Waiting For The ‘Hammer To Fall’ – U.N. Small Arms Treaty Passes During Second Session…

Where has the outrage been?  Where was the fight?  Where was the warning from all the gun groups… the GOP? The guardians for the Constitution? Keys to Liberty  In the second session the United Nations Small Arms Treaty passes. It was obvious that it would, as Media Matters (George Soros) and Oxfam America Org. (Rockefeller Fund) have been silent on the issue for a few months after much promotion.

In the conference, the United States and Israel both agreed “they wished to disassociate themselves from preambular paragraph 11 of the Programme of Action, relating to the right to self-determination of people under foreign occupation”. This of course relates to Gaza and the West Bank as Israel believes  Erez ‘Greater Israel’  belongs to them. It encompasses parts of Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Syria.

Does the United States fully understand that the American people are also under a ‘foreign occupation” by a corporation called the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA located in Washington D.C.? Time to understand what a Letter Rogatory is, and how it can be filed within this corporate country.

It is interesting to note, the “delegations agreed to strengthen the action programme’s implementation at the national, regional and global levels over the period 2012-2018. On follow-up measures, they decided to hold a one-week biennial meeting of States in 2014 and 2016, and a one-week open-ended meeting of governmental experts in 2015 to consider the Programme of Action’s full and effective implementation”. (Underline Emphasis is the author’s) Over the next few years ‘something’ is needed to fully implement this treaty by 2018. Each two years they will meet to see how the treaty has been complied with. This means new statutes in place at the federal level, further restricting the right to keep and bear arms. An assault weapons ban, large capacity magazine ban and stripper clips ban are just around the corner. In the future this will probably begin with more ‘false flag’ operations, stemming, and leading to our own government behind them. More Aurora, Colorado’s, more Sikh Temple type massacres around the country and maybe even a Oklahoma City bombing type event.

Video: about Oklahoma City Bombing

Further documents concerning this treaty can be found here including the UN Programme of Action, International Tracing Instructions, Firearms Protocol, Implementation Plan, the Agenda and much more. Here is their Declaration that was signed by all countries.

The Program of Action, mentioned in the Declaration stressed paragraph 8, 9, 10 and 11.

“8. Reaffirming our respect for and commitment to international law and the purposes and principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, including the sovereign equality of States, territorial integrity, the peaceful resolution of international disputes, non-intervention and non-interference in the internal affairs of States, “.   Non-intervention and non-interference? How about Syria? NATO is part of the United Nations.

“9. Reaffirming the inherent right to individual or collective self-defense in accordance with Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations,”.  Collective means the state, in-contrary to our Bill of Rights guaranteed by our government, but ultimately granted by our Creator.

“10. Reaffirming also the right of each State to manufacture, import and retain small arms and light weapons for its self-defense and security needs, as well as for its capacity to participate in peacekeeping operations in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, “. This is just another statement dealing with a ‘collective right’, not an individual right.  The ATF, FBI, Homeland Security, along with all the ‘alphabet’ agencies of the federal and state governments are immune and the tyranny they will accomplish when this treaty is fully implemented staggers the mind.

“11. Reaffirming the right of self-determination of all peoples, taking into account the particular situation of peoples under colonial or other forms of alien domination or foreign occupation, and recognizing the right of peoples to take legitimate action in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations to realize their inalienable right of self-determination. This shall not be construed as authorizing or encouraging any action that would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent States conducting themselves in compliance with the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples,” This section was examined previously. It is important to point out that the West Bank and Gaza are not recognized as an ‘sovereign and independent States’, therefore they are up for grabs.

Note also at this link, on the left hand side, near the top, International Assistance. This of course is assistance by the U.N. ‘blue helmets’ to enforce this treaty throughout the world.

Here is an interesting link to a planned destruction of ammunition and weapons in the Dominican Republic on Sept. 19th and 20th. Look alone the right hand side of the article and you will see it.

As Sun Tzu said. “you must have to paralyze the enemy: you must attack his plans before they can be implemented”.  Continue to stock up on things that will be banned soon.

Update:

E-mail from Dudley Brown
“The United Nations’ Programme Against Small Arms meeting is in full swing in New York City.

And my sources inside the UN report countries such as Mexico continue pushing for a UN Gun Ban by the close of this year.

Both the “Small Arms Treaty” and the Programme Against Small Arms provide endless ways to accomplish this goal.

As you may remember, heading into the “Small Arms Treaty” Conference last month, anti-gun international bureaucrats were bragging that the conference would craft “the most important initiative ever regarding arms regulation . . .”

But thanks to your sustained grassroots pressure, no treaty was passed, likely because the Obama Administration could not get all the gun controls it wanted.

However, the gun-grabbers are back at it again this week and next, working to put together yet another anti-gun agreement — and this time, such an agreement WOULD NOT require a vote in the U.S. Senate.” dudley.brown@nationalgunrights.org

How I got on Dudley’s list, I am not sure, maybe because of my interest in protecting our ‘right to keep and bear arms’ and articles I have written in the past. I left a link for the e-mail so that you can contact him and asked to put on his list.
As I have always suspected, this is going to be put through as an Executive Order by either Obama or Romney. In similar fashion to Clinton and Agenda 21.
Dudley appears to have inside sources at the U.N., the information that he provides I have tested and found it to be accurate.

2nd Update:

Here is a full list of the countries involved in this push Secretary-General Urges Redoubling of Efforts to Eliminate Illicit Trade in Small Arms, Light Weapons I’ll focus on the United States comment, I think you will find it revealing:
” STEVEN COSTNER (United States) encouraged all States to implement the Programme of Action to the fullest extent possible, in particular by building capacity in marking and tracing, while strengthening controls over international transfers. The United States had undertaken such efforts, and had destroyed about 1.6 million surplus, loosely secured or other illicit weapons in several countries since 2001, he said. It had destroyed some 33,000 man-portable air defense systems in 37 countries, and provided assistance by training military personnel. It had also concluded memorandums of understanding with more than 30 Member States to engage in the “e-Trace” programme, and had invited other States to do the same.”

“He went on to say that his country had provided additional assistance through the Export Control and Related Border Security programme, which worked to detect and interdict the illicit transfer of conventional arms, weapons of mass destruction and other materials. There were other areas in which more strengthening was necessary, he said, citing the need for more efficient international coordination and the sharing of best practices. He also highlighted the need to address gender-based violence, in line with Security Council resolution 1325 (2000) and the Programme of Action itself. It was crucial to include a gender perspective, in particular by enhancing the participation of women in the Programme’s implementation, he said. The United States also encouraged fellow donors to work more closely together, and to avoid duplication of efforts in order to make the best use of scarce resources, he said, urging Member States to work towards better coordination with other meetings and programmes.”

Just more proof of United States troops disarming citizens in other countries!

And for anyone who thinks United Nations don’t matter… think again.  Part of the scrambling going on right now in our government is because of a UN Resolution that Obama and Hillary committed us to.

By all the expert’s accounts and common sense the movie on Muhammad didn’t have a thing to do with the actions of the insane terrorists in Egypt, Libya, etc. The President of Libya has now come out and admitted that these were preplanned attacks on the anniversary of 9/11 and were not sparked by the movie. So why are Clinton and Obama so focused on apologizing for this movie? Why? For those who do not know this… Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Barack Hussein Obama are so busy apologizing because they agreed to UN Resolution 1618 whereby we (The United States and its citizens) cannot say anything negative about Islam, favoring Islam over all other religions in the U.S. They have already sold us down the river, through this U.N. Resolution which implements Sharia Law over the U.S. Constitution and favors Islam over all other religions and over our right to freedom of speech in the United States. Representative and GOP Primary candidate for President Michele Bachmann explained this on Huckabee this past Saturday

M~

Technorati Tags: UN,United Nations,small arms treaty,U.S. Constitution,gun confiscation,gun control,Second Amendment,Big Brother,stand-up America,false flags,NWO,global elites,NATO,Bill of Rights

Has the War with Iran Already Begun?

The evidence of an extensive Western covert program against Tehran, and Iranian retaliation, is now too obvious to ignore

By Michael Hirsh

Updated: December 4, 2011 | 5:18 p.m.
December 4, 2011 | 2:19 p.m.

UPI/Maryam Rahmanian - Iranian soldiers march during the annual military parade on September 22, 2011 in front of the mausoleum of the Iran's late leader Ayatollah Khomeini in Tehran,Iran. The parade marks the beginning of the 1980-1988 war between Iran and Iraq.

Two incidents that occurred on Sunday—Iran’s claim of a shoot-down of a U.S. drone, and an explosion outside the British embassy in Bahrain—may have been unrelated. But they appear to add to growing evidence that an escalating covert war by the West is under way against Iran, and that Tehran is retaliating with greater intensity than ever.

Asked whether the United States, in cooperation with Israel, was now engaged in a covert war against Iran’s nuclear program that may include the Stuxnet virus, the blowing-up of facilities and the assassination or kidnapping of scientists, one recently retired U.S. official privy to up-to-date intelligence would not deny it.

“It’s safe to say the Israelis are very active,” the official said, adding about U.S. efforts: “Everything that [GOP presidential candidate] Mitt Romney said we should be doing—tough sanctions, covert action and pressuring the international community -- are all of the things we are actually doing.” Though the activities are classified, a senior Obama administration official also would not deny that such a program was under way. He indicated that the U.S. was not involved in every action, referring to recent alleged explosions at Isfahan and elsewhere. But, he added: “I wouldn’t assume that everything we do is coordinated."

Former undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, who oversaw America’s Iran engagement during the Bush administration, asked Sunday about reports that the U.S. program began under George W. Bush, said he could not comment on intelligence matters.

In September, the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, Fereydoun Abbasi-Davani, accused Great Britain, Israel and the U.S. of conducting attacks on him and other Iranian scientists."Six years ago the intelligence service of the UK began collecting information and data regarding my past, my family, the number of children," Abbasi-Davani told a news conference at the annual conference of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in Vienna. Abbasi-Davani, who was said to have been wounded in 2010 car bomb explosion, said the attacks were carried out by Israel with the "support of the intelligence services of the United States and England."

Last week, Iranian protesters stormed the British embassy in Tehran. Dominick Chilcott, Britain's ambassador to Iran, later said the attack occurred "with the acquiescence and the support of the state." Then, on Sunday, Bahrain's interior ministry announced that an explosion occurred inside a minibus parked near the British Embassy. There were no immediate reports of serious damage or injuries.

U.S. officials alleged in October that agents acting for Iran’s Revolutionary Guard, which has increasingly exerted control over the Tehran regime, were involved in a plot to kill that Saudi ambassador to Washington in a restaurant. Iran denied the allegations. Then, on Sunday, in what have been another escalation, Iran’s news agency reported that Iranian armed forces shot down an unmanned U.S. spy plane that illegally crossed the country's eastern border.

Responding to the Iranian report, NATO command in Afghanistan released a terse statement Sunday: "The UAV to which the Iranians are referring may be a US unarmed reconnaissance aircraft that had been flying a mission over western Afghanistan late last week. The operators of the UAV lost control of the aircraft and had been working to determine its status."

The White House declined to comment but officials did not seem unduly alarmed, suggesting that the drone's capture would not provide Iran with significant information about U.S. surveillance technology and techniques.

Trita Parsi, president of the National Iranian American Council in Washington, said the tit-for-tat incidents “add up to a very worrisome picture,” in part because “the Iranians are absorbing all of these assassinations without seeing the pace of their nuclear program slow down to the extent it would be acceptable to the West.” But if Iranian retaliations grow serious enough, he said, they could provide “the pretext for a much larger war” in which the Israelis, and possibly the Americans, launch a full attack on Iran.

Mark Hibbs, a nuclear expert at the Carnegie Endowment in Germany, says the intensity of the covert war indicates that this is where the U.S. and Israel are putting their energy for now. “If the U.S. or Israel were determined to take Iran’s nuclear installations out they wouldn’t be wasting time pinpointing individual scientists like this,” he says. Still, he points out, that Israel’s 1981 attack on Iraq’s Osirak reactor was also preceded by assassination attempts on Iraqi scientists.

By accident or not, it’s entirely possible the covert war could escalate into a real one, experts say. “I am less enthusiastic about how effective all this going to be than some people in the administration,” says Matthew Bunn, a nuclear investigator at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government. Bunn says he has occasionally discussed the program with the Obama administration officials, and “some have broadly suggested they think this is major element of slowing down Iranian progress.”

He’s not so sure. “Take Stuxnet. It’s possible that a thousand centrifuges went down” because of sabotage by the mystery computer virus _ a super sophisticated program said to have caused substantial parts of Iran's uranium enrichment program to self-destruct several years ago. “But Iran has a thousand more than they would require to enrich to highly enriched uranium” needed for a bomb. Bunn also notes that Iran is increasingly keeping its key scientists such as Mohsen Fakrizadeh, said to be the “Oppenheimer” of the Iranian program, hidden away from sight and burying its facilities deeper underground.

Beyond that, says Hibbs, “Some of the concern in the expert community is that in going this route we’re unleashing forces we cannot control.”

Source:  The National Journal

(RELATED: Reports—Unmanned U.S. Aircraft Shot Down in Iran)

Introducing the Islamic State of Libya…brought to you in part by NATO and the US Taxpayer

The Libyan Transitional Council has declared Libya a "liberated nation" and an Islamic State that will conform to Islamic Law. While this declaration comes as no surprise to those of us who follow and study Middle Eastern Affairs it must and should be a thorn in the side to the White House and State Department who herald the Arab Spring as a springboard for Democracy in the Arab States. 

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/libya-declares-libe...

"BENGHAZI, Libya — Libya’s top leader declared the country officially “liberated” Sunday from the four-decade rule of Moammar Gaddafi, pledging to replace his dictatorship with a more democratic but also a more strictly Islamic system.

In a speech to a cheering, flag-waving crowd, Mustafa Abdel Jalil, head of the Transitional National Council, promised to ban interest on housing loans and scrap other laws that didn’t conform to Islamic jurisprudence.

Tensions have arisen on the Transitional National Council between Islamists and secularists and between former Gaddafi officials and his longtime foes.

Abdel Jalil, a slight and balding former justice minister, paid homage Sunday to those who lost their lives in the civil war. “This revolution started as peaceful, to demand the minimum. But Gaddafi started killing people with heavy weapons,” he said. Dozens of people in the crowd hoisted gold-framed pictures of relatives who had been killed.

In what surprised some in attendance, Abdel Jalil gave prominence to the role of Islamic law in the new Libya. “We are an Islamic state,” he said, and he pledged to get rid of regulations that didn’t conform to Islamic law."

So our belief that this illegal war would yield the world's newest Islamic State sadly seem to have been accurate. We spent over a $1 billion dollars to empower known terrorist and radical Islamic fundamentalists. Congratulations Mr. President and Secretary Clinton. You have once again been played for the idealist fools that you truly are.

Now what?? Look for a power struggle in Libya that will evolve in to an all out Civil War. Syria will be next and Iran is conducting operations in Saudi Arabia and attempted to do so in the United States. Hezbollah is threatening the region with missiles targeted at Tel Avi. Russia is going to put Putin back in power and they want their former grandeur of the USSR. Turkey is making noises and trying to be a central player among the Arab States with threats to Israel. 

Do you see how this is starting to stack up? Many feel that these events are a prelude to the next global conflict. I agree with them. The question is are you ready for the battle that is to come?

We can't face this coming conflict with weak leadership. The weak leadership in this current administration and quite frankly, rank stupidity, is the primary reason for the muscle flexing and scramble for power on a global basis. Our influence and ability to counsel nations is greatly diminished. We will not be able to buy our way out of this one. Throwing money at rogue regimes just empowers them and makes us the "Patsy".

I don't believe this administration is ever going to figure that out. How can they be so STUPID?? I just wonder if November 2012 will be too late? Let's hope not.  Let's continue to speak loudly and often. So much is at stake.

Source:  Tea Party Nation by Kathleen Gose

Just hours before it was announced that Colonel Gaddafi had been executed by the Al Qaeda linked rebels in Libya, Hillary Clinton was in Libya offering her support for the rebels and openly hoping for the 'capture or killing' of the deposed dictator.
She got what she wanted, and now that Libyans have been liberated from the prosperity of their former ruler, they are free to endure the ethnic cleansing, genocide, and human rights violations without fear of Gaddafi ever coming back to build them hospitals, schools, or even roads…

-->  See Video: http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/5448.html   <--

- Brasscheck

Newsmax.com: Libyan Leader Declares Nation Islamic, Sharia Law to be Implemented

Libya's transitional leader declared his country's liberation Sunday after an 8-month civil war and set out plans for the future with an Islamist tone. The announcement was clouded, however, by international pressure to explain how ousted dictator Moammar Gadhafi had been captured alive days earlier, then ended up dead from a gunshot to his head shortly afterward.

Gadhafi's death in circumstances that are still unclear, and the gruesome spectacle of his body laid out as a trophy in a commercial freezer and on public view, are testing the new Libyan leaders' commitment to the rule of law. Even at the ceremony to declare liberation, a couple speakers in positions of authority essentially said Gadhafi got what he deserved.

But transitional government leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil, who made the keynote speech, did not mention the events surrounding Gadhafi's end and called on his people to eschew hatred.

"You should only embrace honesty, patience, and mercy," Abdul-Jalil told the crowd at the declaration ceremony in the eastern city of Benghazi, the birthplace of the uprising against Gadhafi. He urged Libyans to reconcile their differences.

And he laid out a vision for the post-Gadhafi future with an Islamist tint, saying Islamic Sharia law would be the "basic source" of legislation and existing laws that contradict the teachings of Islam would be nullified. In a gesture that showed his own piety, he urged Libyans not to express their joy by firing guns in the air, but rather to chant "Allahu Akbar," or God is Great. He then stepped aside from the podium and knelt to offer a brief prayer of thanks.

Using Sharia as the main source of legislation is stipulated in the constitution of neighboring Egypt. Still, Egyptian laws remain largely secular as Sharia does not cover all aspects of modern day life.

The uprising against Gadhafi erupted in February as part of anti-government revolts spreading across the Middle East. Neighboring Tunisia, which put the so-called Arab Spring in motion with mass protests nearly a year ago, has taken the biggest step on the path to democracy, voting for a new assembly Sunday in its first truly free elections. Egypt, which has struggled with continued unrest, is next with parliamentary elections slated for November.

Libya's struggle has been the bloodiest so far in the region. Mass protests quickly turned into a civil war that killed thousands and paralyzed the country for the past eight months. Gadhafi's hometown of Sirte was the last loyalist stronghold to fall last week, but Gadhafi's son and one-time heir apparent, Seif al-Islam, apparently escaped with some of his supporters.

Abdul-Jalil paid tribute to the Gulf Cooperation Council, a six-nation alliance led by Saudi Arabia, the Arab League and the European Union. NATO, which aided the anti-Gadhafi fighters with airstrikes, performed its task with "efficiency and professionalism," he added.

President Barack Obama congratulated Libyans on the declaration.

"After four decades of brutal dictatorship and eight months of deadly conflict, the Libyan people can now celebrate their freedom and the beginning of a new era of promise," he said.

But just hours before that statement, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Britain's new defense secretary, Philip Hammond, said a full investigation into Gadhafi's death is necessary.

Hammond said the Libyan revolutionaries' image had been "a little bit stained" by Gadhafi's death, Hammond adding that the new government "will want to get to the bottom of it in a way that rebuilds and cleanses that reputation."

"It's certainly not the way we do things," Hammond told BBC television. "We would have liked to see Col. Gadhafi going on trial to answer for his misdeeds."

Clinton told NBC's "Meet the Press" that she backs a proposal that the United Nations investigate Gadhafi's death and that Libya's National Transitional Council look into the circumstances, too.

An autopsy confirmed that Gadhafi died from a gunshot to the head, Libya's chief pathologist, Dr. Othman al-Zintani, said. However, the pathologist said he would not disclose further details or elaborate on Gadhafi's final moments, saying he would first deliver a full report to the attorney general.

Libya's acting prime minister, Mahmoud Jibril, said he would not oppose an investigation, but cited an official reporting saying a wounded Gadhafi was killed in crossfire// one word in 2002 following his capture. Addressing the celebrations around Gadhafi's body, Jibril told the BBC in an interview on Sunday: "You have to appreciate the agony that people went through for 42 years."

The 69-year-old Gadhafi was captured wounded, but alive Thursday in his hometown of Sirte, the last city to fall to revolutionary forces. Bloody images of Gadhafi being taunted and beaten by his captors have raised questions about whether he was killed in crossfire as suggested by government officials or deliberately executed.

Gadhafi's body has been on public display in a commercial freezer in a shopping center in the port city of Misrata, which suffered from a bloody siege by regime forces that instilled a virulent hatred for the dictator in Misrata's residents.

People have lined up for days to view the body, which was laid out on a mattress on the freezer floor. The bodies of Gadhafi's son Muatassim and his ex-defense minister Abu Bakr Younis also were put on display, and people wearing surgical masks have filed past, snapping photos of the bodies.

The New York-based group Human Rights Watch, which viewed the bodies, said video footage, photos and other information it obtained "indicate that they might have been executed after being detained."

"Finding out how they died matters," said Sarah Leah Whitson of Human Rights Watch. "It will set the tone for whether the new Libya will be ruled by law or by summary violence."

The Syrian-based Al-Rai TV station, which has served as a mouthpiece for the Gadhafi clan, said the dictator's wife, Safiya, also demanded an investigation.

"I am proud of the bravery of my husband, Moammar Gadhafi, the holy warrior, and my sons who confronted the aggression of 40 countries over the past six months," the station quoted the widow as saying in a statement.

The vast majority of Libyans seemed unconcerned about the circumstances of the hated leader's death, but rather was relieved the country's ruler of 42 years was gone, clearing the way for a new beginning.

"If he (Gadhafi) was taken to court, this would create more chaos, and would encourage his supporters," said Salah Zlitni, 31, who owns a pizza parlor in downtown Tripoli. "Now it's over."

The long-awaited declaration of liberation starts the clock on Libya's transition to democracy. The transitional leadership has said it would declare a new interim government within a month of liberation and elections for a constitutional assembly within eight months, to be followed by votes for a parliament and president within a year.

At the ceremony in Benghazi, Abdul-Jalil outlined several changes to align with Islamic law.

"This revolution was looked after by God to achieve victory," he said.

Abdul-Jalil said new banks would be set up to follow the Islamic banking system, which bans charging interest as a practice deemed usury. For the time being, he said interest would be canceled from any personal loans already taken out and less than 10,000 Libyan dinars (about $7,500).

He also announced the annulment of an existing family law that limits the number of wives Libyan can take, contradicting the provision in the Muslim holy book, the Quran, that allows men up to four wives.

And he urged Libyans to hand back money or property taken during the civil war.

Abdul-Jalil thanked those who fought and fell in the fight against Gadhafi's forces.

"They are somewhere better than here, with God," he said.

___

Associated Press writers Jamal Halaby in Southern Shuneh, Jordan and Raphael G. Satter in London contributed to this report.

© Copyright 2011 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Libyan Leader Declares Nation Islamic, Sharia Law to be Implemented

Related:

Bachmann: Libyan Action Will Prove a Mistake

h/t to Anglo at Sovereignty in Colorado

Tragedy! Twenty Members of Seal Team Six, the Unit Responsible for Getting Osama Bin Laden, Killed In Afg... Coincidence?

Is there anybody out there besides me that thinks this is just too much of a coincidence??

KABUL, Afghanistan -- A military helicopter was shot down in eastern Afghanistan, killing 31 U.S. special operation troops, most of them from the elite Navy SEALs unit that killed Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden, along with seven Afghan commandos. It was the deadliest single incident for American forces in the decade-long war.

The Taliban claimed they downed the helicopter with rocket fire while it was taking part in a raid on a house where insurgents were gathered in the province of Wardak late Friday. It said wreckage of the craft was strewn at the scene. A senior U.S. administration official in Washington said the craft was apparently shot down by insurgents. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because the crash is still being investigated.

NATO confirmed the overnight crash took place and that there "was enemy activity in the area." But it said it was still investigating the cause and conducting a recovery operation at the site. It did not release details or casualty figures.

"We are in the process of accessing the facts," said U.S. Air Force Capt. Justin Brockhoff, a NATO spokesman.

One current and one former U.S. official said that the dead included more than 20 Navy SEALs from SEAL Team Six, the unit that carried out the raid in Pakistan in May that killed bin Laden. They were being flown by acrew of the 160th Special Operations Aviation Regiment. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because families are still being notified.

President Barack Obama mourned the deaths of the American troops, saying in a statement that the crash serves as a reminder of the "extraordinary sacrifices" being made by the U.S. military and its families. He said he also mourned "the Afghans who died alongside our troops."

The death toll would surpass the worst single day loss of life for the U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan since the war began in 2001 -- the June 28, 2005 downing of a military helicopter in eastern Kunar province. In that incident, 16 Navy SEALs and Army special operations troops were killed when their craft was shot down while on a mission to rescue four SEALs under attack by the Taliban. Three of the SEALs being rescued were also killed and the fourth wounded. It was the highest one-day death toll for the Navy Special Warfare personnel since World War II.

With its steep mountain ranges, providing shelter for militants armed with rocket-propelled grenade launchers, eastern Afghanistan is hazardous terrain for military aircraft. Large, slow-moving air transport carriers like the CH-47 Chinook are particularly vulnerable, often forced to ease their way through sheer valleys where insurgents can achieve more level lines of fire from mountainsides.

Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Saturday gave the first public word of the new crash, saying in a statement that "a NATO helicopter crashed last night in Wardak province" and that 31 American special operations troops were killed. He expressed his condolences to President Barack Obama.

The helicopter was a twin-rotor Chinook, said an official at NATO headquarters in Brussels. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said he was receiving his information from an Afghan officer in Kabul.

The crash took place in the Sayd Abad district of Wardak province, said a provincial government spokesman, Shahidullah Shahid. The volatile region borders the province of Kabul where the Afghan capital is located and is known for its strong Taliban presence.

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said in a statement that Taliban fighters downed the helicopter during a "heavy raid" in Sayd Abad. He said NATO attacked a house in Sayd Abad where insurgent fighters were gathering Friday night. During the battle, the fighters shot down the helicopter, killing 31 Americans and seven Afghans, he said, adding that eight insurgents were killed in the fight.

There have been at least 17 coalition and Afghan aircraft crashes in Afghanistan this year.

Most of the crashes were attributed to pilot errors, weather conditions or mechanical failures.

However, the coalition has confirmed that at least one CH-47F Chinook helicopter was hit by a rocket propelled grenade on July 25. Two coalition crew members were injured in that attack.

Meanwhile, in the southern Helmand province, an Afghan government official said Saturday that NATO troops attacked a house and inadvertently killed eight members of a family, including women and children.

NATO said that Taliban fighters fired rocket propelled grenades and small arms fire at coalition troops during a patrol Friday in the Nad Ali district.

"Coalition forces responded with small arms fire and as the incident continued, an air strike was employed against the insurgent position," said Brockhoff. He added that NATO sent a delegation to meet with local leaders and investigate the incident.

Nad Ali district police chief Shadi Khan said civilians died in the bombardment but that it was unknown how many insurgents were killed.

Helmand, a Taliban stronghold, is the deadliest province in Afghanistan for international troops.

NATO has come under harsh criticism in the past for accidentally killing civilians during operations against suspected insurgents. However, civilian death tallies by the United Nations show the insurgency is responsible for most war casualties involving noncombatants.

In south Afghanistan, NATO said two coalition service member were killed, one on Friday and another on Saturday. The international alliance did not release further details.

With the casualties from the helicopter crash, the deaths bring to 365 the number of coalition troops killed this year in Afghanistan and 42 this month.

(Vanity Fair)

This was the largest single loss of life ever for SEAL Team Six.

The Associated Press has learned that more than 20 Navy SEALs from the unit that killed Osama bin Laden were among those lost in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.

Update from Fox News… It has been confirmed that the helicopter carrying the Navy Seals plus 7 Afghans was shot down with an RGB. Curiously neither the Taliban nor any Al-Qaeda groups have taken credit? Odd??

My condolences to the families of the 31 Navy Seals that had their lives taken from them in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan. My prayers go out to everyone who them loved them all.

Taliban shoot down US CH47 Helicopter- KIA = 22 Navy Seals + 3 AF Air Controllers + Dog Handler/Dog + Air Crew -http://goo.gl/Cd80F 

For anyone who questions what really happened to Bin Laden and what happened in that reported raid… the witness list is getting thin! (Bit my bit posts, photos and accounts related to these events are vanishing from the web… soon they will vanish, or be re-written with nobody to verify them, for posterity!)

“Just because something is a conspiracy does not mean it isn’t true!”  …Rubicon

Source:  Gateway Pundit and  Fox News

Related:

Osama Bin Ladin Killed in US Military

Joe Biden Opens His Mouth about US Navy Seals

Obama: The UN’s True Believer

Anything so as not to appear to be like George Bush.

That was the not-so-hidden theme of President Barack Obama’s speech on Libya last Monday. In his first crack at his predecessor, Obama defended his decision to not expand the American mission in Libya by saying “we went down that road in Iraq.” In another, an allusion to the superiority of his approach to foreign affairs over that of Bush’s, Obama stressed the fact he was acting in Libya out of humanitarian motives and on the basis of a United Nations (UN) mandate (Bush did not obtain one for his Iraq invasion).

”The Libyan opposition, and the Arab League, appealed to the world to save lives in Libya,” Obama said. “At my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass an historic Resolution that authorized a No-Fly Zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.”

But while Obama is priding himself on not being like George Bush, the current president’s well-known penchant for multilateral action abroad and for putting American interests and foreign policy in the hands of international bodies is turning out to be a disaster for everyone involved, especially for the Libyans. In the end, American reliance on the UN to determine its foreign policy will ultimately wind up costing more money and lives than a quick and massive, unilateral NATO invasion. At the other end of the scale, negotiations and no intervention would have even been more preferable.

Obama stated the UN established the No-Fly Zone to protect Libyans from Gaddafi and proudly said in his speech NATO warplanes prevented a massacre in Benghazi, which the Libyan dictator’s troops were poised to overrun two weeks ago. While this is true, Obama failed to mention that it took three weeks to get that mandate, during which time Gaddafi’s troops ousted most of the rebel forces from Western Libya.

Before their ouster, the rebels occupied towns and cities as close as 30 kilometres to Tripoli. A quick intervention by NATO ground troops to bolster rebel positions, or the threat to do so, would have seen Gaddafi’s small army confined to the Tripoli area. Military force is the only thing a nasty bully like Gaddafi appears to understand. George Bush’s invasion of Iraq, for example, caused the Libyan leader to give up his weapons of mass destruction program, since Gaddafi was afraid he would be next.

But during this wait for UN approval for action, the Libyan dictator captured the rebel-held areas in Western Libya, after which he sent in his secret police to hunt down rebel supporters. The resulting death toll is unknown. The hunt for rebel sympathizers continued as his forces advanced into rebel-held Eastern Libya. After their retreat, several hundred people were listed as missing by the Libyan Red Crescent. In a dozen cases, Human Rights Watch reports “government forces answered the mobile phone of the missing person.” Gaddafi’s “campaign of killing”, which Obama said the UN-mandated bombing stopped, continues.

Ironically, to end the violence and the killing, Obama’s current proposed plan entails violating the UN mandate he is so proud of having brought about. But Obama would never admit he is doing so, since the UN is sacrosanct among leftists, and he would also be acting, once again, like George Bush in his unwillingness to be bound by the UN’s restrictions (Obama has previously said he wants Gaddafi gone, but regime change is also not part of the UN mandate).

This latest mandate violation concerns the proposed plan under consideration by Obama and NATO to arm and train the rebel force, which has proven woefully inadequate in battle against Gaddafi’s troops. But Paragraph 9 of UN Resolution 1970, which establishes sanctions against Libya, unambiguously states: “… all Member States shall immediately take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply … to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya (Republic)… of arms and related materials of all types…”  Arming the rebels would therefore be illegal.

However, in a contortion worthy of Houdini, Hillary Clinton says Paragraph 4 of UN Resolution 1973 allows arms shipments to the rebels. But if so, this passage, which only mentions “necessary measures,” says this is to happen only if civilians are “under threat of attack.” If Gaddafi pulls back to Western Libya and allows the war to settle into a stalemate, then there is no legal justification for the Obama administration to pursue this policy. Moreover, arming and training the rebels will be very expensive and lead to more violence and death in a protracted struggle.

Other dangers also exist in giving the rebels weapons. A justifiable fear exists the United States would be arming hardcore Islamists among their number who would one day turn their guns against the West, which speaks against the plan. Also speaking against the plan is the fact the rebels want to kill Gaddafi and his supporters, tribal or otherwise, which is the main reason for his fierce resistance. A warning against such massacres was issued to the rebels this week, and such admonitions usually do not arise in a vacuum.

Rebel massacres with American-supplied weapons would undoubtedly not look good on the White House, especially after the UN resolution Obama sponsored to protect Libyan civilians. Such a horrific development would be particularly embarrassing for the president who said in his Monday speech: “The United States is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.” In this case, his shipping arms to the rebels may actually result in such slaughter and mass graves.

Like with Tunisia and Egypt, the Obama administration appears not to have had any prepared policy regarding an uprising in Libya, proving once again it is reactive rather than proactive and deeply over its head in the foreign affairs field. Relying on UN resolutions to determine American action in Libya is producing a worse-case scenario: a long, expensive and exhausting conflict with a large number of civilian casualties, which the “historic Resolution” and American air intervention were meant to prevent. It is a scenario that may yet require American soldiers, despite the president’s and Defense Secretary Robert Gate’s denials, if Gaddafi threatens to overrun Eastern Libya again.

---

Article printed from FrontPage Magazine: http://frontpagemag.com  -  URL to article: http://frontpagemag.com/2011/04/01/obama-the-un%e2%80%99s-true-believer/

Exposed:  The US-Saudi Libya Deal

Who is Barack Obama?  -  A Terrifying Analysis – Israel Commentary

U.N. Admits at Least $600G Lost on Overpriced Boat that Housed Haiti Peacekeepers

So $62,590,000 has been spent to kill people without the consent of Congress:  At least 110 Tomahawk Missiles Fired at Libya by US  -  Editor’s Note: Each Tomahawk missile costs $569,000.

Quote of the Day:  “Barack Obama has now fired more Tomahawk Cruise Missiles than all other Nobel Peace Prize winners combined!”

Barack Obama angry at General Stanley McChrystal speech on Afghanistan

The Relationship Between President Barack Obama And The Commander Of NATO Forces In Afghanistan Has Been Put Under Severe Strain By Gen Stanley McChrystal's Comments On Strategy For The War.

In London, Gen McChrystal, who heads the 68,000 US troops in Afghanistan as well as the 100,000 Nato forces, flatly rejected proposals to switch to a strategy more reliant on drone missile strikes and special forces operations against al-Qaeda.

He told the Institute of International and Strategic Studies that the formula, which is favoured by Vice-President Joe Biden, would lead to "Chaos-istan"

When asked whether he would support it, he said: "The short answer is: No."

He went on to say: "Waiting does not prolong a favorable outcome. This effort will not remain winnable indefinitely, and nor will public support."

The remarks have been seen by some in the Obama administration as a barbed reference to the slow pace of debate within the White House.

Critics also pointed out that before their Copenhagen encounter Mr Obama had only met Gen McChrystal once since his appointment in June.

Read Full Article

Source: Telegraph.co.uk

Comments:

1. Putin is celebrating. Russia is finally getting what it tried to accomplish militarily yet failed. Afghanistan will be the key chess piece in the battle as one superpower goes in the shadows and another one ascends. And so, it will be between China and Russia for the top spot, thanks to what has happened with our leadership.

2. General McChrystal, and his close staff members have denied any reports that he threatened to, or ever would resign. I think Gen. McChrystal is right, I think Mr. Obama is on his side and will give him what he needs. But we shall see…

3. Who, in their right mind, would ever listen to Biden of over Gen McChrystal… who is there on the ground with tons of experience. Of course who, in their right mind, would even have chosen Biden for V.P.?

4. The weaker we appear in Afghanistan the more emboldened the Iranian Government becomes… They already know we are weak. This just shows them how weak.

5. The fate of the war on terror hangs on us being successful in Afghanistan… First on the ground and then on more targeted attacks on the Taliban!

--------

10 Troops Killed in Deadliest Battle of the Year: Where Is the Commander-in-Chief?

It began before dawn — a devastating, well-planned attack. About 300 insurgents swarmed out of a village and mosque and attacked a pair of isolated American outposts in a remote mountainous area of eastern Afghanistan with machineguns, rockets and grenades.
They first stormed the Afghan police post at the foot of the hill in the province of Nuristan, a Taliban and al-Qaeda stronghold on the lawless Pakistan border. They then swept up to the NATO post. The battle lasted all day. American and Afghan soldiers finally repelled them, with the help of US helicopters and warplanes — but at heavy cost.

Related Posts:

Is White House Sideling Petraeus?

Brown and Sarkozy Rowed with Obama Over Iranian Nuclear Announcement

Congress Blocking Gitmo-Closing Funds in 2010

Obama moves to Muzzle Military Commanders

Posted: Knowledge Creates Power – Cross Posted: Daily Thought Pad

Barack Obama's New World Order

President Barack Obama speaks during a town-hall meeting at Rhenus Sports Arena in Strasbourg, eastern France, on April 3, 2009 - Lionel Bonaventure / AFP / Getty

• The United States is still the same country it was a year ago, give or take about 6 million jobs. But its international branding campaign, as led by the new President, Barack Obama, is so different that the rest of the world might be forgiven if it has to do a double take.

Related:

Photos

Obama's Travels in Europe

Stories

• Afghanistan and NATO: Is Europe Up to the Fight?

More Related:

• Editorials - The Morning After
• New column: New world order
• Push Polling: The Ugly Begins
• New World Order
• Educate Yourself

Most of the hallmarks of the foreign policy of George W. Bush are gone. The old conservative idea of "American exceptionalism," which placed the U.S. on a plane above the rest of the world as a unique beacon of democracy and financial might, has been rejected. At almost every stop, Obama has made clear that the U.S. is but one actor in a global community. Talk of American economic supremacy has been replaced by a call from Obama for more growth in developing countries. Claims of American military supremacy have been replaced with heavy emphasis on cooperation and diplomatic hard labor. (Read "Obama in Europe: Facing Four Big Challenges.")

The tone was set from Obama's first public remarks in London on Wednesday, at a press conference with Prime Minister Gordon Brown, where the American President said he had come "to listen, not to lecture." At a joint appearance with German Chancellor Angela Merkel in Baden-Baden on Friday, a German reporter asked Obama about his "grand designs" for NATO. "I don't come bearing grand designs," Obama said, scrapping the leadership role the U.S. maintained through the Cold War. "I'm here to listen, to share ideas and to jointly, as one of many NATO allies, help shape our vision for the future."

On Thursday night, after the G-20 summit ended, Obama took so many questions from the foreign press, including British, Indian and Chinese reporters, that a group of them applauded when he left the stage. Two American reporters asked Obama for his response to the claim by Brown that the "Washington consensus is over." Obama all but agreed with Brown, noting that the phrase had its roots in a significant set of economic policies that had shown itself to be imperfect. He went on to talk about the benefits of increasing economic competition with the U.S. "That's not a loss for America," he said of the economic rise of other powers. "It's an appreciation that Europe is now rebuilt and a powerhouse. Japan is rebuilt, is a powerhouse. China, India — these are all countries on the move. And that's good."

At a town hall in Strasbourg, France, Obama stood before an audience of mostly French and German youth and admitted that the U.S. should have a greater respect for Europe. "In America, there's a failure to appreciate Europe's leading role in the world," he said before offering other European critical views of his country. "There have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive."

The contrast is striking. Only four years ago, George W. Bush, in his second Inaugural Address, described what he called America's "considerable" influence, saying, "We will use it confidently in freedom's cause." Bush's vision of American power was combative and aggressive. He said the U.S. would "seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture." He continued, "We go forward with complete confidence in the eventual triumph of freedom."

Obama, by contrast, is looking for collaboration. He is looking to build a collective vision, not to impose an American one. And the response has been notable, from the endless flashbulbs that fired off at his town hall to the cheers of spectators who lined his motorcade routes and gathered outside his events in London. At the end of Obama's Friday press conference, French President Nicolas Sarkozy addressed the issue directly, speaking through an interpreter. "It feels really good to be able to work with a U.S. President who wants to change the world and who understands that the world does not boil down to simply American frontiers and borders," he said. "And that is a hell of a good piece of news for 2009."

By MICHAEL SCHERER / STRASBOURG Friday, Apr. 03, 2009

Posted:  Time.com/World

A Rookie President

Someone once said that, for every rookie you have on your starting team in the National Football League, you will lose a game. Somewhere, at some time during the season, a rookie will make a mistake that will cost you a game.

We now have a rookie President of the United States and, in the dangerous world we live in, with terrorist nations going nuclear, just one rookie mistake can bring disaster down on this generation and generations yet to come.

Barack Obama is a rookie in a sense that few other Presidents in American history have ever been. It is not just that he has never been President before. He has never had any position of major executive responsibility in any kind of organization where he was personally responsible for the outcome.

Other first-term Presidents have been governors, generals, cabinet members or others in positions of personal responsibility. A few have been senators, like Barack Obama, but usually for longer than Obama, and had not spent half their few years in the senate running for President.

What is even worse than making mistakes is having sycophants telling you that you are doing fine when you are not. In addition to all the usual hangers-on and supplicants for government favors that every President has, Barack Obama has a media that will see no evil, hear no evil and certainly speak no evil.

They will cheer him on, no matter what he does, short of first-degree murder-- and they would make excuses for that. Even former Reagan speech writer Peggy Noonan has gushed over President Obama and even crusty Bill O'Reilly has been impressed by Obama's demeanor.

There is no sign that President Obama has impressed the Russians, the Iranians or the North Koreans, except by his rookie mistakes-- and that is a dangerous way to impress dangerous people.

What did his televised overture to the Iranians accomplish, except to reassure them that he was not going to do a damn thing to stop them from getting a nuclear bomb? It is a mistake that can go ringing down the corridors of history.

Future generations who live in the shadow of that nuclear threat may wonder what we were thinking about, putting our lives-- and theirs-- in the hands of a rookie because we liked his style and symbolism?

In the name of "change," Barack Obama is following policies so old that this generation has never heard of them-- certainly not in most of our educational institutions, where history has been replaced by "social studies" or other politically correct courses.

Seeking deals with our adversaries, behind the backs of our allies? France did that at Munich back in 1938. They threw Czechoslovakia to the wolves and, less than two years later, Hitler gobbled up France anyway.

This year, President Obama's attempt to make a backdoor deal with the Russians, behind the backs of the NATO countries, was not only rejected but made public by the Russians-- a sign of contempt and a warning to our allies not to put too much trust in the United States.

Barack Obama is following a long practice among those on the left of being hard on our allies and soft on our enemies. One of our few allies in the Middle East, the Shah of Iran, was a whipping boy for many in the American media, who vented their indignation at his regime-- which now, in retrospect, seems almost benign compared to the hate-filled fanatics and international terrorism sponsors who now rule that country.

However much Barack Obama has proclaimed his support for Israel, his first phone call as President of the United States was to Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, to whom he has given hundreds of millions of dollars, which can buy a lot of rockets to fire into Israel.

Our oldest and staunchest ally, Britain, has been downgraded by President Obama's visibly less impressive reception of British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, compared to the way that previous Presidents over the past two generations have received British Prime Ministers. President Obama's sending the bust of Winston Churchill in the White House back to the British embassy at about the same time was either a rookie mistake or another snub.

We can lose some very big games with this rookie.

  By Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy

Related Articles: 

Obama's Words on Arabic Network Gave the Wrong Message to our Enemies!

[Pic] Obama bows to Saudi King *update* Video added

Dick Morris - Suspects Obama Planning to Takeover ALL BANKS

At What Point Does the Hope and Change Begin??

Grassroots Movements and Tea Parties Are in the Wind 

Meltdown - Personal Note From Ron Paul

Obama and the Great Game

by  Patrick J. Buchanan

The day before Richard Holbrooke arrived in Kabul, eight suicide bombers and gunmen attacked the Justice and Education ministries, killing 26 and wounding 57.

Kabul was paralyzed, as the Taliban displayed an ability to wreak havoc within a hundred yards of the presidential palace.

The assault came as President Obama is both conducting a strategic review and deciding how many additional U.S. troops to send.

Earlier, there was talk of 30,000, bringing the U.S. total to 63,000. Now, there are reports Obama may commit no more than the three brigades promised in 2008, and only one brigade now.

Clearly, the United States is checking its hole card. Can we draw to a winning hand? Or is this hand an inevitable loser -- and we must cut our losses and cede the pot? No longer, anywhere, is there talk of "victory."

Nor is the diplomatic news good.

Last week, Kyrgyzstan gave us six months to vacate Manas, the air base used to resupply U.S. forces. A week before, guerrillas blew up a bridge in the Khyber, cutting the 1,000-mile supply line from Karachi to Kabul. Before that, guerrillas bombed U.S. truck parks in Pakistan.

While in Pakistan, Holbrooke was told by all to whom he spoke that, while U.S. Predator strikes may be killing Taliban and al-Qaida, the deaths among tribal peoples are turning Pakistan against us.

What would winning Afghanistan for democracy profit us, if the price were losing a nuclear-armed Pakistan to Islamism?

The expulsion from Manas, after Kyrgyzstan received a reported $2 billion in aid from Moscow, raises a question.

Is Russia restarting "The Great Game" she played against Victoria's Empire in Central Asia, which ended in 1907 with a British-Russian entente, dividing Iran into spheres of influence, with both sides agreeing to keep hands off Afghanistan?

As Russia has as great an interest in preventing an Islamist Kabul, and has assisted NATO's resupply of its forces, why would Moscow seek to expel us from a base vital to the war effort?

Does Russia simply seek to be recognized by the United States as the hegemon of Central Asia, the sole great power that decides who can and who cannot use former Soviet bases?

For if Manas is closed and the Karachi-Khyber-Kabul supply line is compromised or cut, Obama would seem to have but three options.

First would be to go back, hat-in-hand, to Islam Karimov, the Uzbek ruler charged with grave human rights violations, and ask him to reopen the Karshi-Khanabad (K2) air base, from which we were expelled in 2005. And what would be Karimov's asking price?

Second is the Russia option. If Moscow now holds the whip hand in the old Soviet republics, what is Moscow's price to let us remain in Manas or use other Soviet bases over which it wields veto power?

The answer is obvious. Neither Georgia nor Ukraine is to be brought into NATO. The independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, won in the August war with Georgia, is not to be challenged. The U.S anti-missile missiles planned for Poland are not to be deployed.

In turn, Russia will cancel any missile deployment in Kaliningrad, recommits to the terms of all conventional forces agreements in Europe and assist in the effort in Afghanistan. Russia rejoins the West, and the West stays off Russia's front porch.

Be not surprised if the Russians come trolling before an overextended American empire an end to the Great Game in Central Asia like the one the ministers of Nicholas II offered the ministers of Edward VII.

And the third option? It is Iran.

Before 9-11, Iran was more hostile to the anti-Shia Taliban than we, and it has no desire to see them return. Indeed, Tehran was a supporter of the U.S. wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as both were ruled by mortal enemies.

The long way for U.S. and NATO war materiel to reach Kabul via Iran would be through a Turkey-Kurdistan-Iran supply line. The shorter would be from Iranian ports straight into Afghanistan.

Price of an entente? An end to the 30-year U.S.-Iranian cold war and a strategic bargain whereby Iran is allowed to develop peaceful nuclear power, under supervision, the United States lifts its embargo, and regime change is left to the Iranian people.

President Ahmadinejad, no fool, and facing an uncertain election this year, is already signaling interest in negotiations with Obama.

A complication. How would "Bibi" Netanyahu and Avigdor Lieberman regard a U.S.-Iran rapprochement -- to prevent a Taliban triumph in Kabul?

Yet, if the Taliban's enemies in Russia, Iran, Pakistan and Central Asia will not assist us, this war cannot end well. And if they will not help, Obama should cut America's losses, come home and let their neighbors deal with a triumphant Taliban.