Protesters to the Democrats: GET THE FUCK OUT OF AFGHANISTAN

The Democratic Convention has already begun and unlike others, the Democrats will not get off with usual pandering to the most ignorant of voters. Many of us know that all the wars in the Middle East are a part of the so called "Project for the New American Century" They were planned out before 9-11. If the protesters seem similar to those of 1968, it's not a coincidence. Both the Democrats (AKA Di卐icrats) and the Republikkkans said we HAD to win in Vietnam or face a serious threat. They called it the domino theory, the one by one, the countries would fall to communism like dominos. By the end of the Di卐icrats convention, it was clear that there was no one to vote for to end the war. Anti-Vietnam war protesters outside were completely ignored by the Di卐icrats. Protesting the far-to-the right Republikkkans was a waist of time.

We already know that Barack Obama does not plan to get out of Afghanistan or abandon our puppet government there.

According to
Revolution: Newspaper of the Revolutionary Communist Party
"On Barack Obama . . . and Overcoming Differences"
How can, and how would, you overcome the differences between those who are opposed to, and want to see a basic departure from, not only the war in Iraq but the whole juggernaut of war, repression, and torture being driven forward by the Bush regime on the one hand, and on the other hand, those who are determined to support and carry forward this juggernaut? How will the Obama position lead to anything other than the capitulation of the former to the latter? Obama says that he will "listen to the generals," and the very first speech he gave after he became the presumptive nominee was a sabre-rattling, blood-thirsty speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Well, whose voice will have more sway: the generals, or those forces in the anti-war movement who desperately tell themselves and, still worse, others, that Obama "will have to" listen to them? Those who back Israel to the hilt—and who, like Obama himself, threaten nuclear war against Iran; or those who want to see justice for the Palestinians and who oppose an attack on Iran? We don't even have to guess—and we can see already the effect of this, as these same "anti-war" leaders tell people NOT to go out in the streets against the war, lest it "hurt Obama's chances."



There are a number of reasons the US WILL LOSE AFGHANISTAN- NO MATTER WHAT OUR LEADERS DO.

The British and Russian could not prop up puppet governments there; the US can't do it either.

New groups are emerging that are helping to fight the US army, including Communist Party (Maoist) of Afghanistan, which had vowed in their website, before it was closed down a few months ago, that they where in a hurry to start a Peoples war.

The Afghanistans have a love-hate relationship with the Taliban. They are brutally repressive, but not corrupt and as bad as the Northern Alliance, which the US has reinstalled as our new puppet government. The Northern Alliance has been run out of office in the past for being neglective, corrupt and lacking popular support.
Pakistan has been our ally in this but our main dictator there, Pervez Musharraf, has been forced to resign due to popular demand. He originally took over in a coup against a democracy. Since the US is loosing control of that country, it could and is being pulled into the Afghanistan quagmire. They have a nuclear bomb.

An update on the protests:

From Chicago 1968