LeglizHemp - 5/18/2017 at 12:53 PM
TUCKER CARLSON (HOST): So, Afghanistan, the president apparently is considering sending more US troops there. You've spent a lot of time there and in that region, and you have an idea for what we should do with Afghanistan. What is it?
ERIK PRINCE: So, we're spending as, as a country, $42 billion there this year. There's 8,000 troops, three quarters of them never actually leave the base. If you look back in history, the way the English operated in India for 250 years, they had a army that was largely run by companies, and no English soldiers. So, very cheap, very low cost, very simple, very adaptable. The president needs to appoint one person in charge in Afghanistan. We've been through 17 commanders in 15 years. That's not even counting the ambassadors and all the other officials. so you put one person in charge and allow them to negotiate with the Afghans the rules of engagement, because right now, the rules of engagement are so tight that when you have soldiers is in contact fighting for their lives, they have to talk to a lawyer 500 miles away sitting in air conditioning to drop a bomb. That's not a serious --
gina - 5/18/2017 at 06:05 PM
Why should one country, any country believe it has a right to violate the sovereignty of any other nation, go and wage war on that country shooting it's peoples, bombing them, and then say it will help create a new government and help that country run it's own country?
One person in charge of Afghanistan? We fund mercenaries to keep it destabilized. How is it our business to be doing that? I will concede that many locals do not love the Taliban, they want the ideas of freedom, democracy; but there are those who preferred to have law and order and those people help fund, hide and feed the fighters as they did since the Soviet War. They saw the corruption of the warlords who vied for power.
We keep shooting the Taliban, the native Afghans. Yet we help foreign fighters who come to disrupt and put in their rule of law (Isis). It is the same old foreign policy. We take out the locals, put in others who we later shoot and kill, and then we come up with the spoils, in this case, the oil, natural minerals to partition off to foreign investors off the blood, sweat and tears of the locals who will work like slaves in the mines.
In addition to that, if we can have a US friendly regime, we can also destabilize Pakistan and take their nukes. The oil in the Caspian sea, the natural minerals and jewels in the Afghan land, all that opium that naturally grows there (86% of which was eliminated under Taliban control but now is back flourishing providing the global drug market) that's what's up for grabs.
[Edited on 5/18/2017 by gina]