White House wants...new “embassy” for “pushing the American agenda in Central Asia.”

[laststeamtrain]

Critics say the White House wants to use the new “embassy” for “pushing the American agenda in Central Asia.”

By Jeremy Scahill

Ah, good thing the US quest for violent global domination was brought to a screeching halt with the November presidential election. Without Obama’s election, we’d still have an occupation of Iraq, mercenaries on the US payroll, torture of prisoners, an unending and worsening war that kills civilians in Afghanistan, regular airstrikes in Pakistan, killing civilians and an embassy the size of Vatican city in Baghdad, which was built in part on slave labor. Not to mention those crazy “Bush/Cheney” neocons running around trying to become the “CEOs” of foreign nations. Wow, glad that’s all over. Whew! And, it’s a really good thing Bush is no longer in power or else the US would come up with some crazy idea like building a colonial fortress in Pakistan to defend “US interests” in the region...http://rebelreports.com/post/114340213/obama-wants-736-million-colonial-fortress-in-pakistan

[Buzz Clik]

1. What an unfortunate title to your thread.

Did you intentionally create the impression that the White House stated that they want a new embassy for “pushing the American agenda in Central Asia”? It seems that way.

Unbridled criticism of the administration is sanctioned here at DU, but try to keep at least the appearance of being honest about it.

[laststeamtrain]

2. It says what it says, Buzz Cut. Don't worry about it. n/t

[Buzz Clik]

3. I'll take that as an admission of intentional dishonesty.

That took some spine.

[laststeamtrain]

5. It's not "intentional dishonesty". It's the truth from a particular POV.

You know, politics as usual.

Getting 'on the team' with imperial bullying is what's spineless. Opposing it is not.

[Buzz Clik]

7. Your title is misleading, and you admit that it was intentionally misleading.

That's dishonest.

[laststeamtrain]

27. Thanks ever so much for keeping me on the straight & narrow.

Here's something just for you.

[Posteritatis]

13. Well, the article itself says "colonial fortress"...

So the OP's take is probably actually less loaded.

[Buzz Clik]

14. No doubt. But why did the title of the OP suggest that the White House made those descriptions....

... when they clearly did not?

[Posteritatis]

15. Definitely not defending the OP there

I have a problem with spin language no matter where it comes from, especially if it includes fake quotes like that did.

[Name removed]

16. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[madrchsod]

4. change we can believe in!

we will be in an never ending wars in the middle east and central asia.

while our country is unraveling obama commits to never ending war.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

6. Showing the flag to the lesser breeds.

[NoPasaran]

8. A US embassy supporting US interests? How dastardly!

Clearly, Obama = Hitler!



















:sarcasm:

[laststeamtrain]

10. "US interests"?

You mean ruling class/investing class interests don't you?

We better get some more troops over there to "defend our freedom", too.

Haven't we seen this movie before?

[Papa Boule]

17. Plundered middle class, hopeless lower class, suppressed wages, busted unions, super rich elites

...outsourced jobs, no single player health care, an intimidated and enabling press, unending wars, government torture, a two-tiered legal system, extraordinary renditions, taxpayers bailing out the super wealthy, politicians who only regard the interests of the voters a few weeks out of every four to six years, next-to-zero preparedness for future energy crises, bug-nuts-crazy imperialism, sacrificing the welfare of the many for the welfare of the few corporations...

What country wouldn't find that agenda attractive? It practically sells itself!

[girl gone mad]

20. Whose interests?

I'm a US citizen, and my interests certainly aren't being served with this embassy.

[western mass]

9. Nah...Halliburton execs just want their Xmas bonuses

build and support a new superfortress embassy? License to print $$$ !

[MadHound]

11. A new outpost for our American Empire

More of that "change" we can believe in.

And here in another five-ten years, will we see the same scene in Pakistan that we saw in Saigon, Marines scrambling to be the last man aboard a helicopter, while kicking men, women and children out of the way? It certainly wouldn't surprise me.

End both wars now, bring the troops home now, and stop this ongoing march towards empire.

[anonymous171]

12. Civilians die in wars, not matter how just or unjust they are.

Which is why war in general is bad and should be avoided.

[pleah]

18. So, is this where all the "job creations" are going?

To build new embassies all over the world?

[rockymountaindem]

19. So am I to understand from some of the posts here that we shouldn't have embassies?

Otherwise, since we're going to have an embassy there, I hope it would be large and well-protected. The US embassy in Pakistan was burned down in 1979 by a mob of students and judging from the unstable situation over there, anything can happen. I hope our diplomatic personnel will be well protected.

[MadHound]

21. The trouble is this isn't your normal embassy, it's a fortress

And like the embassy in Iraq (largest embassy ever) it is a sign of American imperial drive.

The Iraqi embassy, which even experts remark is more of a fortress, is going to cost 532 million. This one in Pakistan is going to cost over 700 million. A huge, sprawling sign of American hubris, one that gives the unmistakable message about who rules the roost, the United States.

Tell you what, would you like it if China put a sprawling 100 plus acre fortress down here in D.C. or NYC and called it an "embassy". Especially if it had a permanent "guard" force in the thousands? Would you think that's just benign diplomacy? No, somehow I doubt it, and somehow I doubt that the American people would accept it.

If they want an embassy in Pakistan, great, get an office building or such, like normal countries do. If you're worried about attacks, well then perhaps that's a sign you shouldn't put an embassy up for awhile until things are smoothed over. Or better yet, a sign that US policy has taken a wrong turn in Pakistan and needs to be revised.

But instead we're building, just as in Iraq, another fortress to celebrate our imperial triumph in the region.

[Mari333]

22. yep and yep nt

[rockymountaindem]

25. If a mob of Americans had ever torched the Chinese embassy, I'd say they had a point protecting it

If the US was full of people who would love nothing more than to blow the Chinese embassy to smithereens, I'd concede that they had every right to protect their staff by building a hard target. Fortunately, the Chinese diplomatic staff can be assured of their and their embassy's security in the United States. Unfortunately, the same can't be said of US personnel in Pakistan at the moment.

It's apples and oranges.

[Orwellian_Ghost]

23. Quick quiz: What's the role of US embassies any and everywhere in the world?

It's an easy enough question of course.

[rockymountaindem]

24. Let me guess: oppressing foreigners?

Is that it?

[ColbertWatcher]

26. Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HL_vHDjG5Wk

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post_Hoc,_Ergo_Propter_Hoc_(The_West_Wing)