the most spirited arguments against the troop buildup.

“I just don’t get the sense at this point in time that there is a comprehensive policy that says that I should vote for billions of dollars more to send our sons and daughters in harm’s way in a way that we will ultimately succeed in our national security,” Menendez said.

One particular problem is Pakistan, he added.

“They don’t seem to want a strategic relationship. They want the money. They want the equipment. But at the end of the day, they don’t want a relationship that costs them too much,” Menendez said.

He referred to military and nonmilitary aid to Pakistan. Congress has approved spending $1.5 billion a year over five years mainly on economic and social programs there.

Despite the misgivings, members of Congress seem poised to back the president’s plan, which encountered only tepid criticism Wednesday in the Senate Armed Services and House Foreign Affairs committees.

Critics conceded that Obama will have little trouble early next year getting Congress to provide an added $30 billion or $40 billion to carry it out.

After her morning testimony, Clinton will take the administration’s case for escalating the war to NATO’s top council on Friday. She will meet with allied foreign ministers, plus representatives of other countries that have troops in Afghanistan, and the allied ministers will hold a separate session with Russian officials.

Clinton told congressional committees this week that she expects the allies to make new troop contributions, but it’s not yet clear how many will be offered, or how soon.

Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top commander of U.S. and NATO troops in Afghanistan, is to attend the foreign ministers meeting Friday to lay out in detail the military plan.

Military Families Brace for More War

Military families are bearing down in the face of ever expanding wars in the Middle East, for the purpose of oppressing the enemies of our own usurpers. Unfortunately many Military personnel will be sent into harms way, while their children grow older without them here, and their homeland falls apart behind them. While they are marching off to war, America’s economy will continue to collapse in their wake. More homeowners will lose their homes, more Veterans will be put out on the street, and more than half a million people per week will continue losing their jobs, but we will still be footing the bill for the wars of aggression and oppression against innocent people’s. We have ZERO “need” to be fighting these wars, except to protect illegal opium fields that the Taliban shut down. They put a major dent on the illegal heroin trade, and now we’re supposed to help keep the dangerous illegal drugs flowing.

This might not make sense to you, but it’s exactly what’s happening. America can’t afford these wars. It can’t afford these massive bail outs. It can’t afford to have criminals wrecking our nation from the top down, while our only real defenders are sent half way around the globe to murder innocent people. So, while Military families prepare to face more caskets, more folded flags, and less loved ones over the next 18 months; the rest of the country prepares to face the most disastrous financial collapse in modern history, loss of freedoms, internment camps, social unrest, riots, etc. You can not defend the homeland if you are not here, and you definitely can not defend it by invading sovereign nations and killing innocent people, while a group of subversives eats away at your country from within. The problem is a traitorous, criminal infiltrators whom ROK have defined quite thoroughly in our Basic Training. It’s your choice. Watch more Military and civilian families suffer, or get our training and attack the real threat. There are no other options.

Source: Yahoo
Date: 02DEC09

JACKSONVILLE, N.C. – Battle-weary troops and their families braced for a wrenching round of new deployments to Afghanistan, but many said they support the surge announced Tuesday as long as it helps to end the 8-year-old conflict.

As President Barack Obama outlined his plan to send 30,000 extra troops to Afghanistan — while pledging to start bringing them home in 2011 — soldiers, Marines and their families interviewed by The Associated Press felt a tangle of fresh concerns and renewed hopes. Some took in the televised announcement as they played darts in a barroom near their base, while others watched from their living rooms.

“All I ask that man to do, if he is going to send them over there, is not send them over in vain,” said 57-year-old Bill Thomas of Jacksonville, N.C., who watched Obama’s televised speech in his living room, where photos of his three sons in uniform hang over the TV.

One of his sons, 23-year-old Cpl. Michael Thomas, is a Marine based at neighboring Camp Lejeune. He’ll deploy next year to Afghanistan.

An ex-Marine himself, Thomas said he supports Obama’s surge strategy. But he shook his head when the president announced a 2011 transition date to begin pulling out troops.

“If I were the enemy, I would hang back until 2011,” Thomas said. “We have to make sure that we are going go stay until the job is done. It ain’t going to be as easy as he thinks it is.”

Military officials say the Army brigades most likely to be sent as part of the surge will come from Fort Drum in New York and Fort Campbell in Kentucky. Marines, who will be the vanguard, will most likely come primarily from Camp Lejeune.

As the wife of a Marine stationed at Camp Lejeune, where some of the first surge units could deploy by Christmas, Jamie Copeland says she wished the war “would be over and done with.”

Copeland’s husband, Sgt. Doug Copeland, is already scheduled to return to Afghanistan later this fall. She hates to see him go — he just returned from his last seven-month tour in August — and miss more time with their 1-year-old son. But she also concedes that American forces need more help fighting Taliban insurgents.

“We need to be in Afghanistan,” said Copeland, 24. “Our Marines are getting slaughtered out there. I would say we need more out there. Iraq is done.”

At the John Hoover Inn, a bar in Evans Mills, N.Y., near Fort Drum, a dozen soldiers watched the speech on a large-screen TV, drinking beer out of red cups. When Obama announced the troop increase, only one cheered, and the rest remained silent. They continued to play darts while the president was speaking.

“I’m just relieved to know where we’re going,” said Spc. Adam Candee, 29, of Chicago.

Theresa McCleod said she worries what Obama’s plans might mean for her husband, a soldier in the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum. She said he’s already done a long combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, leaving her to care for their three children.

“First he was supposed to be pulling everyone out, and now all the sudden he’s throwing everybody back into Afghanistan and it’s like nobody can really make up their minds,” McCleod said of Obama.

Obama’s plan calls for deploying 30,000 troops to Afghanistan in the next six months, boosting total U.S. forces there to about 100,000. The first waves of Marines are expected to arrive by Christmas, with the rest coming by summer.

The president also began outlining an endgame to the war, saying troops would begin pulling out of Afghanistan in July 2011 — though he did not say when a withdrawal could be completed.

Army 1st Lt. Emily Stahl, who is preparing to deploy from Fort Campbell next spring, said she’s not going to focus on the timetable.

“We have to get the job done,” Stahl, 24, said after watching the speech from her home outside the Army post, where she serves in the 101st Airborne Division. “If we do what we’re supposed to do, the end of the war will come when it comes.”

At home with her two young children in rural Byron, Ga., Traci Watson hopes the surge does work — and brings a swift end to the war.

Her husband, Army Staff Sgt. Dwayne Watson, is midway through a yearlong tour in Afghanistan with the Georgia National Guard’s 48th Infantry Brigade, which has 2,400 troops helping to train Afghan security forces. While she’s a little concerned the surge could delay her husband coming home around March, she also hopes it means he won’t have to deploy again.

“There’s always the worry that his orders might be extended and he might have to help transition between the ones they have coming and the ones that are leaving,” Watson said. “But if staying an extra 30 or 60 days meant he wouldn’t have to be gone from our family a year later, absolutely.”

Troops Want End to War

This is the type of dangerous, war mongering propaganda we can expect from a media and a usurped government controlled by the same group of subversives. The title of the story state “US troops hopeful Obama plan will wind down war”, yet almost the entire story is laid out in a fashion meant to bolster support for the war, more than anything else. These troops who say they are “truly happy”, are saying so because they hear a plan that means an end to the war. However, the real story is that increasing troop numbers means expanding the war, and nothing more. You don’t add more and get less, regardless of how you measure something.

The real deal is that Obama has no plans to end this war, at least until his mission of using American Soldiers as pawns to subdue the enemies of his masters. They’re not going to tell you that the terrorists are in the White House, Congress, Senate, media, and Hollywood manipulating us towards our own destruction. This is why you need our Basic Training, because many of you do NOT know thy enemy, and as such, are completely incapable of defending your people against them. This isn’t a game Soldier, so buck up and learn something before your time runs out.

Source: Yahoo
Date: 02DEC09

FORWARD OPERATING BASE AIRBORNE, Afghanistan – U.S. service members in Afghanistan said Wednesday that President Barack Obama’s decision to send 30,000 more troops offered hope that they can go home — if the reinforcements can build up the Afghan army to protect civilians against the Taliban.

The troops at this base in Wardak province, west of Kabul, learned of Obama’s decision while watching TV clips of his speech during their breakfast of sausage, eggs, hash browns, fruit and cereal. Obama said that if conditions permit, the troops could begin coming home in 18 months.

“Really, I’m truly happy,” said Air Force Tech. Sgt. Phillip M. Hauser, an explosives demolition expert from Salina, Kansas, who is on his fourth tour of Afghanistan and Iraq. “As soon as the Afghans can do it on their own without our help, we can go home.”

Hauser said the Afghans were inexperienced — but he didn’t question their determination.

“They charge in and start pulling the wires” on the explosives, Hauser said. “It’s not the safest way to do things, but these guys have the guts.”

Sgt. Maj. Andrew Spano of Northboro, Massachusetts, deployed with the 2nd Battalion, 87th Infantry Regiment, 10th Mountain Division, wondered whether to bank on the beginnings of a U.S. pullout in 18 months.

“Obama talking to the American people and the world shows that we have much greater direction,” he said. “The train has been going down the track for some time, but this just gives us more guidelines.”

But Spano appeared skeptical whether Afghan forces would be ready in 18 months — a fear echoed by a number of Afghan officials who believed the timeline was too short. Asked about the 18-month timeframe, Spano asked: “What does it really mean?”

Capt. Mark Reel from Norfolk, Virginia, a civil affairs officer, said more troops mean nothing unless they can give local Afghans a sense of perceived security.

“They have to believe they are more secure. You get thousands of troops on some of these bases here, but what are they really doing? The troops just have to get out there.”

The reason the surge worked in Iraq, he said, is because troops were able to get into the field and make Iraqis feel safer.

“The additional forces will allow us to partner with even more units of the Afghan army and police and deliver even more relationships with those local influential leaders who may be sitting on the fence,” said Col. David Haight, commander of Task Force Spartan, which has about 4,000 troops in Wardak and Logar provinces.

In the United States, battle-weary troops and their families braced for a wrenching round of new deployments to Afghanistan, but many said they support the surge as long as it helps to end the 8-year-old conflict.

Marines and their families interviewed by The Associated Press in Jacksonville, North Carolina, near Camp Lejeune, felt a mix of fresh concerns and renewed hopes. The Marine Corps base could supply some of the first surge units by Christmas.

“All I ask that man to do, if he is going to send them over there, is not send them over in vain,” said 57-year-old Bill Thomas of Jacksonville, who watched Obama’s speech in his living room, where photos of his three sons in uniform hang over the TV.

One of his sons, 23-year-old Cpl. Michael Thomas, is a Marine based at Camp Lejeune. He’ll deploy next year to Afghanistan.

An ex-Marine himself, Thomas said he supports Obama’s surge strategy. But he shook his head when the president announced a 2011 transition date to begin pulling out troops.

“If I were the enemy, I would hang back until 2011,” Thomas said. “We have to make sure that we are going go stay until the job is done. It ain’t going to be as easy as he thinks it is.”

The idea behind Obama’s troop buildup is to provide enough extra security for a period of time to give the Afghans a chance to build up their government and security forces. Asked how the U.S. and international forces will prevent another resurgence of militant violence once the foreign forces leave, Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the top U.S. commander in the country, said that insurgents can’t afford to leave the battlefield while the ranks of trained Afghan forces swell.

“It makes it much more difficult for the returning insurgents to contest that,” McChrystal said.

Military officials say the Army brigades most likely to be sent as part of the surge will come from Fort Drum in New York and Fort Campbell in Kentucky. Marines, who will be the vanguard, will most likely come primarily from Camp Lejeune.

As the wife of a Marine stationed at Camp Lejeune, Jamie Copeland said she wished the war “would be over and done with.”

Copeland’s husband, Sgt. Doug Copeland, is already scheduled to return to Afghanistan later this fall. She hates to see him go — he just returned from his last seven-month tour in August — and miss more time with their 1-year-old son. But she also conceded that American forces need more help fighting Taliban insurgents.

“We need to be in Afghanistan,” said Copeland, 24. “Our Marines are getting slaughtered out there. I would say we need more out there. Iraq is done.”

At the John Hoover Inn, a bar in Evans Mills, N.Y., near Fort Drum, a dozen soldiers watched the speech on a large-screen TV, drinking beer out of red cups. When Obama announced the troop increase, only one cheered, and the rest remained silent. They continued to play darts while the president was speaking.

“I’m just relieved to know where we’re going,” said Spc. Adam Candee, 29, of Chicago.

Theresa McCleod said she worries what Obama’s plans might mean for her husband, a soldier in the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum. She said he’s already done a long combat tours in Afghanistan and Iraq, leaving her to care for their three children.

“First he was supposed to be pulling everyone out, and now all the sudden he’s throwing everybody back into Afghanistan and it’s like nobody can really make up their minds,” McCleod said of Obama.