How can a general be that stupid or accept to be ordered to make such statements. As I wrote several times, the US-NATO consorsium is only interested in the control and ownership of all natural ressources being in the ground of Irak, Iran, the countries located South of Russia. Then later, after making a lot of pressure on her, it will be easer to grab all ressources which belong to Russia. Those MIC, Wall-Street, US administration's masters and their european associates don't give a dam about the afghani, iraki, pakistani, russian, european or even american populations. That general is just a brainwashed, well paid idiot, trying to save his country and his president's neck. Instead of telling such insanities, he will be better off, burning all the pavot fields and reduce the talibans financial abilities for buying weapons. Those south-asiatics peoples do not want to see all those white troubles-makers controling directly or thru puppet-prostitutes leaders, their lands...It is as simple as that !!! Sorry Future Generations...Sincerely. Jean-Claude Meslin

I, just finish watching that brigadier-general's interview on RT. How can a russian journalist be so kind with a man who, as american say, talked on both sides of his mouth (bla bla bla). That man, even had the guts to brag about the sweet way the US-NATO deal with afghanis compared with the goal and the way russians operated (putting his soldiers'life in danger to save civilians. BS!). That lady-journalist did not lay down the right questions...What is the purpose of such a "kiss-ass" interview ! Sorry, if I am a little insolent but it was really bad for RTTV.. Sincerely. Jean-Claude Meslin

Total bull! It was full of propaganda and misinformation, just one example: he said the attackers of 911 trained in Afghanistan, that is a lot of misinformation that is believed by many Americans and used to justify the wars of occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq. In reality the 9-11 attackers were mostly Saudi national (a U.S. ally) and train almost exclusively in the U.S.A. itself, at American flying schools. They trained only to fly the planes in the air and not the take off and landings. It is clearly in the public records but the whole 9-11 incident was not even properly investigated with valuable evidence of the crime scene quickly disposed of. The Bill Clinton sex scandal received 300 million dollars in public funds to investigate but the horrific 9-11 terrorism incident only 1 million. But the people of Afghanistan and Iraq are paying wit their lives by the millions!

General Ben Hodges says it is the mission of US military to protect Afghan people!? To "protect" them by killing more than 3.5 million Afghan people? Among these 3.5 million murdered are no less than a million of women and children. US military kills Afghan civils on a daily basis by drone attacks, by firing heavy guns on them, by shooting at them with snipers, by bombing them by ammunition that has uranium in itself, etc. Is that how you protect Afghans, General Hodges? Are you kicking into them some democracy, huh general? By just suppresing US media not to be reporting on how really US military killed Afghanistan civils, you Gen Hodges cannot change the truth. And the truth is there, the whole world knows for it. US will never be able to recover from what it has done in Afghanistan and Iraq. All the US military personel will be one day on trail for what they have done in these two countries. Meanwhile, all that has remained for some US Generals is to be cracking such stupidities as Gen Hodges did.

Vladimir, "To "protect" them by killing more than 3.5 million Afghan people? Among these 3.5 million murdered are no less than a million of women and children." That was predicted by someone, whom I am not aware, but it wasn't actualized. And had it happened it was supposed to have been a result of aid being cut off from Afghanistan in the preliminaries to the invasion. As I said, it didn't happen. The only long term solution to starvation in Afghanistan is for the country to develop economically, and that it is more likely to happen under the present government than it is under the Taliban. Famines have been occurring before and after the US invasion. You must hate your own government if you think they would support us in the genocide of 3.5 million people. They are supporting the NATO war effort. The actual estimates of the excess civilian death toll produced by the invasion vary from around 11,000 to 31,000. The Chechnya wars have killed more people (though still much less than a 100,000).

William, You talk like a typical US citizen, brainwashed by what Government controlled US media have announced to you, and to other US citizens. Supposedly, all that dead Afghan people are because of femine that had taken place before the US led invasion? So, Tallibans are responsible for that, isn't it? Come on, William, be serious! It seems like you really believe it is you, Americans, that are now there just to "save" all that people from starvation? By improving economy, or what? Here is a simple truth for you: US military is doing nothing but killing people day by day, thousands of them there, in Afghanistan. That is why they have even engaged Blackwater personel: to get rid of any potential guilt for mass murdering, apologizing in some future trial that Blacks were not really a part of the military. I presume you will be surpraised to hear that no less that 1.5 million civils were also murdered in Iraq. The military PR service does well their job in creating a widely spread cover-up, at least over the American population, for all these mass mutillations. I cannot, but imagine that you are either a PR pro, engaged in maintaining silence over massive war crimes done by US personel down there in Afghanostan and Iraq, or you are just an average US citizen, sheepled and desoriented to stay calmed down while these mass mutillations are being commited. Cheers to you, William! Sleep well (that is, if you can). P.S. Claiming that riots in Chechenia have taken more victims than a brutal US war in Afghnistan is just as funny as citing Afghan-Talliban elements, and/or Al-Quaeda, for being responsible for 9/11. Even in the States, over 70% of the population believes 9/11 was an insade job.

Vladimir, "You talk..." Stick to the substance of the argument rather than making outlandish claims that border on being personal attacks. The US is flawed, and its power has spawned corruption and abuse. But it is a free society, its media is mostly privately owned and controlled, and frequent leaks within the government tend to expose, frequently in a highly public way, controversial policies like torture and wiretapping. "Supposedly...?" That isn't what I said. The 3.5 million was a number that a few people, absurdly, estimated as being a possible consequence of the withdrawal of international aid from Afghanistan just prior to the invasion. Afghanistan was dependent on foreign aid to supply it with an adequate food supply in 2001. In the run up to the invasion the US convinced Pakistan to close its border to Afghanistan and thus prevented this humanitarian assistance on which Afghanistan was dependent from reaching Afghanistan. I assumed that is where you got your number from because that was the first thing that came up in a brief internet search. Apparently, you seem to have been talking about something else, so I ask you question, where did you hear that 3.5 million people were killed in Afghanistan? "I presume you..." Not surprised, but highly skeptical. What is your source? That exceeds, but is close to, an upper limit estimate done by an ORB study. However, that and the prior Lancet studies were in my opinion effectively debunked by IraqiBodyCount.com. "P.S. Claiming that riots..." It wasn't riots. It was two wars in which Russia's armed forces took over 10,000 losses. Estimates of the civilian death toll range from as low as 25,000 to as high as a 100,000. What has your government been telling you? As far as the 9/11 poll you cite goes, give me the exact question that was asked. As of 2008, even 57% of Russian believed, explicitly, that it was Al Qaeda, so your claim seems far fetched.

Well said Vladimir! The illegal invasions, torture and rape in Iraq and Afghanistan under the Bush purges have been truly horrific. They are war crimes, as simple as that, yes they are going through a rewrite history phase, but that will never change the fact that they were crimes and they inflicted horrific suffering on the people of sovereign nations, all to control oil, drugs and create a geopolitical platform in Asia to use against China and Russia. The US is not a media free country. The media follows a web of ownership that leads to an overall 'controliing council'. The political system is owned by the same council with candidates offered like a a fixed wrestling match, something for the viewers to look at, some nice moves, and then the arranged winner goes back to their management team to follow the next script. As the 'losing' wrestler is under the same management, the show goes on, and on, and on... The wrestlers may change, but the show is the same!

Count Cash, "The US is not a media free country." Over the past 50 years ago, media ownership in the US has become gradually more consolidated, to the point now where only a few owners own most of the mainstream media. However, increasingly the mainstream media isn't all there is, as various independent internet sources gain a greater and greater share of the market. Reading from google news, and many people do, I randomly read from more than 20 different sources some of which, like Iranian press TV, the BBC (which btw has been highly praised by the Russian government), Russia today, Al Jazeera, and others are foreign. The mainstream media in turn seems more interested in making money than in pushing any political agenda. One of the more insidious aspects of this, which in turn is a market truth in pretty much every country, including yours, is that in order to sell to the largest possible proportion of the populace news sources have to strive to seem uncontroversial. There are exceptions to this, Fox for instance sells to the right-wing fringe, the Huffinton post (which is independent) sells to the left. But most of the media is "neutral". Neutral is of course biased, and the nature of this bias varies from country to country. This is one of the reasons why I make it a point to read foreign newspapers, so that I can see stories from multiple different angles. From this experience, I observe the following: in the US, neutral typically means being less skeptical towards US militarism than say Russia Today and Iranian pressTV tend to be. In my opinion, the various different national "neutrals" all hold their own truths and excesses. There is lot of truth to the view that the US is overly militaristic. But nevertheless, the, to Russian ears, biased "neutrality" of US press in regards to our wars in no way indicates that the US media isn't free. It only indicates, that it is US media and not Russian media.

William, "But it (US) is a free society, its media is mostly privately owned and controlled, and...". Privately owned, or not, the US media are nonetheless heavily controlled! Otherwise, how to explain an almost unanimous reporting about an alleged MDW in Iraq? Now, when it has been officially announced that Iraqi invasion was for oil, and for no other reason than oil, no one in US mentions MDW anymore!? Well, you see William, when the media in a country are that much controlled as it is the case in US, that country cannot by definition be "a free society". "...prevented this humanitarian assistance on which Afghanistan was dependent from reaching Afghanistan. I assumed that is where you got your number from because that was the first thing that came up in a brief internet search..... , so I ask you question, where did you hear that 3.5 million people were killed in Afghanistan?" I understand that it is not that easy to be an American citizen nowdays, after so many crimes have been commited by US. Each American feels a certain guilt for what has been done (and has still been doing), so that many rather try to avoid responsibility by concocting some stories about the tragedy had taken place before the US engagement. Even though I symphatize with you given the kind of the situation that you are now in, I must admit that your reaction is a bit childish. Equaly is childish to ask me where did I hear from that 3.5 million Afghans were killed during the US invasion. It is all around the Internet, and you could have heard for it just so many times, only if you searched and wanted to hear that. As for the "...give me the exact question that was asked (for 9/11)...": What do you think that the question was? Maybe it will help you to hear what the question was not looking alike? Well, it surely wasn't "Do you like your favorite actor (YES, or NO)?"