Hello, and welcome back to another edition of American Dissident Voices, the Internet radio program of North America's foremost racialist organization, the National Alliance. I'm your host and the Chairman of the Alliance, Erich Gliebe.
If we remember back far enough, one of former President George W. Bush's first international moves after the tragedy of September 11th was to invade Afghanistan. Osama Bin Laden, who is a native of Saudi Arabia, was believed to be hiding out there and he had claimed responsibility for the attacks, so we sent in the troops in early October of 2001 and kicked the ruling Taliban out, all the while looking without success for Bin Laden and other Al-Qaeda kingpins. Whether Bush's desire to find a man who was hiding out in the mountains of Afghanistan was sufficient justification for the United States to invade the country is still a matter of debate, but the fact remains that that's what happened. The search for Bin Laden still continues today, although most Americans have given up on the idea of a successful ending, and one gets the impression that the U.S.'s effort is half-hearted, at best. Bin Laden has proved to be a sneaky character to track down, and the world and the American people are pretty bored of the story, so there is little chance that anything will change on that front.
Well, shortly after Bush took out the Taliban in Afghanistan, he ordered the invasion of the sovereign country of Iraq. That was in March of 2003. The invasion of Iraq, like the one of Afghanistan, was justified by George W. Bush on questionable grounds. In the case of Iraq, the grounds were a whole laundry list of lies. Bush lied when he told the American people that Iraq's dictator Saddam Hussein had had something to do with the attacks of September 11th. Bush lied when he told the American people that Iraq had stockpiled massive quantities of weapons of mass destruction. Bush lied when he told the American people that Saddam Hussein was buying uranium from some country in Africa for the purpose of creating nuclear weapons.
And with the Jewish-dominated news media stirring up those lies and examining them from every angle- all day, every day- Bush finally whipped the American public into enough of a frenzy that they didn't turn to violent rebellion when Bush demanded that they send their husbands and sons and brothers to catch shrapnel with their bodies and absorb energy from roadside bombs in the god-forsaken deserts of the Middle East.
Well, here we are, more than six years after the invasion of Iraq and nearly eight years after the invasion of Afghanistan, and there is no end in sight to the hemorrhaging - and resultant loss - of American manpower, money, and national honor that have come with the United States' meddling in the affairs of Iraq and Afghanistan. Don't get me wrong: There was some hope for a while. Despite the questionable rationales for the U.S. invading Afghanistan and Iraq, there were some quick successes. The Taliban was ousted from power in Afghanistan by the end of 2001, and Bush declared the end of major hostilities in Iraq on May 1 of 2003, a mere six weeks after the invasion was launched. Bush's speech onboard the USS Abraham Lincoln - with a banner reading "Mission Accomplished" in the background - remains today as one of the most premature military announcements in the post-World War II era. But, of course, the work wasn't done in Iraq. For years afterward, various factions of insurgent forces continued to defend their homeland against the Western invaders and to squabble for power among themselves.
Meanwhile, things had quieted down in Afghanistan following the fall of the Taliban. Whether that calming of hostilities in Afghanistan was due to the dispersion of Taliban fighters or to the Afghan people turning all of their energies to renewing the once-booming production of opium, which had been virtually shut down by the Taliban, is anybody's guess. Anyway, by the middle of 2003, the servicemen and women who were sent to Afghanistan were thought by those sent to Iraq to be getting off easy.
And now the tables have turned. Iraq is the more peaceful and quiet place compared to Afghanistan, so much so that it looks like more Americans will be off soon to waste their lives and our tax dollars in the country that, prior to October of 2001, refused to deliver Osama Bin Laden to the United States, although it did offer to put Bin Laden on trial in an Islamic court: an offer that the U.S. refused before invading. Perhaps because the opium production in Afghanistan is back up and running full speed ahead, Afghans might be looking for something to do to keep from getting bored, and are now turning their efforts back to resisting foreign intervention in their country. The Taliban, once thought to be defeated, turned out to be merely dormant, and now they have asserted their control over a surprisingly large portion of the country.
According to an article on CNN's Web site by Peter Bergen and Katherine Teidemann, about half of Afghanistan is considered to be "low risk;" that is, the Taliban has a small or negligible influence there. The other half of the country is classified anywhere between "medium risk" and "enemy controlled." The latter category accounts for about 7% of the area of Afghanistan.
At the moment, there are about 60,000 Americans in Afghanistan, but estimates suggest that about 600,000 members of security forces are required to maintain order in the country, which is not quite the size of the State of Texas, in terms of land area. With not quite 200,000 members of Afghani security forces, that leaves a need of about 400,000 from elsewhere, mainly the United States
Not that we are going to send that many service members to Afghanistan. Despite President Obama's support for more American forces in Afghanistan, the rest of the country and Congress aren't thrilled with the prospect of escalating the conflict. The escalations may continue, but I will be very surprised if we reach the 400,000 mark anytime soon.
And what all of this means is that there can be no hope of victory in Afghanistan. By the term "victory," what I mean here is a scenario like what George W. Bush must have envisioned when he gave the go-ahead to invade Afghanistan and Iraq in the first place: Countries essentially like the United States, with free speech, voting rights for everyone, and capitalism. Not that those countries in the Middle East have much of a history for those kinds of things or much experience with them, but I doubt that George spent too much time pondering nit-picky details like that. And if he wanted to really turn Middle Eastern countries into little Americas, I suppose he would make sure that the Jews controlled the overwhelming proportion of all of the media and, thus, the overwhelming proportion of the power in the government.
But the Jewish influence is what the whole thing essentially boils down to in the first place. There is strong evidence that the 9/11 attackers did what they did in order to strike a blow at an enemy that had, for so long, sided with their eternal enemies in the Middle East: the Israelis. On every issue known to man, when the Israelis were involved, the U.S. backed them and, while talking a good talk to the Arab nations, the U.S. essentially gave the Arabs the cold shoulder.
In the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, for example, Israel was close to defeat at the hands of Egypt and Syria. The Jews became so desperate that they contemplated launching nuclear weapons at their Arab enemies. But have no fear: The United States rushed tens of thousands of tons of materiel to the Jews. This aid played a big part in preventing Israel's defeat at the hands of an enemy that had been trying to regain territory taken from it during the Six-Day War of 1967.
This is the world in which we have to do our work of saving the White race because it is the world in which the last remnants of that race exist and the world that will have to be re-made so that that racial remnant can grow into a new and stronger people.
As another example, whenever Israel is called out on the carpet at the United Nations for its atrocious human rights record regarding either the Palestinians, the behavior of its soldiers in the Occupied Territories, or trafficking in human beings, the United States can always be counted upon to vote against any resolution - justified or not - that criticizes Israel.
The list could go on, but the unholy alliance between the United States and Israel was definitely one of the causes of the attacks of 9/11. Islamic fundamentalists have been waging a terrorist-like war within Israel and the occupied territories for decades, with variable success. On 9/11, they saw the chance to strike a blow at the unwitting big brother of the vermin nation of the Middle East, and they took it.
And now we have been led to become embroiled in wars in Afghanistan and Iraq that we cannot win. The guerillas in both countries have nothing to lose and everything to gain by striking back when it suits their fancy, holding out and prolonging the war until the invaders lose heart and pull out. That's what happened to the Soviets in Afghanistan; they simply got sick of fighting a war that they finally realized could not be won. Why did Bush think things would be any different for him? Why does President Obama think that sending more troops into Afghanistan will change anything? These men are supposed to have access to the best and most up-to-date information anywhere, and yet they can't grasp the most basic lessons of history and make decisions based on them.
Or maybe they CAN grasp those history lessons and realize what should be done about them today, but the Chief Executives perhaps are not being allowed to carry out those decisions. Not that former President George W. Bush could grasp history lessons; he doesn't strike one as being a man who can put two and two together. But current President Obama is a different story. He is certainly no dummy, and during his brief stint as a Senator from Illinois, he came out strongly in favor of ending U.S. involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq. That stance changed, of course, when he began to make a serious run for the White House, probably because the Jews in the Democratic Party who come up with the official party line told him that his views weren't acceptable. And now his approach to the wars in the Middle East is virtually indistinguishable from that of his predecessor, except that he is a little more eloquent in front of a microphone.
The White racialist position on Iraq and Afghanistan is that the United States needs to pull out immediately: troops, equipment, everything. That might sound a little cold-hearted; the bleeding hearts out there might object that we just can't leave those countries in turmoil after basically being responsible for screwing them up in the first place. Certainly, that is a point to consider, but on the other hand, our being in Iraq and Afghanistan isn't going to help the natives of those countries set things to suit them. And besides, we racialists would never have gotten ourselves into the jam in the first place, as Bush did when he sent the troops into the Afghan wasteland to try to track down Osama Bin Laden.
That brings me to the idea of responsible government. Ideally, a government would have a long-term vision for its people and act carefully to steer the people on a course toward the common goals. We don't have that in the United States. For one thing, there are no common goals among Americans because there are too many conflicting ethnicities. And because of the disagreement among the various races in America, the Jews who control our mass media of news and entertainment are able to push without resistance THEIR idea about where our society should go. And since Jews are out only for themselves, THEIR idea isn't good for us Whites.
Things have to change. We need to band together and fight for the existence of our people, rather than waste time fighting the Jews' wars against every other Middle Eastern people.
I'm Erich Gliebe, and thanks for being with me again today.
