You make the call. Should America commit more of our limited resources and soldiers to fight in Afghanistan? I’m amazed how U.S. government officials can tell other countries to stop government corruption within their respective government(s) while corruption in American government is often discounted or completely ignored. On tonight’s Bill Moyers Journal a Vietnam veteran said, “Wars are for Corporations.” –Oliver Stone

more-troops

We’re led to believe that our only mission in Afghanistan is to destroy those who sponsor or commit acts of global terrorism. What we’re not told is how the terrorist raise the necessary revenue to procure their arms and munitions. Nor are we told from whom the terrorists are purchasing or transporting arms and munitions. Are U.S., Russian or Chinese weapons being used to kill our soldiers? Is revenue from the worlds largest source of opium being used to buy weapons to kill U.S. soldiers?

In Vietnam U.S. forces used chemicals (agent orange) to kill vegetation. Certainly, less harmful chemicals (to human health) are now available. Why aren’t we destroying the Afghan opium crop? Who’s making money selling Afghan opium and heroin? Who’s banks are being used to deposit the undisclosed wealth from the Afghan opium/heroin market?

President Obama stated before the cadets at West Point that the U.S. is not interested in Afghan resources. Would that include U.S. drug companies? What role if any does the CIA play in the Afghan heroin trade? Sorry about all the questions President Obama. I suppose if the mainstream news media was doing it’s job we’d already have some of these answers. And finally, since the ‘war on terror’ is a global problem, why does Afghanistan need 100,000 U.S. soldiers but only 10,000 soldiers from other NATO countries? If this war is a global problem then the U.S. should only send as many soldiers as any other NATO country.