babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » national news   » Suicide Bomb Hits CDN Troops in Afghanistan

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Suicide Bomb Hits CDN Troops in Afghanistan
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 15 January 2006 12:17 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
KABUL, Afghanistan - A suicide car bomb hit a Canadian military convoy in a southern Afghan city Sunday, killing two civilians and wounding 13 people, officials said.

The blast occurred as the convoy was driving near the Canadian base in Kandahar city, a former Taliban stronghold, said Interior Ministry spokesman Dad Mohammed Rasa.

He said at least two civilians were killed and 10 were wounded. He said an unspecified number of Canadian troops were also hurt.

U.S. military spokesman Lt. Col. Jerry O'Hara said three soldiers were wounded in a bomb attack on a U.S.-led coalition convoy, but declined to identify their nationalities.


Associated Press

EDIT: I just checked CBC.ca and they report One Canadian was killed.

[ 15 January 2006: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]


From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Kevin_Laddle
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8163

posted 15 January 2006 12:22 PM      Profile for Kevin_Laddle   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Good grief, this is terrible...

I will point out however, that this is just a drop in the bucket to what we should expect if Steven Harper is elected. Harper never saw a US led war he didn't like.


From: ISRAEL IS A TERRORIST STATE. ASK THE FAMILIES OF THE QANA MASSACRE VICTIMS. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 January 2006 12:22 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My condolences too, to the families of the Canadians killed and injured but also to the families of the innocent Afghans killed and injured.

We should not be wading deeper into this American mess. We should not. We are making things worse.

[ 15 January 2006: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 15 January 2006 12:25 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I fear this may be a retaliation for the recent CIA air strike in Pakistan that missed its target but killed at least 17 civilians.
From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 January 2006 12:31 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
robbie, there is a thread in, I think, the ME forum, perhaps mistakenly titled "Pakistan," about the CIA strikes from Afghanistan into Pakistan.

I agree: making these connections is important.

It is also significant that Pakistan is protesting those CIA raids. The whole thing seems to me to be heating up.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 15 January 2006 01:05 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes it is sad that another Canadian died in Afghanistan.

"I fear this may be a retaliation for the recent CIA air strike in Pakistan that missed its target but killed at least 17 civilians."

I doubt this line of thought. These types of attacks are planned for weeks if not months in adavance. This was an attack of opportunity against UN/NATO/ISAF/western presence in Afghanistan.

The Canadian troops were targeted because they were at the wrong place at the wrong time and they were the easy target to hit.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 January 2006 01:08 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And the guys who did the targeting had no reason to be doing that, eh? They were just "scumbags" who do this sort of thing on the basis of no context, no provocation at all.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 15 January 2006 01:18 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No, the Taliban/al Qaida are soldiers that are fighting for what they believe in. They have all the right to fight for their thoughts and beliefs such as making women house items without any rights, or education.

They killed one Canadian and up to 15 Afghans. I doubt that those soldiers that committed the attack really care for the Afghans they are trying to “free” from the western world.

I just do not believe they decided to attack the Canadians because they are Canadians. They hit the convoy because the convoy was there at the right moment and they decided that it was the best target to hit at the time.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
RookieActivist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4089

posted 15 January 2006 01:22 PM      Profile for RookieActivist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nonetheless, Canadians shouldn't be targets in the first place. When these sorts of attacks happen, we should be asking "why are we there?"

As far as the election goes, I can see this story becoming a wedge issue, but I'm not sure which way. Certainly Harper will use it to campaign for greater military spending (to save our troops), though for some it may force them to think twice about the role of our military.


From: me to you | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 January 2006 01:25 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
They hit the convoy because the convoy was there at the right moment and they decided that it was the best target to hit at the time.

Right. They hit the convoy because ... they want to hit convoys. And why would they want to do that?

Logic?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 15 January 2006 01:32 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Right. They hit the convoy because ... they want to hit convoys. And why would they want to do that?
Because at the time they couldn't find any aid workers, truck drivers, election candidates, police officers, or school teachers to kill instead?

From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 15 January 2006 01:33 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The convoy was most likely attacked somewhere on Highway 4 which leads to the Kandahar Airfield from the PRT centre in Kandahar city.

This is the main supply route from the airfield into the city, this means there is a lot of traffic leading into and out of Kandahar city. There is always a military/NGO vehicle/convoy on this road every 30 minutes or less.

This were you can find the easiest targets to attack with a suicide bomber. You only have to wait 30 minutes or so and then there is a target for you to attack.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 January 2006 01:38 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wow.

Has it occurred to you guys that people fight when they believe they are at war? That they have been invaded and occupied? As they have been?

Where is Phil Ochs, now that we really need him again?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Screaming Lord Byron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4717

posted 15 January 2006 02:17 PM      Profile for Screaming Lord Byron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Oh God, here's another bloody election issue. Who'll be the first to wrap himself in the flag on this one?

Hint. Paul Martin.


From: Calgary | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 15 January 2006 02:24 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Has it occurred to you guys that people fight when they believe they are at war? That they have been invaded and occupied? As they have been?
Oh, I'm sure that's what they feel, and that bombing convoys with no regard for the lives of nearby Afghans is a legitimate tactic.

Doesn't make them any less wrong or their ideology any less disgusting.

EDIT: don't know if anybody has seen the update yet, but it wasn't a soldier, but a Canadian diplomat, who was killed: Glyn Berry, 59, political director of the provincial reconstruction team.

[ 15 January 2006: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 15 January 2006 02:52 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Soldier or not, this is terrible. We should get the hell out now.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 January 2006 03:00 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Andrew Jay, I have an idea: why don't we get all the "disgusting" people out of Afghanistan, the "scumbags" - you know, the Afghans? - and then we could fill the country up with people approved by Andrew Jay.

Which people would those be, btw, Andrew Jay?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 15 January 2006 03:18 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Which people would those be, btw, Andrew Jay?
Why, Canadian Forces personnel, of course!

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 15 January 2006 03:18 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Andrew Jay, I have an idea: why don't we get all the "disgusting" people out of Afghanistan, the "scumbags" - you know, the Afghans? - and then we could fill the country up with people approved by Andrew Jay.
Hey, if you're cool with people who murder aid workers and teachers, and election candidates (not to mention Canadians working to rebuild their country), or who would deny women any role in society that's fine. To each their own, I guess.
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Which people would those be, btw, Andrew Jay?
I like how your wild imagination has me wanting to empty the country of people

Picture a venn diagram; a giant circle labelled "Afghans" and in it a tiny dot, encompassing the trouble makers who set off suicide bombs, attack polling stations or otherwise make life miserable for the rest of the country's citizens. They're the ones that have to be killed, disarmed or otherwise neutralised.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 15 January 2006 03:25 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Picture a venn diagram; a giant circle labelled "Canadians" and in it a tiny dot, encompassing the trouble makers who want Canada to go off and make war against other countries out of some divine mission to civilize the world. They're the ones that have to be corrected, educated, or otherwise neutralised.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 15 January 2006 03:25 PM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
No, the Taliban/al Qaida are soldiers that are fighting for what they believe in. They have all the right to fight for their thoughts and beliefs such as making women house items without any rights, or education.

They killed one Canadian and up to 15 Afghans. I doubt that those soldiers that committed the attack really care for the Afghans they are trying to “free” from the western world.

I just do not believe they decided to attack the Canadians because they are Canadians. They hit the convoy because the convoy was there at the right moment and they decided that it was the best target to hit at the time.


From my view, these are two wrongs, not one wrong and one right.

a) The enslavement of Afghanistan by religious fanatics by means of western and soviet made weapons.
b) The imperialist occupation of Afghanistan by western powers.

Canada's participation in the occupation of Afghanistan has nothing to do with human rights. We - and the US - are allied with worse tyrants than even the Taliban are/were. It is for geopolitical reasons, and human rights don't play even the smallest role in those decisions, as our involvement in the brutal suppression of democracy in Haiti sufficiently proves.

Two wrongs. Canadian Forces have no business being in and occupying other nations.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 January 2006 03:27 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Andrew Jay: I have no need to "picture" Afghanistan as any sort of diagram. That would seem to be your problem.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 15 January 2006 03:27 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Picture a venn diagram; a giant circle labelled "Afghans" and in it a tiny dot, encompassing the trouble makers who set off suicide bombs, attack polling stations or otherwise make life miserable for the rest of the country's citizens. They're the ones that have to be killed, disarmed or otherwise neutralised.

The problem is that as long as Afghanistan is occupied by foriegn armies and things fail to improve for Afghanis, it will be quite easy for that tiny dot to recruit people and also to hold the support of the Afghani population. Afghanis aren't going to trust any foreigners as long as their land is occpuied by foreign armies.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 15 January 2006 03:31 PM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
EDIT: don't know if anybody has seen the update yet, but it wasn't a soldier, but a Canadian diplomat, who was killed: Glyn Berry, 59, political director of the provincial reconstruction team.

Don't spout the shit about "reconstruction team". 'The West' 'reconstructs' what is suitable infrastructure to suit their own purpose, as can be seen in Iraq. Power and Water Supply are still largely offline, while every effort is made to keep the oil industry going.

Soldier or diplomat or whatever other occupation scum crawls around on foreign ground during these sorts of 'unjust' wars, I feel nothing for them. The Taliban are scum. The regime in Iran is scum. That doesn't give us the right to bomb the hell out of the people, kill and cripple whoever we please, and take their land and act as if it is ours to do with as we please. We are NOT the masters of Afghanistan. Afghanistan to the Afghans. Occupation Forces out.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 15 January 2006 03:36 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
The problem is that as long as . . . things fail to improve for Afghanis, it will be quite easy for that tiny dot to recruit people and also to hold the support of the Afghani population.
You are absoluately correct, and this is why it is so important for Canada and other countries to lend a hand in rebuilding their country, lest trash like the Taliban actually begin to appear as a preferable alternative.

From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 January 2006 03:39 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Andrew Jay, have you not read about the reassignment of the CF in Afghanistan? We are no longer doing rebuilding. We are not. We are taking over offensive operations from the Americans.

If we were there to help de-mine that seriously over-mined country, I would be all for that. But General Hillier has specifically said that that is not why we are there on this new mission, not at all.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 15 January 2006 03:43 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
lest trash like the Taliban actually begin to appear as a preferable alternative.

Right. We (western governments) prefer the rapists of the Northern Alliance. Much more our kind of people, what? After all, the Afganiis themslves aren't given any "alternative" other than the ones we provide. Hamid Karzai anyone?


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 15 January 2006 03:45 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Andrew Jay, have you not read about the reassignment of the CF in Afghanistan? We are no longer doing rebuilding. We are not. We are taking over offensive operations from the Americans.

If we were there to help de-mine that seriously over-mined country, I would be all for that. But General Hillier has specifically said that that is not why we are there on this new mission, not at all.


The Canadian Armed Forces are doing both:
quote:
Operation Archer is called a “Provincial Reconstruction Team,” made up of personnel from the Canadian Forces, Foreign Affairs, the Canadian International Development Agency and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 15 January 2006 03:46 PM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Hey, if you're cool with people who murder aid workers and teachers,

That's not cool. But of course that is ONLY happening because Can-Am/NATO troops are in Afghanistan, trying to control a foreign nation by brutal force.

quote:
and election candidates

I'm sorry. I have yet to see an election 'we' set up in a foreign nation that isn't rigged. If 'we' are so sure that Afghanistan doesn't want the Taliban, then why are we not confident enough to have them on the ballot? If we are so sure that Iraq doesn't want Saddam, then why wasn't Baath allowed on the ballot? If we're so sure that Haiti doesn't want Lavalas, then why, instead of murdering and suppressing Lavalas, don't we put them on the ballot, so that all these 'bastards' can be defeated properly at the polls? Because it is probably a load of horseshit, and Bush is scared Saddam would have won the election, and perhaps the same would happen in Afghanistan. I don't for a moment pretend to know or understand the psyche of the people living in those countries. But what I DO understand is, that it is up to them - and THEM ONLY - to decide who rules their nation. All our meddling is unwelcome and deserves to be answered by military force.

quote:
(not to mention Canadians working to rebuild their country),

Awwwwwwwwwwww. How sweet and selfless of us! If they could only see that we are just doing that for their benefit and void of ulterior motives.

quote:
or who would deny women any role in society that's fine. To each their own, I guess.

Please, don't make me puke. The American war on Iraq has voided pretty much all rights for women in that country. Afghanistan is not much better off despite the Taliban being 'gone'. Iraq was a secular society before, which did not allow the religiously cloaked discrimination against women we see in so many of our 'allied' nations. Now women have no rights, and will be third rate citizens thanks to our toppling of the secular government and establishing an Islamic Republic.

quote:
I like how your wild imagination has me wanting to empty the country of people
Picture a venn diagram; a giant circle labelled "Afghans" and in it a tiny dot, encompassing the trouble makers who set off suicide bombs, attack polling stations or otherwise make life miserable for the rest of the country's citizens. They're the ones that have to be killed, disarmed or otherwise neutralised.

Funny thing is... the warlords have been widely given ministerial posts by the US/Canada & its puppet regime in Kabul. So the only people you are asking to get disarmed is the Taliban and sympathizers. Not the cruel bloodthirsty warlords of the Northern Alliance, who have the support of the US, who have brought drug production back into full swing, and who enjoy friendly relations with 'us', while they keep on murdering people.

In my opinion, the Taliban, the warlords, the foreign troops in Afghanistan, and all those who incite bloodshed in the highest geopolitical ranks... they all equally deserve to die for all the injustice they are causing.

What is happening in Afghanistan is up to the Afghan people to sort out. All we have to do is stop selling them the weapons and stop meddling in their affairs.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 15 January 2006 03:50 PM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
You are absoluately correct, and this is why it is so important for Canada and other countries to lend a hand in rebuilding their country, lest trash like the Taliban actually begin to appear as a preferable alternative.

You don't get it. Afghanistan is not a US possession or territory - at least not officially recognized as such -, and neither is it a Canadian Province. Legally and morally, you have ZERO input in what sort of government Afghans choose, neither should you have the slightest right to meddle and try to get them to have a government favorable to you.

[ 15 January 2006: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 15 January 2006 03:56 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Red Albertan:
That's not cool (murdering aid workers and teachers). But of course that is ONLY happening because Can-Am/NATO troops are in Afghanistan.
You're right; until Canadian and NATO forces were in the country, there weren't many aid workers or teachers for the Taliban to murder.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Albertan:
Please, don't make me puke. The American war on Iraq has voided pretty much all rights for women in that country.
(Checks map) . . . nope, like I thought, Afghanistan and Iraq are different countries. While certainly not an unqualified success, there have been numerous advances in Afghanistan.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Albertan:
If they could only see that we are just doing that for their benefit and void of ulterior motives.
And what are these, since you think you know so much?

From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 15 January 2006 03:58 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Andrew Jay: I have no need to "picture" Afghanistan as any sort of diagram. That would seem to be your problem.
You were the one who made the mistake of saying that Canadian Forces were guilty of going after all Afghans:
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
the "scumbags" - you know, the Afghans?
I don't have any such "problem" with Afghanistan.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Albertan:
Legally and morally, you have ZERO input in what sort of government Afghans choose, neither should you have the slightest right to meddle and try to get them to have a government favorable to you.
As long as it is done democratically, they're free to choose whatever government they want. There wasn't much "choosing" going on when the Taliban took over in the first place.

[ 15 January 2006: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 15 January 2006 04:07 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If only we, the West, keep out of other nations' affairs ! The most important freedom they want, is freedom from us, as Robert Fisk aptly put it.

In this day and age, every nation has its own people who are capable to carry the struggle for and torch of liberations, women's emancipation, democracy etc..

There should be no room on this forum for apologists for imperialism and neo-colonialism as there is no room for sexism, bigotry, homophobia, racism and the likes.


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 15 January 2006 04:16 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sidra:
There should be no room on this forum for apologists for imperialism and neo-colonialism as there is no room for sexism, bigotry, homophobia, racism and the likes.
I agree, but then you'd only have a handful of people left on babble!

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 15 January 2006 04:42 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
On a second thought, you are right M. Spector. Let them enlighten us with their arguments, if any could stand scrutiny.
From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 15 January 2006 06:23 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I believe most of the people on replying to this topic do not care about Afghanistan unless it involves bad news about the western presence in Afghanistan.

Where are the discussions about the nearly 40 aid workers killed this year, the Afghan teacher that was behead last month, the nearly 500,000 refugees that return to the country, or the how the reconstruction effort is going.

When will we talked about the good things happening in Afghanistan instead of the negative.

I believe most of the people do not know about the some 300 attacks that have occurred since the August along the Pakistani border.

Some questions for you.

1. Where are the stable areas in Afghanistan?
2. What nations are in Afghanistan?
3. How many and where are the PRT located?
4. How many NGO groups are in Kandahar province?
5. What is the percentage of women voters in each province from the fall elections?
6. How many provinces in Afghanistan?
7. Name some of the warlords and the names of their militia’s
8. How many westerns have died in Afghanistan?
9. How many tribes and clans are in Kandahar?
10. How many new schools have been created or reopened this year?

I have been reading about Afghanistan almost everyday for the last three years, yes things are bad at times and a lot better most of the time compared to the early 1990s, and very small percentage of the people do not want us there but as a whole we are improving the country for the better. Things may not be going as well or as fast as first thought but the situation is changing, it will take time and effort and the lives of Canadians.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 15 January 2006 06:39 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well Andrew Jay there's a centuries old history of western colonialism, imperialism and racism across the third world.

You don't grasp this issue. And until you do you'll never understand anything at all about what's happening in the third world.

There are many different groups across the third world. Some are secular leftists, some nationalists, some religious fundamentalists, some of other political orientations. They differ in many ways as to how they'd like to re-organize their societies.

But what they all want is for western governments, corporations, intelligence agencies and armed forces to stop meddling in the affairs of their countries. They want to solve their problems on their own.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 15 January 2006 06:44 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
I believe most of the people on replying to this topic do not care about Afghanistan unless it involves bad news about the western presence in Afghanistan.


...


I have been reading about Afghanistan almost everyday for the last three years, .


Of all the f-ing nerve - and I never swear on babble, but I tell you, you condescending twerp, you are driving me to it.

I have been following politics closely in Afghanistan since 1979, since before Andrew Jay was born, since before you ever learned to condescend to other people, Webgear. How dare you? How dare you?

And how dare you two, who have clearly never read a word, seen a single brave film, from the heroic women of RAWA, how dare you exploit their situation for your own patronizing purposes? How dare you?

You have been reading about Afghanistan for three years. Yeah. That about sums it up. God. I am so disgusted.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 15 January 2006 07:15 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Webgear,

I have noticed "Petawawa" as apparently your address and thus I take the liberty of asking you if you are in the military. For that might shed light on your perspective on the issue.


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 15 January 2006 07:55 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Well, well, quite a tizzy we have here. I find this thread oddly dislocating at times, and think I've drifted into the kind of pro-isolation talk that some Americans (conservative ones, often) fall into when the rest of the world is not unfolding according to US foreign policy timetables. Simply put, I think a lot of critics of Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan are the victims of a false syllogism - something like : America is frankly imperialistic; Iraq and many other instances demonstrate American lawlessness and imperial aggression; America is militarily involved in Afghanistan - ergo: Canadian involvement in Afghanistan must necessarily support American imperialism, whether Canada wishes to or not. Have I got that about right?

I would want to know some things before I concluded that Skdadl et al are correct. I would want to know

- is there any legitimacy under international law for external military forces in Afghanistan?

- has the Canadian government done anything or given any sign to signal its displeasure with American disregard for international law? That is, involvement in Afghanistan aside, what other things diplomatic and otherwise is Canada doing to challenge and resist American empire-building? If there are a number of such challenges and Canadian initiatives, this would seem to mitigate co-operation with the US in Afghanistan.

- what are Canadian troops actually doing in Afghanistan? Combat roles are justified because there are in fact folks in Afghanistan who are willing to kill not only fellow Afghanis but also people on the Bloor subway line if they get the chance. It is unfortunate in the extreme that the existence of such people has allowed President Bush and his neo-con hoard to declare war on humanity under false pretences, but even this awful consequence does not negate the existence of real international terrorists. We have a right to kill these people before they come over here and kill us. And unchecked, they would. The chances of an actual terrorist attack on Canadian soil may be vanishingly small, but it does exist, and a number of the people who would perpetrate it, if they could, are in Afghanistan and the Pakistan border regions.

- what would be the immediate and long term effect on the welfare of Afghani society if all foreign troops were immediately removed? Skdadl, with all respect, are you actually telling me that RAWA supports such a move?

Things are getting too real and too imminent for some of the sloppy thinking displayed in this thread. To equate the American military project with Canadian military policy, history, personnel or values under the broad flag of "imperialistic warmongers" is inaccurate, dishonest and insulting to the reputation of the Canadian military and of Canada generally. To conflate Iraq with Afghanistan usually reflects only sloppy thinking - that is to say, not thinking. If ever there was a case that stubbornly withstood ideological analysis, it is Afghanistan. Let's not make fools of ourselves by trying to apply lessons, however heartfelt, not applicable to this unique situation.

And finally, for those who now consider me an unreconstructed militarist, I offer this - if Canada does not immediately refuse to hand over Afghani prisoners to the Americans, Canada should withdraw its military services from Afghanistan forthwith.


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 15 January 2006 08:25 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lots of enlightenment going on in here eh?

The only progessive ideas are apparently the ones that mesh with your ideals here... Not once have I ever seen any ideas on solutions put forth here, just pull out of Afghanistan right now.

I now work on a regular basis with Afghan Canadians who happen to think we are doing the right thing. They beleive in it so much, that they are signing on with foreign affairs to go to Afghanistan in the capacity of translators.

I will take their word for what is happening rather then the word of a few that have gotten really good at selective reading.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 15 January 2006 08:33 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sidra

Yes I am in the military, and I have been to Afghanistan twice since 2002. I have been part of the ISAF/NATO mission for 6 months in Kabul in 2003 and I was part of the Operation Enduring Freedom forces (American Task Force)for 6 months in 2002. I am re-deploying this summer to Kandahar as part of the PRT for another 6 months.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 15 January 2006 08:42 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

Of all the f-ing nerve - and I never swear on babble, but I tell you, you condescending twerp, you are driving me to it.

I have been following politics closely in Afghanistan since 1979, since before Andrew Jay was born, since before you ever learned to condescend to other people, Webgear. How dare you? How dare you?

And how dare you two, who have clearly never read a word, seen a single brave film, from the heroic women of RAWA, how dare you exploit their situation for your own patronizing purposes? How dare you?

You have been reading about Afghanistan for three years. Yeah. That about sums it up. God. I am so disgusted.


Reading about something, and actually having been there, and yet you still casually dismiss Webgear.

Newsflash, RAWA is not the only source of ideas for Afghanistan.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 15 January 2006 08:48 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Looney

“What are Canadian troops actually doing in Afghanistan?”

That depends on the army unit you are talking about. The JTF-2 are doing Special Forces missions, the units from 2CMBG are doing framework missions (presence patrolling, supporting the ANA, ANP training), the PRT are doing reconstruction projects.

“What would be the immediate and long term effect on the welfare of Afghani society if all foreign troops were immediately removed?”

Afghanistan would collapse into civil war again like after the Russians left and most likely the Taliban would gain control of most of the country.

“If Canada does not immediately refuse to hand over Afghani prisoners to the Americans, Canada should withdraw its military services from Afghanistan forthwith.”

I think Canada should follow the rules of the Geneva Conventions to the letter. I think we should hold onto any Afghan prisoner that we capture and detain them ourselves and NOT turn them over to the Americans. This is one area we are lacking in.

[ 15 January 2006: Message edited by: Webgear ]


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
S1m0n
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11427

posted 15 January 2006 09:06 PM      Profile for S1m0n        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
I think Canada should follow the rules of the Geneva Conventions to the letter. I think we should hold onto any Afghan prisoner that we capture and detain them ourselves and turn them over to the Americans. This is one area we are lacking in.

Sentence two in this paragraph contradicts sentence one. Which do you want to choose?

Because you can't have both. It's a violation of the convention to transfer prisoners to a power--even an allied power--which is not respecting the convention:

http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/91.htm

quote:
Article 12

...

Prisoners of war may only be transferred by the Detaining Power to a Power which is a party to the Convention and after the Detaining Power has satisfied itself of the willingness and ability of such transferee Power to apply the Convention. When prisoners of war are transferred under such circumstances, responsibility for the application of the Convention rests on the Power accepting them while they are in its custody.



From: Vancouver | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 15 January 2006 09:12 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Skdadl

So instead of answering my questions, you insult me. I am really disappointed with you, a person of your age acting like my three year old daughter when she doesn’t get her way. I have lost some respect for you.

I in fact look at the RAWA website every week or so. They are decent at what they report, but most of their reporting is about the bad things and somewhat closed minded. Can you tell me why RAWA is located in Pakistan and the USA and not in Afghanistan? Is it because the members of the RAWA would face danger from most of the Afghan male population outside of Kabul?

I said I have been reading about Afghanistan since 2002, but I started reading with older material dating back from the 1970s and 1980s. I have read books and websites from various organizations and political agendas.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 15 January 2006 09:15 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
S1m0n

Sorry, grammar error on my part. I have corrected the last posting. To say

“I think Canada should follow the rules of the Geneva Conventions to the letter. I think we should hold onto any Afghan prisoner that we capture and detain them ourselves and NOT turn them over to the Americans. This is one area we are lacking in.”


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 15 January 2006 09:38 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by radiorahim:
Well Andrew Jay there's a centuries old history of western colonialism, imperialism and racism across the third world . . .They want to solve their problems on their own.
Wow, thank you for assuming that I was completely unaware of 300+ years of western history. Your patronising arrogance aside; yes, insofar as people being allowed to vote, or women being allowed in public are "problems", then the Taliban are a wonderful group looking to solve Afghanistan's "problems" in their own special way. Wake up; Nelson Mandela or Mahatma Ghandi they ain't.

Disagreeing with you =/= "not grasping this issue"

I take a certain amount of pride in the fact that I have been actively following the situation in Afghanistan (since about 1999/2000)and doing my best to be informed on the subject - I'll soon be researching two papers on democracy building in the country, and another on the formulation of the constitution. I am a student studying political science and history, and my work focuses on the developing world.

Maybe Skdadl or yourself will like to think you have more "cred'" than I or anyone else on the face of the earth, but don't try pulling the old "well, you're certainly not aware that . . ." Excuse me if my views are at odds with one individual group.

Also, thank you Webgear and Reason for posting; it's good to hear some first-hand information about what's really going on and what Canada is doing over there.

[ 16 January 2006: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
sidra
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11490

posted 15 January 2006 09:45 PM      Profile for sidra   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We are being 'informed' that foreigners occupying Afghanistan are there for Afghanis' own good.

Then the "Taliban" discourse. Our troopes are there to prevent the Taliban from oppressing Afghani women. Well The Taliban were there and nobody gave a hoot... until Osama Bin Laden got to Afghanistan. All of a sudden, "Afghani women!" urgently needed to be liberated. What a coincidence.

Who is the president of Afghanistan? What was his occupaation in the US prior to being chosen by the US as president of Afghanistan ? Why was he chosen by the USA ? What interest do the US, Canada and the West have in Afghanistan ?

Doesn't it sound odd that a foreign power impose a ruler on another nation. Perhaps only in military logic.

You really think that you are in Afghanistan for Afghanis' sake ? You are being duped, BIG TIME.


From: Ontario | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 15 January 2006 10:03 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
I guess it's not just us that's being "duped" Sidra. So must have been the United Nations as a whole in authorizing this intervention. Well, I hear you replying, they were forced into it by the US. Why not in Iraq, then?
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 15 January 2006 11:22 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
looney, we've been through the whole Canada-in-Afghanistan thing many times on babble. I guess you missed it. Please don't make us repeat the whole debate for your enlightenment.

Read this thread

Read this thread

Read this thread


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 15 January 2006 11:45 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sidra

“Then the "Taliban" discourse. Our troopes are there to prevent the Taliban from oppressing Afghani women. Well The Taliban were there and nobody gave a hoot... until Osama Bin Laden got to Afghanistan. All of a sudden, "Afghani women!" urgently needed to be liberated. What a coincidence.”

When did the Taliban rise up in the Afghanistan?
When did Osama Bin Laden got back into Afghanistan?
Who help fund and train the Taliban in exchange for a base of operations?
What year was the first missile strike against the Taliban/al Qaida in Afghanistan?


If I am not mistake Hamid Karzai was elected President on October 9th, 2004 by some 4 million Afghan voters.

Yes, Karzai has work with oil companies in the past and still has interest in the oil pipeline.

Ok, how would you correct the situation in Afghanistan? Where are your solutions to the problem? Yes there are problems in Afghanistan, how are we going to solve it?


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
DavisMavis
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7508

posted 15 January 2006 11:54 PM      Profile for DavisMavis     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
Yes there are problems in Afghanistan, how are we going to solve it?

I guess the point a few of us are trying to make is why do you feel they are our problems to solve, especially via the means you support?


From: the occupied territory of nova scotia | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 16 January 2006 12:09 AM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
“I guess the point a few of us are trying to make is why do you feel they are our problems to solve, especially via the means you support?”

So why do we give billions of dollars away in aid to countries around the world every year? Why use Canadian tax dollars to solve other countries economic and humanitarian aid problems when Canadians are suffering here at home?

So why did we stop Hitler from taking over Europe? Why did we send peacekeepers into the former Yugoslavia? Those wars were not Canadian problems in anyway or situation.

My point is we are doing a just and proper thing in Afghanistan as we did in WW2 and in Yugoslavia. It is a mess at times, but the mess would be more devastating if we were not there.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 16 January 2006 12:18 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Andrew Jay, I have 2 questions for you:

Why did you choose to deliberately misrepresent my post to set up a straw man upon which to base a rebuttal of my post?

Why whenever anyone questions Canadian involvement in Afghanistan do you respond as if anyone who disagrees with Canadian involvement in Afghanistan by default must support the murderous activities of the Taliban?

I think you are a very naieve individual. You've studied political systems. Other posters on this board have been to various places around the world and have seen them firsthand, and I don't think you have a full grasp of the impacts that policies have on people in other parts of the world.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 16 January 2006 01:32 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
As long as it is done democratically, they're free to choose whatever government they want. There wasn't much "choosing" going on when the Taliban took over in the first place.

Actually, what are you balking at? They chose their government the way the Americans chose the government for Chile, Nicaragua, Panama, El Salvador and other places. And no Andrew, you don't even get to decide that Afghans have to choose their government democratically, as if democracy is somehow pure, untouchable, infallibe and holy. The theory sounds good, but democacy is the easiest form of government to subvert and make subservient to the wealthy.

Afghans can choose their government any way they want, but in whatever way they choose it, it should not be done with weapons supplied by us.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 16 January 2006 01:53 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Why did you choose to deliberately misrepresent my post to set up a straw man upon which to base a rebuttal of my post?
Because you almost had it. To your credit, for once you almost got it right, I thought it would be worthwhile to preserve it:

Without assistance and the message that the outside world is actually concerned for Afghanistan's condition, the Taliban's support will grow. However, if Canada - and the rest of the world - lends a hand in ensuring that things improve, they need not turn to the repressive Taliban. Right now the Taliban is trying its damndest to ensure that things do not get better, because, like you said, that will gain them support.

When things improve (and they are improving), with Canadian help, the Taliban's support will dwindle.

Yeah, I took out a small phrase where you claim that the foreign presence preventing progress, frankly, because it was silly.

quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Why whenever anyone questions Canadian involvement in Afghanistan do you respond as if anyone who disagrees with Canadian involvement in Afghanistan by default must support the murderous activities of the Taliban?
Why do people, like yourself, always assume that "Canada out of X" is the surefire solution, and that everything will improve? People aren't questioning our country's involvement, they are condemning it without even thinking. As far as I am concerned; one either has an interest in seeing the country improve - which will require western assistance - or one doesn't really care all that much about what happens to the people there, just as long as our hands are clean (though they are pretty damn clean as it is) and we're uninvolved.
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Other posters on this board have been to various places around the world and have seen them firsthand, and I don't think you have a full grasp of the impacts that policies have on people in other parts of the world.
And I haven't? Gee, I'm glad you are around to tell me where I have and have not been. Where would I be without you? (pun intended)

No, I haven't been to Afghanistan, but I have been in the developing world, some of the poorest of the poor. I certainly have no intention of speaking for anyone here, but don't you find it funny that the few people here who do have experience in Afghanistan are the ones expressing an opinion most similar to my own?

quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
I think you are a very naieve individual.
And I think you are an overly cynical individual. I don't think you have a very good grasp on the situation yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by sidra:
Well The Taliban were there and nobody gave a hoot . . . until Osama Bin Laden got to Afghanistan. All of a sudden, "Afghani women!" urgently needed to be liberated. What a coincidence.
Somehow I doubt you, or many other people here, would have supported an invasion of Afghanistan back in 1999 or 2000.

That said, yes, it is unfortunate that efforts like these are often chosen based on "what's in it for us"; an appeal to self-defence and reaction rather than proactive initiatives to help people who need it. In this case it took September 11th for the vast majority of people in the western world realise what was happening in Afghanistan.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 16 January 2006 02:23 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
Looney, what you are asking is... what came first? the chicken or the egg? Well, as far as Afghanistan is concerned, it all depends on how far you are willing to go back in history. The simplistic story is that bin Laden masterminded the attack on New York, was hiding out in Afghanistan, and the Taliban refused to hand him over. And that story is overly simplistic, because it leaves out a myriad of western wrongdoing and guilt and bloodshed and oppression forced on the Muslim people. Lets not forget that Bin Laden was the product of the CIA, trained, financed and armed to fight the Cold War foe in Afghanistan, just like the US and the USSR had been fighting many proxy wars all over the world, from Angola to South East Asia. It is the fault of the fucking "Superpowers" that the world is in such disarray in the first place, and the lone remaining 'Superpower' has no interest in justice, but only interest in world domination to its benefit.

quote:
Originally posted by looney:
Canadian involvement in Afghanistan must necessarily support American imperialism, whether Canada wishes to or not. Have I got that about right?

Canada is part of an occupation force on the foreign soil of a nation which neither attacked us, nor ever declared war on us. Canada is involved in imperialist action on behalf of the US, which got struck by Bin Laden because of all the injustice it sows around the world and especially in the Muslim countries.

quote:
- is there any legitimacy under international law for external military forces in Afghanistan?

No. It is the "law of the stronger", the law of the Bully, that determines which country is fair game for invasion. The UN is run by such law, and no other.

quote:
- has the Canadian government done anything or given any sign to signal its displeasure with American disregard for international law?

The Canadian government, with it's involvement in the coup in Haiti, would be the hypocrite on the block if they 'voiced such displeasure'.

quote:
That is, involvement in Afghanistan aside, what other things diplomatic and otherwise is Canada doing to challenge and resist American empire-building?

They handle it in typical Liberal fashion. Talk on the left but act on the right. So no, they're not opposing American Empire building.

quote:
If there are a number of such challenges and Canadian initiatives, this would seem to mitigate co-operation with the US in Afghanistan.

Canada is moving closer to the US, not away from it. There is close cooperation, just like Canada in the instance of Iraq, helped free up US troops from Afghanistan and feeding military intelligence to the US troops in their invasion of Iraq, while shying away from 'direct involvement'.

quote:
- what are Canadian troops actually doing in Afghanistan?

Killing civilians and helping set up the infrastructure that Bush's wealthy handlers want to see established, and providing security for such infrastructure.

quote:
Combat roles are justified

Bullshit. We're in a foreign country, buddy. Or involvement in Afghanistan and elsewhere is as justified as Hitlers involvement in Austria, the Czech Republic and Poland.

quote:
because there are in fact folks in Afghanistan who are willing to kill not only fellow Afghanis

yea, they kill with the weapons we sold them.

quote:
but also people on the Bloor subway line if they get the chance.

Bullshit. Yea, they might do that if they get the chance, but only because we invaded their country first, not as a first strike.

quote:
It is unfortunate in the extreme that the existence of such people has allowed President Bush and his neo-con hoard to declare war on humanity under false pretences,

Don't be ridiculous. Bush and his criminals can turn any people they want to rob and enslave into 'animals' in your eyes, just like they'll make you believe and make you justify the CanAm attack on the 'animals' in Iran, the 'animals' in Venezuela, the 'animals' in Cuba, and elsewhere.

The attack on the WTC has been attributed to bin Laden, who was [and conceivably possibly still is] a CIA operative, delivering the means to justify an attack on Central Asia, in accordance with PNAC's world domination plan.

quote:
but even this awful consequence does not negate the existence of real international terrorists.

Of course not. The best organized international terrorists in the world have an office in Washington DC, where they keep planning the overthrow of governments not subservient to their plans. People don't just wake up one day and think to themselves: I think today I will become a terrorist. These so-called terrorists get born out of injustice. They get born out of situations where they no longer believe a political solution to their plight is possible. In the case of Afghanistan, the only terrorists on Afghan soil are NATO troops.

quote:
We have a right to kill these people before they come over here and kill us.

You have no right except the right to right the wrong you are supporting to be committed in the world in your name. Else, it is fair game, and people have an equal right to kill you, because we are terrorists to the Palestinian people. We are terrorists to the Muslims. We are terrorists to the people of third world countries who are forced into producing goods for us in return for starvation wages. We are terrorists to them, because we steal their resources and give them nothing in return except thug-governments whom we arm and finance in order to keep their people under control while we rob them blind. When they have the opportunity to rid themselves of our yoke, we go in and overthrow their governments, in order to install our own subservient puppets again. Yes, the real world terrorists sit in Washington, Ottawa, Berlin, London, Rome, Geneva and other western centres of power.

quote:
The chances of an actual terrorist attack on Canadian soil may be vanishingly small, but it does exist, and a number of the people who would perpetrate it, if they could, are in Afghanistan and the Pakistan border regions.

You have the mind of a murderer. You seriously believe it is justified to kill thousands of men, women and children who have done you no harm, in order to eliminate a ficticious threat which could be neutralized by bringing and exercising economic justice in the world.

quote:
what would be the immediate and long term effect on the welfare of Afghani society if all foreign troops were immediately removed?

There would be civil war until they have fought out who will run the country, and the US, Canada, Europe, Russia and China, among others, would make sure they have the weapons they need to accomlish this bloodshed, because Afghanistan has virtually no domestic weapons manufacturing. Our benevolent merchants of death will be there to supply them. You can count on it.

quote:
To equate the American military project with Canadian military policy, history, personnel or values under the broad flag of "imperialistic warmongers" is inaccurate, dishonest and insulting to the reputation of the Canadian military and of Canada generally.

Canada's, like Germany's post-war military doctrine, has seriously changed in the last 10-15 years. We are no longer a peace-loving nation within the echelons of power. And military will obey any order, no matter how unjust, because that's what they've been trained to do.

quote:
And finally, for those who now consider me an unreconstructed militarist, I offer this - if Canada does not immediately refuse to hand over Afghani prisoners to the Americans, Canada should withdraw its military services from Afghanistan forthwith.

You're funny. The dog cannot tell its master that it doesn't want to relinquish that which it fetched for its master.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 16 January 2006 02:25 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
Lots of enlightenment going on in here eh?

The only progessive ideas are apparently the ones that mesh with your ideals here... Not once have I ever seen any ideas on solutions put forth here, just pull out of Afghanistan right now.

I now work on a regular basis with Afghan Canadians who happen to think we are doing the right thing. They beleive in it so much, that they are signing on with foreign affairs to go to Afghanistan in the capacity of translators.

I will take their word for what is happening rather then the word of a few that have gotten really good at selective reading.


You will always find people on both sides of the issue. What is your point? If you'd expect every Afghan to be against the occupation, you'd be an idiot. Karzai and most of the people who are in safe places outside the war zone are more likely to support the war on Afghanistan.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 16 January 2006 02:32 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
Skdadl

So instead of answering my questions, you insult me. I am really disappointed with you, a person of your age acting like my three year old daughter when she doesn’t get her way. I have lost some respect for you.

I in fact look at the RAWA website every week or so. They are decent at what they report, but most of their reporting is about the bad things and somewhat closed minded. Can you tell me why RAWA is located in Pakistan and the USA and not in Afghanistan? Is it because the members of the RAWA would face danger from most of the Afghan male population outside of Kabul?

I said I have been reading about Afghanistan since 2002, but I started reading with older material dating back from the 1970s and 1980s. I have read books and websites from various organizations and political agendas.


Lets not forget that the US was instrumental in destroying the secular government of Afghanistan, because they were obsessed with 'anti-communist' hatred. Afghanistan before the late 80's was a secular state. The US intervened and destabilized the country by arming the warlords. The Afghan government requested the help of the USSR to suppress the warlords. After that, we have many years of civil war, wherein the US armed bin Laden and the opponents of the Kabul Government. After the secular Kabul government fell, and the USSR was defeated in Afghanistan, the religious fanatics financed by the US took control, and human rights have deteriorated ever since. Now the fox claims to be in the hen house to provide peace, human rights and democracy.

[ 16 January 2006: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 16 January 2006 02:40 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
When did the Taliban rise up in the Afghanistan?

After the defeat of the secular Kabul government, and with the help of the US.

quote:
When did Osama Bin Laden got back into Afghanistan?

While being a CIA operative working to defeat the USSR on behalf of the US.

quote:
Who help fund and train the Taliban

You want to hear al-Quaida, but it was actually the US through the 80's.

quote:
If I am not mistake Hamid Karzai was elected President on October 9th, 2004 by some 4 million Afghan voters.

In a rigged election that struck everyone off the ballot that was not pro-American.

quote:
Yes, Karzai has work with oil companies in the past and still has interest in the oil pipeline.

And that's why he was chosen. To do the bidding of his masters in Washington and Houston.

quote:
Ok, how would you correct the situation in Afghanistan? Where are your solutions to the problem? Yes there are problems in Afghanistan, how are we going to solve it?

- Pull out of Afghanistan.
- Stop the international weapons trade which fuels these conflicts.
- Stop wars of ideology and greed that seek to dominate other nations for their resources or strategic locations.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 16 January 2006 02:49 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
So why do we give billions of dollars away in aid to countries around the world every year?

In most cases, we don't really give them anything. We give them "loans". In return, our corporations suck the natural resources out of the countries for next to nothing. How does $1.50 per barrel of oil sound to you, which Argentina is receiving from a Canadian oil firm operating there? We give them nothing. In fact, the west has stolen so much from the poor countries that we would likely be bankrupted if we would have to return everything we stole and propped up our societies and 'standard of living' with over the centuries.

quote:
Why use Canadian tax dollars to solve other countries economic and humanitarian aid problems when Canadians are suffering here at home?

We should return what we stole. Above that, we should - and wouldn't need to - send anything.

quote:
So why did we stop Hitler from taking over Europe?

Hitler, after being financed by the Vatican and George W Bush's grandfather through UBS Warburg, attacked England, of which we were functionally a colony. Why we don't equally stop George W Bush now from imposing US dominance on the world would have been a better question.

quote:
Why did we send peacekeepers into the former Yugoslavia?

We stoked the fires. It was a US vs Russia conflict played out via proxies.

quote:
Those wars were not Canadian problems in anyway or situation.

Correct. But they became our problems after we sold weapons to them.

quote:
My point is we are doing a just and proper thing in Afghanistan as we did in WW2 and in Yugoslavia.

You are wrong. You are partaking in a war crime for which nobody will likely ever have to stand trial, but you are still helping war criminals.

quote:
It is a mess at times, but the mess would be more devastating if we were not there.

No. You are part of the problem, not part of the solution.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
rinne
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9117

posted 16 January 2006 03:06 AM      Profile for rinne     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
You're funny. The dog cannot tell its master that it doesn't want to relinquish that which it fetched for its master.

Precisely.

As to liberating women from the Taliban that is, honest to goodness, laugh out loud funny.

The United States goes to war to benefit itself or more properly to benefit those who manufacture munitions. War is about profit. It is cloaked in glory for the benefit of those whose lives are so little valued that they can be spent to profit the munitions makers.

I am sorry that people are dying, including this most recent Canadian, but as long as we are there and are supporting the U.S. then we are contributing to the violence.

[ 16 January 2006: Message edited by: a citizen of winnipeg ]


From: prairies | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 16 January 2006 04:08 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Red Albertan is absolutely right.

The Reagan administration, in their wisdom, decided that funding the warlords fighting the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan wasn't enough.

They created an axis of evil with Thatcher's UK, and Pakistan's Zia al Haq, which set up world-wide recruitment to bring Muslims from around the world to fight the Soviet occupation, and to show Muslims everywhere that the official atheism of the Soviet Union was a terminal threat to Islam.

Thus, the battle against the occupation couldn't stop once the occupation was ended. The fight had to continue until the Soviet Union was no more. At that is was successful, albeit at the cost of thousands of innocent lives, and the destruction of Yugoslavia.

Reagan supplied the Islamic fundamentalists US$6 billion worth of materiel, much of which just disappeared when it got to Afghanistan, and some of which is almost certainly being used against US (and Canadian) troops there now. Talk about blowback.

Another great idea the US had was to fund the Islamic networks through the sale of heroin, produced in Pakistan from Afghani opium. The result of this brilliant strategy was to make Afghanistan the supplier of 75% of the world's heroin, and Pakistan the home to the largest population of junkies in the world.

Strangely enough, the Taliban was instrumental in stopping the flow of drugs, and drug money, which had provided the Islamic fundamentalist networks with ready cash.

A cynic could be excused from viewing the US invasion as a step in getting the funds flowing again. In fact, the heroin trade is back up and running since the US invasion, and despite rhetoric to the contrary, it looks as though the US is quite satisfied with this result.

Now you have useful idiots like webgear and Andrew Jay trumpeting women's rights and other US propaganda without apparent embarrassment.

Perhaps one of the US administration apologists could tell us why, while the administration was talking about women's rights in Afghanistan, they were forcing their own female troops in Saudi Arabia to wear a hijab when appearing in public, were preventing them from leaving the base without a male escort, and were not allowing them to drive vehicles.

Of course, as we all know, the enlightened leaders of Saudi Arabia are friends of the US, and in such a case, women's rights come a far distant second to sucking up to a bunch of medieval Islamic dictators, well, at least as long as they're needed to protect access to their oil.

However, for the wilfully ignorant, there is no history. There can't be, because history teaches, and fools don't want to learn, they just want to appear learned by spouting the latest propaganda.

I was around when Reagan was funding the Islamic fundamentalists, and the left was opposing his administrations actions.

The left was dismissed as fools for opposing the funding, by the very same people who now accuse the left of being supporters of the Taliban.

All I can say to those defenders of US policy is your naivety is breathtaking. If there is any justice in this world, those who first practiced this treachery will be brought to trial, and will be exposed as the criminals they are, and punished accordingly.

And those who lent (and lend) their unthinking support will spend the rest of their lives trying to live down the shame they've brought on themselves.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 16 January 2006 07:24 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
maestro wrote:

quote:
However, for the wilfully ignorant, there is no history. There can't be, because history teaches, and fools don't want to learn, they just want to appear learned by spouting the latest propaganda.

I was around when Reagan was funding the Islamic fundamentalists, and the left was opposing his administrations actions.

The left was dismissed as fools for opposing the funding, by the very same people who now accuse the left of being supporters of the Taliban.

All I can say to those defenders of US policy is your naivety is breathtaking. If there is any justice in this world, those who first practiced this treachery will be brought to trial, and will be exposed as the criminals they are, and punished accordingly.

And those who lent (and lend) their unthinking support will spend the rest of their lives trying to live down the shame they've brought on themselves.


Word. The entire post is analytically very fine, maestro - I would add only that the Saudis were actively involved in that earlier axis of evil you describe, specifically in setting up bin Laden's camps, although perhaps we can just assume Saudi involvement each time you mention the CIA.

Webgear: I insulted you? You had just insulted me and most of the other people here who had posted up to that point. And now you are whimpering?

I don't attack, but I sure as hell defend. You write a broadside sneer against us, and I will defend.

RAWA is certainly not my only direct source of information about Afghanistan and has not been since 1979. My direct sources, being biographical, are none of your business.

However, RAWA opposed the Soviets (who assassinated their founder); RAWA opposed the Taliban, heroically, when almost no one else outside the protection of the NA dared to; and RAWA remains fiercely critical of the American-led occupation. If you want to grasp a little better the intelligence of all those positions, and the heroism of the women who have held them, you might actually read them, or maybe even try to get in touch with them?

The current occupation of Afghanistan is being carried out cynically under cover of yet another manifestation of the White Man's Burden. Every propagandizing Western leader who wants to rally his people behind the Pax Americana tosses in a quick line about the liberation of the women of Afghanistan - Bill Graham just did it yesterday.

Can yet another heart-rending advertisement from Cherie Blair and Laura Bush be far behind?

I really appreciate the honest historical commentary many are still contributing here, but for the time being, I'm out of it myself. The Canadian versions of the Quiet American we are arguing with here are simply impervious, and the debate has turned into a mulberry.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 16 January 2006 08:29 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yup, more tried and "true" propaganda from the left on this one.

You go on believing what you want, I will act on what I know. Real easy to pass judgement when sitting in the comfort of your own home eh?

We pull out of Aafghanistan, and we will be making an astronomical mistake on grounds of lives lost, and the repression which would resume under the Taliban.

You claim we have no business there. So, I guess when you walk down the street, and you see some one being raped, you look at your cell phone, and then put it away, as you have no business there.

We have a responsibility to help those in need. And given the fact that Afghanis WANT us there, we must stay and do what we can to stabilise the country. Your propaganda pales in comparison to the real life stories I hear from the mouths of Afghans.

So, please, go on patting each other on the backs. Your propaganda has fooled yourseelves, and you are comfortable with feeding each other lies. Have a nice day.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 16 January 2006 08:40 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
Red Albertan is absolutely right.


However, for the wilfully ignorant, there is no history. There can't be, because history teaches, and fools don't want to learn, they just want to appear learned by spouting the latest propaganda.


It is hilarious that you would use that line above. As it discribes you to a "T". Spouting time and again the same tried and "true" formula of propaganda. I mean honestly, you guys are using a form letter for this stuff.

Your words would spring true with Iraq. With Afghanistan, they do not. Please note that the Afghan community in Canada is not supporting the peace movement WRT Afghanistan, possible exception of RAWA who like many here choose to paint with just one brush. It is funny tho, as memebers of the Afghan community do show up for protests against the war in Iraq.

So, I guess there are useful idiots, and here we see not so useful idiots like skdadl, maestro, and Red Albertan. I guess if you keep spewing hot air, you may convince another of your views... How do you get around the fact that the Afghan community is ten's of thousands strong, and yet they do not show up at rallies to "protect" them?


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 16 January 2006 10:04 AM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
I dispute in the strongest terms the suggestion that those of us who support Canadian involvement in
Afghanistan are therefore supporters of Bush' imperial project. A review of my posts on this board and elsewhere for a very long time will show that I am one of the fiercest critics of American fascist-imperialism. But a one size fits all approach to every foreign situation will fail. A little dose of realpolitik is necessary to counterbalance ideological blindness, which this thread suggests can occur on the left as well as the right.

From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 16 January 2006 10:18 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by looney:
I dispute in the strongest terms the suggestion that those of us who support Canadian involvement in
Afghanistan are therefore supporters of Bush' imperial project. A review of my posts on this board and elsewhere for a very long time will show that I am one of the fiercest critics of American fascist-imperialism. But a one size fits all approach to every foreign situation will fail. A little dose of realpolitik is necessary to counterbalance ideological blindness, which this thread suggests can occur on the left as well as the right.


I am afraid you are barking up the wrong tree here, as the folks you are trying to talk to only see right and wrong. They are right, and everybody else is wrong. There attitude, and behaviour would appear to condone the perpetuation of violence acted out against NGO, deminers, and the Afghan people on a daily basis by the Taliban and aQ forces. The hypocrisy is truely astounding.

I too take strong offense to the their persistance in linking our actions to the perceived American neo-con agenda. This shallow thought will continue I am afraid, as these people can not see past their own very safe little noses, nor are they willing to accept the reality that in this case, peacekeeping requires the use of force against those who would kill innocents.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 16 January 2006 11:15 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
Now you have useful idiots like webgear and Andrew Jay trumpeting women's rights and other US propaganda without apparent embarrassment.
No, the only time I'm "embarassed" is when our country and the rest of the world chooses not to act or offer aid: Rwanda or Darfur (which could have been swifter), anyone? I only wish I could be as shameless as yourself.
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
I was around when Reagan was funding the Islamic fundamentalists, and the left was opposing his administrations actions.

The left was dismissed as fools for opposing the funding, by the very same people who now accuse the left of being supporters of the Taliban.

All I can say to those defenders of US policy is your naivety is breathtaking. If there is any justice in this world, those who first practiced this treachery will be brought to trial, and will be exposed as the criminals they are, and punished accordingly.


I particularily enjoy how you assume so stupidly that anyone in favour of the Canadian mission today supported the arming of the Taliban and other groups in the 1980's to fight the Soivets.

Show me the time machine that will allow us to set things right for Afghanistan - no 1979 Soviet invasion, no CIA support for guerrilas - and I will personally go back in time and fix it. Problem is, that's impossible. All we can do is help Afghanistan today.

One can learn from history, but one can also use it as a crutch; to whine incessently about past wrongs and offer absolutely nothing constructive. You do an excellent job at the latter.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 16 January 2006 11:17 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
. . . nor are they willing to accept the reality that in this case, peacekeeping requires the use of force against those who would kill innocents.
Come on now Reason, apparently all you do over there is kill civilians. Red Albertan said so, and I'm sure his sources are impecible and not of the completely-made-up variety

From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 16 January 2006 11:30 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
And I think you are an overly cynical individual. I don't think you have a very good grasp on the situation yourself.

Cynical? Don't you realise that throughout history and continuing today government leaders manipulate their people for their own benefit?

quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
No, the only time I'm "embarassed" is when our country and the rest of the world chooses not to act or offer aid: Rwanda or Darfur (which could have been swifter), anyone? I only wish I could be as shameless as yourself.

In the first place, the government of Rwanda had asked the UN to come in and monitor a ceasefire agreement, whereas Afghanistan was a foreign invasion. In the second place, Afghanistan, unlike Rwanda, is located in a region of the world that has natural resources that businesses find valuable, which explains the interest in the region. In the third place, if any country in the world was serious about reducing the death toll from war, they would be pushing for tough international agreements aimed at reducing weapons manufacturing and sales. In the fourth place, other countries are either pulling out of Afghanistan or reconsidering their decision to deploy, and the news mentioned that Canada's presence in Afghanistan frees up troops for Iraq.

BTW, thanks to skdadl and Red Albertan for their contributions to this thread.

[ 16 January 2006: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 16 January 2006 11:41 AM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
We're only in Afghanistan because the Amerikkkans told us to get the hell in there..so they could pull troops from there to Iraq... the Taliban wouldn't exist if...

but they did and they are and now...

amazing that only a few short years ago, when the Taliban was kicking Soviet ass, they were pictured as stalwart heroes...now the asses being kicked have changed and they're "scumbags"...

The Amerikkkans want Afghanistan so they can run a pipeline from the oil fields to the slaveringly hungry market in China... and if that means slaughtering every pesky Afghani, well, you can't make an omelet without cracking eggs...

We're so self righteous about saving the women of Afghanistan from religious wingnuts...at a time when the wingnuts seem poised to get at least a minority government here... and if they should , please heaven forfend, get a majority, it won't take long to have more ill-equipped Canadian troops in Afghanistan , and there will be Canadian blood spilling in Iraq, as well.

Pull out now! And the money currently being spent to help occupy someone else's homeland can be spent on radio's and food and maybe even bloody "game boys"...flood the country, make such things available to all, see how long the Taliban will last then...

Sometimes I sit at the window and look out at the mountains, watch the eagles, and wonder what the word "progressive" means and who gets to define it?

I'm not trying to cause thread drift. I just sometimes feel almost overwhelmed by a sense of regret that none of us seem to be able to see past our belly buttons.

A Canadian has been killed. If he'd been at home in Canada he might well still be alive and able to enjoy his grandchildren. And if the Canadian troops were all at home some Afghans might still be alive and able to love their kids.

2006, eh? And this is only how far we've come out of the swamp?


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Black Dog
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2776

posted 16 January 2006 12:14 PM      Profile for Black Dog   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
We pull out of Aafghanistan, and we will be making an astronomical mistake on grounds of lives lost, and the repression which would resume under the Taliban.

Funny how all these blokes here to lecture us about Afghanistan would have us believe that the Taliban are the root of all evil in that country, rather than a symptom of a tribal, patriarchal culture where women continue to be treated as cattle by the allies of the benevolant foreign occuppiers.

quote:
So, please, go on patting each other on the backs. Your propaganda has fooled yourseelves, and you are comfortable with feeding each other lies. Have a nice day.

Well hey, if this is such a terrible place, why do you keep coming back? I'm sure your condescension and general assholeishness wouldn't be missed.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Maritimesea
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8953

posted 16 January 2006 12:47 PM      Profile for Maritimesea     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
So, I guess there are useful idiots, and here we see not so useful idiots like skdadl, maestro, and Red Albertan. I guess if you keep spewing hot air, you may convince another of your views...

Typical. Anyone pointing out the futility of western powers exporting "democracy" at the point of a gun is called an idiot. Everything everyone is saying would be fine, according to you, if it was in regards to Iraq, where Canada is not involved, but in Afghanistan, where Canada is involved, everyone is just full of shit and an idiot. So, I guess what you're really say is "Support our Troops". Well, don't worry, the Reform party is about to get a majority so there'll be alot of whipping up of that crap I'm sure. C'mon everyone let's all say it together,"Freedom and Democracy", or how about this golden nugget "Our Hero's in Uniform". But, topping the charts at number one is that classic oldy "We will stay the course".


From: Nova Scotia | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 16 January 2006 02:39 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by anne cameron:
Pull out now! And the money currently being spent to help occupy someone else's homeland can be spent on radio's and food and maybe even bloody "game boys"...flood the country, make such things available to all, see how long the Taliban will last then...
Afghanistan is also the single largest recipiant of Canadian aid money, so don't pretend that this isn't already being done.
quote:
Originally posted by anne cameron:
Sometimes I sit at the window and look out at the mountains, watch the eagles, and wonder what the word "progressive" means and who gets to define it?
Reading the views expressed in threads like these leaves me puzzling the same question.
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
. . . Canada's presence in Afghanistan frees up troops for Iraq.
Canada's presence anywhere - the Balkans, southeast Asia last year, any number of U.N. missions - technically could be described as "freeing up U.S. troops for Iraq". I suppose Canada lending APC's to the A.U. for use in Darfur "frees-up" U.S. equipment for Iraq, and we shouldn't have done it? It's a silly complaint and a piss-poor excuse to not do anything.

Besides, people do realise the order that these two invasions occured . . . right? Afghanistan: Fall 2001, Iraq: Spring 2003. Yeah, the only reason Canada took part was because "Amerikkka" (how can anyone claim to have any credibility when typing something so childish?) needed to free-up troops for Iraq

EDIT: More bad news out of Afghanistan:

'Suicide Bombs' Kill Many Afghans
"Two suspected suicide blasts have killed at least 24 people in the Afghan province of Kandahar, officials say."

[ 16 January 2006: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 16 January 2006 07:33 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
My main objection to painting America as always and unvaryingly imperialistic and self-serving is that it is not true historically. America has in fact shown itself, at least occasionally, to be capable of humanitarian military interventions when they have no vested interest to protect. Somalia comes to mind, and the war in the former Yugoslavia (although this is contested by some). In Afghanistan, the US has no pressing interests. Yeah, there's talk of an oil pipeline going through, but the fact is, the US started drawing down troops in Afghanistan as quickly as they could (in preparation for Iraq) and didn't send all that many there to start with. The Afghanistan invasion was payback, revenge, pure and simple for the US. What's going on now is a stabilization effort to permit the emergence of a civil society and a military campaign to deny a theatre of operations and training to the remnants of the Taliban and Al Qaeda.

Of course the US was responsible for the development of Al Qaeda (and probably the Taliban too, directly or otherwise). To the extent this aided in evicting the Soviets, they did Afghanistan a big favour. But the Taliban is not synonymous with the primitive tribal war-lord culture which has historically run the country. The Taliban are religious extremists who used the opportunity of a war-torn country to install a repressive religious theocracy. One could easily make the case that the US let down Afghanistan by not sending troops soon enough, or providing post-war reconstruction support.

I seem to be dancing around my main point which is this - if we are to effectively criticise, and oppose American imperialism, we must understand it well, and such understanding is not to be found in the comic book simplicities of many who find it easier to paint the world in knee-jerk black and white. It is in fact possible that Canadian and other troops in Afghanistan are on a fool's mission - that animosity against all western forces resulting from Bush's indiscriminate war will mean that Canadians, no matter how well-intentioned, will be hated and attacked by the locals and eventually forced to conceed defeat. But I don't think this is where we are now, and I do not believe the average Afghani would welcome the disappearance of the only hope they have for a future free from the Taliban and eventually, from tribal war lords.


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
arborman
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4372

posted 16 January 2006 10:40 PM      Profile for arborman     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jesus, I think I know the guy who was killed.

Shit.


From: I'm a solipsist - isn't everyone? | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 16 January 2006 11:32 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
I'm very sorry Arborman. My condolences to you and to the family of the soldier.
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 17 January 2006 12:20 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I was in the home of an Afghani family the day after the Taliban fell. They, and the other Afghani refugees who dropped in that day, were happy to see the Taliban gone.

One of these visitors said something that, at the time, I found very strange. He said "Now Afghanistan needs a strong army."

I thought that after 25 years of near-constant warfare he'd want no armies at all. It wasn't until a bit later that I realised that if Afghanistan had a strong army, under a stong central government, then the chaos of governance under warlords could end, and peace might be recovered in that country.

I think Canada's troops should help the country develop a strong central government that could diminish the power of the warlords. Peacekeepers would do that. Unfortunately, this doesn't appear to be what we're doing; instead we seem to be taking sides in a civil war.

Incidentally, we have been de-mining parts of Afghanistan. I know this because my cousin has been over there training our troops in bomb disposal.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 17 January 2006 01:43 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
America has in fact shown itself, at least occasionally, to be capable of humanitarian military interventions when they have no vested interest to protect. Somalia comes to mind

In a hilarious accident of timing, I read this gem not five minutes after reading a New Yorker article from a couple months back. It featured Brent Scowcroft, senior policymaker in the Daddy Bush regime and now harsh critic of the Dubyites for their fuckup in Iraq, who played a crucial role in planning and implementing the Somalia intervention. I quote:

quote:
The first Bush Administration did engage in one act of humanitarian interventionism, in Somalia, when it sent American troops to help feed starving civilians in Mogadishu. When I mentioned Somalia to Scowcroft as an example of idealism over national self-interest, he demurred, as if it were an accusation: a true realist does not employ the military for selfless humanitarian operations. The action in Somalia, Scowcroft said —- at least in his view -— was in America’s self-interest. “About four months before we went in, the President and I had a meeting with the U.N. Secretary-General, and he was saying that most of the world believes that the U.N. has become the instrument of Western powers. Here’s a chance to set that record straight. Here’s an underdeveloped state, a Muslim state, a black state, and here’s a chance to show the world that we are not acting in our self-interest.” In other words, the United States acted selflessly out of self-interest.

Try again, loon.

I suppose the fundamental difference is between the Brent Scowcrofts, who are aware of the self-serving nature of their "humanitarian" undertakings, and the noble self-delusions of the Bushite neocon fruitcakes -- and of the Quiet Canadians so amply and arrogantly represented on this thread -- who wholeheartedly swallow their own bullshit and drink their own Kool-Aid.

Myself, I prefer the cynics.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 17 January 2006 01:52 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by looney:
In Afghanistan, the US has no pressing interests. Yeah, there's talk of an oil pipeline going through, but the fact is, the US started drawing down troops in Afghanistan as quickly as they could (in preparation for Iraq) and didn't send all that many there to start with. The Afghanistan invasion was payback, revenge, pure and simple for the US.
No pressing interests, huh?

Revenge pure and simple, huh?

quote:
In September, a few days before the attack on New York, the US Energy Information Administration reported that "Afghanistan's significance from an energy standpoint stems from its geographical position as a potential transit route for oil and natural gas exports from Central Asia to the Arabian Sea. This potential includes the possible construction of oil and natural gas export pipelines through Afghanistan." Given that the US government is dominated by former oil industry executives, we would be foolish to suppose that a reinvigoration of these plans no longer figures in its strategic thinking. As the researcher Keith Fisher has pointed out, the possible economic outcomes of the war in Afghanistan mirror the possible economic outcomes of the war in the Balkans, where the development of "Corridor 8", an economic zone built around a pipeline carrying oil and gas from the Caspian to Europe, is a critical allied concern.
Source

US planned in July 2001 to attack Afghanistan in October.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 17 January 2006 03:27 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
I have been to Afghanistan twice since 2002. I have been part of the ISAF/NATO mission for 6 months in Kabul in 2003 and I was part of the Operation Enduring Freedom forces (American Task Force)for 6 months in 2002. I am re-deploying this summer to Kandahar as part of the PRT for another 6 months.

And you've been posting to Babble for many months, 703 posts. I'd just like you to know that some of us appreciate the information you provide. There are always at least two sides to every story, and in Afghanistan there are certainly many more than two sides. My son, a year younger than you, was a few blocks away when Cpl. Jamie Brendan Murphy of Conception Harbour, Nfld., was killed by a suicide bomber. (My son was in Kabul as a journalist.) And Kandahar is a different world than Kabul. So please keep writing.

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 17 January 2006 12:00 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"If what you're doing isn't working, try something else.".

What we're doing in Afghanistan is NOT working.

So RAWA has members in Pakistan... does that negate their views? How many of the "government" people spent years outside of the country before the USA decided they should go back and head up what is very likely a puppet government?

The UN got duped into that whole disgusting mess in the balkans... there's every chance this is another dupe.

Instead of spending who even knows how much on keeping a sadly ill-equipped force of targets in a powder keg why not spend that money on everything from radio's and TV's to food and clothing, medical supplies and school books and FLOOD the country with what is lacking... I do not believe the Taliban would long be in power.

And if I'm wrong (and heaven knows I've been wrong before!), and the Taliban was to remain at the top of the sad heap, we might find that they aren't quite the demons they've been painted... we thought they looked very brave and gallant and rah rah rah when they were fighting Russia and that suited the Big Eagle's purposes.

Afghanistan became some kind of threat when Osama moved into a cave there.

We might find out one day HE isn't the demon we've been told he is, too. We might even take another look, a close one this time, at what it is in Saudi Arabia that has him so active....

it's a tangled mess.


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 17 January 2006 04:46 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
An article in the Globe today by Hamida Ghafour suggests the insurgency in Afghanistan is increasing dramatically. And it's not just the Taliban, she says, but a combination of Islamist terrorists, organized criminals and drug traffickers.

Canadians can't expect much co-operation from the Kandahar locals, she says, because "the drug industry makes up 40 to 50 per cent of the national GDP and there are few signs that poor farmers are willing to stop growing opium poppies, which produce the main ingredient in heroin, despite a government eradication program. Neighbouring Helmand province is the centre of the drug trade."

The American military is not interested in battling the drug trade, she says. The French, Spanish, and Germans refuse to take part in combat against the Taliban. The Canadians are becoming more and more isolated in their desire to take on these various groups as enemy combatants.

Meanwhile, we're getting sucked into a situation that may be hard to get out of:

quote:
The Dutch parliament has still not made its mind up whether to send an extra 1,200-plus troops because of safety concerns.

....

"There is no easy alternative to the Dutch," said another alliance source, who also declined to be named.

"They would be difficult to replace and it would undermine NATO's credibility if they pulled out.


[ 17 January 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 17 January 2006 06:31 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:

It is hilarious that you would use that line above. As it discribes you to a "T". Spouting time and again the same tried and "true" formula of propaganda. I mean honestly, you guys are using a form letter for this stuff.

Your words would spring true with Iraq. With Afghanistan, they do not. Please note that the Afghan community in Canada is not supporting the peace movement WRT Afghanistan, possible exception of RAWA who like many here choose to paint with just one brush. It is funny tho, as memebers of the Afghan community do show up for protests against the war in Iraq.

So, I guess there are useful idiots, and here we see not so useful idiots like skdadl, maestro, and Red Albertan. I guess if you keep spewing hot air, you may convince another of your views... How do you get around the fact that the Afghan community is ten's of thousands strong, and yet they do not show up at rallies to "protect" them?



If there is one fact I have presented which is wrong, point it out.

I have presented the fact of the US involvement with the setting up of the Islamic fundamentalist networks, a fact which no one argues with.

Where is the propaganda in that?

I have presented the fact of the US involvement in using heroin as a funding source for same.

Where is the propaganda in that?

I have presented the fact of the left being sneered at for opposing the Reagan administration's support for Islamic fundamentalist networks.

Where is the propaganda in that?

I have present the fact that those who now accuse the left of supporting the Taliban were the same who funded and supported Islamic fundamentalist groups in the first place.

Where is the propaganda in that?

All of these statements are either true, or untrue. If you believe they are untrue, say so. Just to call them 'propaganda' without disputing them is ridiculous.

I'll point out that both Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney were part of Reagan's inner circle when the strategy of developing the Islamic networks was first put in place.

I'll also point out that US support for Islamic terrorists continued after 9/11.

As an example, they had a person designated by the UN as a terrorist living 'in an upscale neighbourhood' under their noses in Doha, Qatar, where they have their own Middle East military headquarters as late as 2002.

Why were they protecting this person?

Naivety is one thing, wilful ignorance another.

In that I don't believe you could be that naive, your ignorance must be wilful.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 17 January 2006 08:23 PM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
The Dutch parliament has still not made its mind up whether to send an extra 1,200-plus troops because of safety concerns.

Here's some more info on that (I'll be translating, so I might be a bit off!):
Our parliament has demanded inspection of the confidential advise about the mission to Afghanistan. The Defence Dept. considers the content of the advise too sensitive to even be disclosed behind shut doors. The greater part of the parliament isn't satisfied with that and demands disclosure.
Military Intelligence is very critical about the mission and speaks of a "risky" operation.
The advise has been partially leaked in November, causing hesitation in our government. If it weren't for this leak, our government would already have complied with the multiple requests of both the Afghanistan government and the U.N. to send troops.
[ETA: The U.S. diplomat Volker has kindly urged the Dutch government to reach a decision. Paul Bremer, the "American leader in Iraq", has suggested that Dutch interests in the U.S. might suffer some disadvantage if the Netherlands refrain from sending troops. Volker said about Bremer: "He's currently promoting a book he just wrote. He's speaking as a civilian, not on behalf of the U.S. government"]


If you ask me, we should send our boys to Afghanistan. Not in the last place because we already kinda said yes to the requests. We can't let the U.N., Afghanistan and the other ISAF forces down.
I know some Dutch soldiers might die, maybe even a lot. I'll feel very sorry for them and their relatives when it happens, truly. But those soldiers knew what they were getting into as soon as they joined the army. One of the first things you learn as a kid about soldiers, is that they kill and they die. Later on you learn soldiers do a lot more than just that, but nevertheless it's one of the first things you learn about them.
I've got some friends in the army who have been sent out to Bosnia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Though harsh as it may seem, I've already reconciled with the fact that one of them (or more) might not come back one day from a mission. I'm not oblivious to the fact they're sent into situations where they might lose their lives. They chose for this way of life and I respect that. This doesn't mean I'd mourn over them any less. I'd feel really, deeply sorry for their parents, since most of my friends' parents are still alive.

Maybe there are dirty games played in Afghanistan, not in the last place by the U.S.
But I'd rather see our boys run into some heavy weather, then to see ISAF withdraw from Afghanistan. Not only would any progress made be destroyed by withdrawal, but we (any country supporting the U.N.'s involvement in Afghanistan) would also look kinda foolish, like we either weren't determined enough or we found out we were wrong all along.
At this moment, I believe there are 36 countries involved in supporting Afghanistan. I'd rather see that we at least triplicate that number! That's the only way to show the entire world is fed up with terrorism and it's ordeals, not just some flaky U.S.-president.

[ 17 January 2006: Message edited by: Clog-boy ]


From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 17 January 2006 08:50 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
A close look at the Afghan security paradox

"Afghanistan Police Take the Brunt of Taliban Assaults.

The rash of suicide bombings and fatal IED blasts, and the focus by coalition leaders on the changed nature of the insurgency in 2005, unfortunately served to overshadow the heavy casualties incurred by the Afghan National Police (ANP).

The most devastating of these attacks occurred the night of Oct. 11 when Taliban rebels ambushed a police convoy in Helmand province. During the night-long fire fight, 19 police officers were killed, including the deputy police chief from Helmand province. Another five individuals were kidnapped and almost certainly subsequently killed. The Taliban escaped, most likely to the rugged mountain terrain along the Afghan-Pakistan border.

This type of hit and run attack is becoming familiar for the ANP. Of the seven major reports of Taliban and Afghan police confrontations in October, six were ambush attacks. Five of these were deadly assaults targeting police vehicle convoys."

The ANA and ANP are fighting and dying for thier country, unlike Canadian and other NATO/ISAF soldiers in Afghanistan, they can not withdrawl to thier countries. They are in the war for the long haul, and they are paying for the price of freedom more than any other nation in Afghanistan.

If these Afghans are willing to die for their country should we at least support them in their mission to keep Afghanistan free from the Taliban.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 17 January 2006 09:37 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who's going to help keep Canada free from the Conservatives? Evidently we're not able to do it on our own. Surely, this cries out for outside intervention.

Oh, wait. We're a sovereign country. No foreign army has the right to come here and tell us what government we should have, or how we should deal with our drug dealers and the armed urban gangs that shoot innocent people.

Never mind. Carry on with your plans for Afghanistan. Sorry to interrupt.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 17 January 2006 09:43 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by anne cameron:
We might find out one day HE isn't the demon we've been told he is, too.

Odd how some members of the Canadian Left cheer for Michelle Bachelet in Chile, the German left, the South African Left, the New Zealand Left, the Left in Turkey, the Left in India, and I could go on -- and oppose right-wing fundamentalists in Canada, the USA, India, etc. etc. -- yet feel potential sympathy for right-wing fundamentalists in Egypt and Afghanistan. I don't get it.

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 January 2006 10:04 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yup. That was how I made my unfaltering support for Daniel Ortega known.

I said: "We might find out one day HE isn't the demon we've been told he is, too."


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 17 January 2006 10:07 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Who here supports potential right-wing fundamentalists in Egypt or Afghanistan, or does opposing an incumbent right-wing client of the USA amount to the same thing?

quote:
"There is no easy alternative to the Dutch," said another alliance source, who also declined to be named.

"They would be difficult to replace and it would undermine NATO's credibility if they pulled out.


Big deal. NATO hasn't had much credibility since the collapse of the Warsaw Pact.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 17 January 2006 10:20 PM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Clog-boy:
If you ask me, we should send our boys to Afghanistan. Not in the last place because we already kinda said yes to the requests. We can't let the U.N., Afghanistan and the other ISAF forces down.

If you ask me, I think that since you are 29 years old - according to your babble info - and pro war, YOU ought to sign up for a possible death in Afghanistan.

quote:
I know some Dutch soldiers might die, maybe even a lot.

You are pro war. The 'Dutch Soldier' dying in Afghanistan should be you, not someone else you think should go and fulfill 'the obligation'. You are demanding that "someone's" son or daughter should go and face the prospect of killing and dying. It should be YOUR parents who lose a son, not someone else's. You are pro-war, and therefore it should be your duty and sense of obligation to sacrifice yourself first for the cause.

quote:
I'll feel very sorry for them and their relatives when it happens, truly.

Just like Bush feels 'sorry'?

quote:
But those soldiers knew what they were getting into as soon as they joined the army.

While that is true, you are the one who wants to send them to their and someone else's death.

quote:
One of the first things you learn as a kid about soldiers, is that they kill and they die.

And that is why all pro-war scum should join up for the military, so that the world may get a chance of somewhat of a purge regarding that mindset and culture of murder.

quote:
They chose for this way of life and I respect that. This doesn't mean I'd mourn over them any less. I'd feel really, deeply sorry for their parents, since most of my friends' parents are still alive.

We hear of a soldier or a diplomat getting killed, sometimes even a bunch. But what we don't hear is that a medium sized city's worth of population has been wiped out... civilians... by our 'heroes'. Where is your mourning? where is your feeling "really, deeply sorry" for them?

I wish all you war supporters would just die. This culture of war is making me sick and disgusted at the world.

quote:
At this moment, I believe there are 36 countries involved in supporting Afghanistan.

How many countries are "supporting" Iraq? or "supporting" Haiti? You are not "supporting" anything but the Imperialist Fascist Regime of our own generation.

quote:
I'd rather see that we at least triplicate that number! That's the only way to show the entire world is fed up with terrorism and it's ordeals, not just some flaky U.S.-president.

If the world were fed up with terrorism, it would declare war on the US, the #1 terrorist nation in the world, complete with terrorist trainig camps, terrorist financing around the world, death squads, coups, sabotage, bombings, murder and intrigue.

I gotta say it. You and your kind are the most disgusting of our species. ... I think I am upset now.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 17 January 2006 10:22 PM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:

Odd how some members of the Canadian Left cheer for Michelle Bachelet in Chile, the German left, the South African Left, the New Zealand Left, the Left in Turkey, the Left in India, and I could go on -- and oppose right-wing fundamentalists in Canada, the USA, India, etc. etc. -- yet feel potential sympathy for right-wing fundamentalists in Egypt and Afghanistan. I don't get it.

You are confused. The right-wing fundamentalists in Egypt, Afghanistan, Iran, the US and elsewhere are disgusting scum. But that does NOT give us the right to go in and force a regime change. These are sovereign nations. The people of those nations will decide who rules them, if we donot interfere by means of weapons sales or intervention.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 17 January 2006 10:45 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Red Albertan:
The people of those nations will decide who rules them, if we do not interfere by means of weapons sales or intervention.
Ending weapons sales sounds nice and noble, but it's not going to do anything to disarm the Taliban.

The people of Afghanistan did decide who would who govern them, and they need outside help.

Also, webgear; great post, and looney, your post from yesterday a while back was very, very well put.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 17 January 2006 10:53 PM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've been misrepresented some times before over here, but this one takes the cake...!

RA, where do you see me posting pro war speech, eh...? The things I've posted aren't pro war.

So you're really wishing me my death, eh? Just for giving my opinion, you'd like to see me go to Afghanistan and get shot? That's really pacifist of you, eh? You sick puppy..!

I'm not saying I want to send Dutch kids to their deaths, far from it. But if my ignorant government decides to do so, they shouldn't take back their words...

The only pro-war scum I've seen in my life, are people in governments or the war-industry. I've yet to meet any (sane) civilian who is pro-war. I'm not pro war, nor are any of the other babblers you're trying to depict as war-mongers.

I don't know how sorry Bush is, so I can't answer that stupid question...

The only thing I see coming from your posts, RA, is hate. I know I may be ignorant on some parts, but such a waterfall of abuse and sarcasm was hardly justified...

You think you are upset...!?!?! A post, which is mere an opinon of an ignorant git yet in no way personally offensive, and yet you turn your reply into your private curse- and swearing rampage...!

Geez, maybe I need some intelligence, but you need some upbringing...!

[ 17 January 2006: Message edited by: Clog-boy ]


From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 January 2006 10:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Ending weapons sales sounds nice and noble, but it's not going to do anything to disarm the Taliban.

The people of Afghanistan did decide who would who govern them, and they need outside help.

Also, webgear; great post, and looney, your post from yesterday a while back was very, very well put.


Absurd. The people of Afghanistan were given one choice, vote for anyone but the Mullah Omar, who was banned from the election. There is no way that you can conclude that Kharazi is the chosen leader of the Afghan people, since the person he was elected to replace was not allowed to run in the election.

Sorry.

[ 17 January 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 17 January 2006 11:08 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Ending weapons sales sounds nice and noble, but it's not going to do anything to disarm the Taliban.

The people of Afghanistan did decide who would who govern them, and they need outside help.

Also, webgear; great post, and looney, your post from yesterday a while back was very, very well put.


I find it hard to put into words how disgusting your support for the US military in Afghanistan is.

One would think you had never heard of Ronald Reagan, or Maggie Thatcher, or Zia al-Haq.

One would think you had never heard of the US supplying Islamic fundamentalists with materiel, financial, and logistical support in order to help them better carry out their role in killing and destabilizing whole areas of the world.

One would think you'd never known that the chosen method of financing was drugs, heroin, spread around the globe, and now the single biggest factor in the continuing chaos in Afghanistan.

One would think you'd learned at the feet of the Stalinists who couldn't accept reality even when it stared them in the face. They just kept on denying, denying, denying.

The US has never wanted anything in Afghanistan except the continued barbarism they fostered in the region since the days of Reagan.

There's a Pakistani at the local corner store who refers to al-Qaeda as 'Reagan's children'.

The death and desdtruction which was unleashed by the US dogs of war has not come to an end, and won't come to an end for a long time.

If you had even a tiny bit of principle you would be demanding the trial of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowtiz, Perle, and the rest of the gang of criminals who brought this death and destruction to the world.

But you don't. You just go one denying, denying, denying.

The only way out now is for those responsible for the Afghani adventure to be tried before the world.

That is the only way all people in the world can be made to understand that there is justice, that international law is not just a hypocrisy to be imposed on the defenceless and ignored by the powerful.

The continuing freedom from prosecution of those criminals convinces everyone that there is no justice. That the only rule is win, by any means necessary.

That is what you, in your unbelievable ignorance, are defending. If there is a hell, there will be a significant little corner for the sycophants and fools who abandoned all principle in defense of the militarism of the US. A militarism that has been, and still is, used solely for the theft of resources, and the killing of those who oppose it.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 January 2006 11:13 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't believe you put all that rhetorical eloquence into that. Was it worth it?
From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 17 January 2006 11:15 PM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
If you had even a tiny bit of principle you would be demanding the trial of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowtiz, Perle, and the rest of the gang of criminals who brought this death and destruction to the world.

Is this possible? I mean this as a serious question, maestro, not as a smartass remark.
Would it be possible to sue those bastards..? I mean, they seem so untouchable...


From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 17 January 2006 11:56 PM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Ending weapons sales sounds nice and noble, but it's not going to do anything to disarm the Taliban.

Yes, it will do a great deal. They were armed by the force that now fights them.

quote:
The people of Afghanistan did decide who would who govern them, and they need outside help.

No, they didn't. All they could vote for was America-friendly puppets. That's not democracy. In fact, they weren't even asked if they wanted democracy. That phony pre-rigged 'democracy' was the only option they had.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 18 January 2006 12:01 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Red Albertan:
The people of those nations will decide who rules them.

As Afghanis did on October 9, 2004:
quote:
Hamid Karzai Independent 4,443,029 55.4%
Yonous Qanooni Hezb-e-Nuhzhat-e-Mili Afghanistan 1,306,503 16.3%
Haji Mohammad Mohaqiq Independent 935,325 11.7%
Abdul Rashid Dostum Independent 804,861 10.0%
Abdul Latif Pedram Hezb-e-Congra-e-Mili Afghanistan 110,160 1.4%
Massooda Jalal Independent 91,415 1.1%
Syed Ishaq Gilani Nuhzat-e-Hambastagee Mili Afghanistan 80,081 1.0%
Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai Independent 60,199 0.8%
Abdul Satar Serat Independent 30,201 0.4%
Hamayon Shah Asifi Independent 26,224 0.3%
Ghulam Farooq Nijrabi Hezb-e-Istiqlal-e-Afghanistan 24,232 0.3%
Syed Abdul Hadi Dabir Independent 24,057 0.3%
Abdul Hafiz Mansoor Independent 19,728 0.2%
Abdul Hadi Khalilzai Independent 18,082 0.2%
Mir Mohammad Mahfouz Nedaee Independent 16,054 0.2%
Mohammad Ebrahim Rashid Independent 14,242 0.2%
Wakil Mangal Independent 11,770 0.1%
Abdul Hasseb Aryan Independent 8,373 0.1%

From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 18 January 2006 12:03 AM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Maestro, you wrote:

"If you had even a tiny bit of principle you would be demanding the trial of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowtiz, Perle, and the rest of the gang of criminals who brought this death and destruction to the world."

Sure, why not. I would support such a legal action, including charging the above with war crimes in Afghanistan. I'll take your charge of US criminality and raise you. Nothing would please me more than to see Bush impeached and his crew thrown in some international jail. So do I still support Canadian involvement in Afghanistan? Yes, because (to steal a line from a Statfor piece) we are talking international power politics here, not sharing time in pre-school.

Without responding directly to any of the lame arguments and outrageous condemnations in this thread, I will simply say I have limited respect for all those wonderful anti-war people who base their arguments on the existence of some perfectly fair and just world rather than studying the extingencies of the one we actually live in. I'll say it again - defence issues and the military are a gaping hole in much progressive leftist thinking.

Let me give an example of the kinds of choices that sometimes have to be made in war - Churchill permitting the German bombing of Coventry despite his foreknowledge of this event, because he could not let the Germans suspect the British had broken their codes.

Canada obviously has very little room to manoeuvre in its relations with the US on these kind of issues, and until we are prepared to break off all diplomatic relations with the US ( which I'm sure you will agree would backfire in a way that Canadians and especially progressive Canadians would not like - a US takeover of Canada for instance) we have to play our cards very carefully. The US has and continues to commit warcrimes in Afghanistan. Canada has not, with the probable exception of delivering prisoners into the hands of the Americans. I have already said that this issue is important enough to be a reason for Canada leaving Afghanistan if this practice continues. In the meantime, Canada is involved in providing security for a population which desperately needs it (along with those other famous imperialists, the Dutch) and dealing with the criminals, opium traffickers and Taliban as they should be dealt with. Sorry to harp on this, but terrorism is still real, despite the fact that it may have been largely caused by the US and the neo-cons are exploiting it for their own evil ends. The Taliban et al may win in the end and expulse all foreign forces. This will not make them the good guys. And the resulting terror inflicted by the Taliban will not be pretty. In such a complicated and fragile situation, so morally nuanced, accusations of stupidity and worse aimed at those who think Canada is right to be in Afghanistan are not particularly helpful or justified.


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 18 January 2006 12:17 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Clog-boy:
I've been misrepresented some times before over here, but this one takes the cake...!

You said Dutch soldiers should go to Afghanistan. That's not misrepresentation. I quoted you.

quote:
RA, where do you see me posting pro war speech, eh...? The things I've posted aren't pro war.

Of course they are. They were pro war and pro occupation. You pretend we have the right to interfere in the internal affairs of nations whose governments we don't agree with.

quote:
So you're really wishing me my death, eh?

Nope, not generally. In the context of your message I do, because it is easy for you to send someone else to kill and get killed, from the comfort of your home, and I wanted to make what you are propagating as clear to you as I possibly could. This isn't games. You are propagating that people kill and get killed. If you are for that, then you ought to go and be in the front lines.

quote:
Just for giving my opinion, you'd like to see me go to Afghanistan and get shot?

It has nothing to do with opinion. I'd like you to go and get shot there, IF you keep suggesting that it is okay for our militaries to go there, because in the course of that, the result will be the death of Afghans by our hands. Soldiers who participate in the invasions of other countries who have not attacked us are the scum of the earth. [I explicitly exclude soldiers who defend their own national soil from invaders, from such description].

quote:
That's really pacifist of you, eh? You sick puppy..!

The sick puppy is you, who believes that military conflict serves a legitimate purpose to 'pacify'. Only disgusting humans believe that.

quote:
I'm not saying I want to send Dutch kids to their deaths, far from it. But if my ignorant government decides to do so, they shouldn't take back their words...

Yes, for the sake of the civilians who will die at the hands of your Dutch 'heroes', and the lives of the Dutch soldiers themselves, of course your government should take back their word, because lives are worth more than words.

quote:
The only pro-war scum I've seen in my life, are people in governments or the war-industry. I've yet to meet any (sane) civilian who is pro-war. I'm not pro war, nor are any of the other babblers you're trying to depict as war-mongers.

You are an "Enabler". You are an aplogist for the forces of war. You agree there should be war. You are merely a different shade of war-monger, but you still are a shade of it. You don't scream for it, but you still make excuses and reason in its favor. That is as much a war monger as Bush and Cheney.

quote:
I don't know how sorry Bush is, so I can't answer that stupid question...

Well, I can. He is not. Those are empty words. That man has no 'soul'. That man has never known peace nor wanted peace. He is a man of war and bloodshed.

quote:
The only thing I see coming from your posts, RA, is hate. I know I may be ignorant on some parts, but such a waterfall of abuse and sarcasm was hardly justified...

Call it what you want. It is true. I hate war. I hate those who justify it. I hate those who make apologies for it. I hate those who casually shed the blood of hundreds of thousands of people. I hate those who contaminate an entire country with chemical and nuclear weapons [DU Munitions]. I hate those who fabricate land mines and 'toy'-look-alike bombs which tear children apart who pick them up, and maim those who step on them forever. I hate those who dare make, and those who command and drop cluster bombs which kill everything indiscriminate within a radius of several hundred feet. I hate those who enslave the nations of the world. I hate those who steal the wealth of nations for their own gain, and leave the people in abject poverty. I hate this scum. I make no apologies for the way I talk about them, because this is not a 'gentlemanly' issue. These men who do such things are cruel animals. Who will rid this world of such pestilence that sweeps it? My speech is intended to rock you out of your sleep to come to grasp with the injustice that is sweeping this world for centuries, and to put an end to finding justifications for all the evils that are being committed, and not partake in it, so that the evil will be left to die, and nobody will lend a hand to these evil murderers to do their disgusting deeds for them.

quote:
You think you are upset...!?!?! A post, which is mere an opinon of an ignorant git yet in no way personally offensive, and yet you turn your reply into your private curse- and swearing rampage...!

Well, ignorance itself can sometimes be offensive. And yet, despite what I have said, I don't "really" hate you, and I don't "really" wish you death. But I want to make it real to you, and as I said, I wish people would stop justifying the disgusting manner in which mankind runs its affairs.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 18 January 2006 12:28 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
One would think (ad naseum)
"One" is free to think whatever you like about me, but a friendly warning: to assign those foolish beliefs to me only makes you look pretty dumb. Too late, I suppose, for you.

I'm quite aware of the history of Afghanistan, and the many tragedies that have befallen it: the Soviet invasion, the unscrupulous western support for the guerillas, the abandonment of the country once the Soviets left and the people were no longer of use to the U.S., the civil war that resulted from the vaccuum, and the government that rose out of it.

Does it really make sense to anyone else that we should be calling for the withdrawl of Canadian troops just because we disagreed with the policies of the Reagan or Carter adminstrations?

"Canadian troops out now" doesn't fix any of the past misdeeds you like to complain about, Maestro.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 18 January 2006 12:31 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Red Albertan:
Yes, it will do a great deal. They were armed by the force that now fights them.
So you're saying that we're giving weapons, right now, to the Taliban? No we're not, that happened about 15-20 years ago.

It certailny was a terribly short-sighted policy at the time, but there you go again with your time-machine solutions.

EDIT: It seems to me like this:

You decide to lecture a bunch of kids that they can't play baseball where they are, because they're probably going to break a window or something. Of course, they're heedless and they go on playing, while you go on watching and telling them: "you shouldn't be playing here, you should just leave, you're going to break a window . . ." (because really, it's plainly obvious that that's what's going to happen eventually).

Sure enough, they do. The kids are all: "oh shit, we're in trouble now, what do we do? Apologise, help clean it up, try and pay them back?" You're response is, of course, still merely: "you shouldn't be playing here, you should just leave . . ."

Wonderful advice 20 years ago (though I do wonder why the Soviets should have been allowed to ride roughshod over a country, unopposed), but it does shit-all to help anyone today.

[ 18 January 2006: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 18 January 2006 12:45 AM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
...there you go again...

And that's today's "Babble moment of creepiness!"


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 18 January 2006 12:52 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Hamid Karzai Independent 4,443,029 55.4%
Imported American Oil Company Puppet

quote:
Yonous Qanooni Hezb-e-Nuhzhat-e-Mili Afghanistan 1,306,503 16.3%


Leading member of the Northern Alliance Butchers. Former Education Minister in the US-Installed Puppet Regime.

quote:
Haji Mohammad Mohaqiq Independent 935,325 11.7%

Ally of the Warlord Dostum. Accused of war crimes throughout the Afghan wars. Currently involved in human rights violations: confiscating land and property, arresting, kidnapping, killing and raping of people all over the country through government infrastructure.

quote:
Abdul Rashid Dostum Independent 804,861 10.0%

In November of 2002, the United Nations began an investigation of alleged human rights abuses by Dostum. Witnesses claimed that Dostum jailed and tortured witnesses to prevent them from testifying in a war crimes case. Dostum is also under suspicion for the events of the Dasht-i-Leili massacre.

quote:
Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai Independent 60,199 0.8%

Ahmadzai formerly lead a radical Islamist group which was active in the Mujahedin, and later in both the Taleban and Al-Qaida, but has since disavowed any links with them.

quote:
Abdul Hafiz Mansoor Independent 19,728 0.2%

Member of the Northern Alliance

All candidates have in common that they are sanctioned by the US, even the war criminals. Great choice for leaders in a democratic election, I must say. The purpose appears more geared toward keeping Afghanistan divided rather than united, because a divided enemy is easier to control, and Afghan lives lost are really of no interest or consequence to those who merely seek commercial interest in the country.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 18 January 2006 01:03 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
So you're saying that we're giving weapons, right now, to the Taliban? No we're not, that happened about 15-20 years ago.

I wouldn't be so sure it isn't still happening. The US funneled funds for the Taleban, Al Qaida and the Northern Alliance through Pakistan. Pakistan is not ane enemy of the Taleban, regardless of what appearances are upheld. You do the rest of the thinking and connect the dots. The Taleban are still getting weapons and munitions, and yet they possess no weapons factories. Who supplies them?

quote:
It certailny was a terribly short-sighted policy at the time, but there you go again with your time-machine solutions.

You cannot see that it is in the present, not just in the past. The US was selling weapons to Iran even as they were allied with Saddam.

quote:
Wonderful advice 20 years ago (though I do wonder why the Soviets should have been allowed to ride roughshod over a country, unopposed), but it does shit-all to help anyone today.

The Soviets did what the Americans did in Korea. They didn't invade. They came to the aid of an allied government which was being destabilized by the US via the Mujahedeen and bin Laden.

[ 18 January 2006: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 January 2006 04:09 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
A list of warlords and a former US oil executive.


There is a prominent name missing from this list, even though almost everyone of his bloodthirsty contemporaries seems to have made the ballot, including Mr. Rashid (stuff them in transport containers and then shoot holes in them if they whine about cooking to death in the Afghan sun) Dostum.

Your seem to have a singular need to bubble wrap the brutal reality in Peter Mansbridge like election analysis, as if Rashid Dostum is some kind of oddly dressed Rick Austin.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 18 January 2006 04:19 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
See post below

[ 18 January 2006: Message edited by: maestro ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 January 2006 04:20 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Red Albertan:

The Soviets did what the Americans did in Korea. They didn't invade. They came to the aid of an allied government which was being destabilized by the US via the Mujahedeen and bin Laden.

[ 18 January 2006: Message edited by: Red Albertan ]


Crap. Andropov had the Spetnaz dress up like Afghan soldiers, lay siege to the presidential palace, execute the president and then had his chosen succesor call in the Soviet regular army even as it was rolling down the road to Kabul.

This new invasion by the US is practically a replay complete with a toady as president.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 18 January 2006 05:17 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From Looney:

quote:
In the meantime, Canada is involved in providing security for a population which desperately needs it (along with those other famous imperialists, the Dutch) and dealing with the criminals, opium traffickers and Taliban as they should be dealt with.

I'm glad you brought this up.

Today there was a front-page story in the Globe & Mail written by Hamida Ghafour, currently London based, but previously reporting directly from Afghanistan:

Escalating violence has roots beyond Taliban

quote:
The Canadian Provincial Reconstruction Team that was the target of the lethal attack is operating in a region where a combination of Islamist terrorists, organized criminals and drug traffickers have created an environment which makes it increasingly difficult to carry out combat operations or humanitarian work.

...The drug trade is contributing to Hizb-e-Islami and al-Qaeda's coffers, American diplomats and counternarcotics experts in Kabul agree. The drug industry makes up 40 to 50 per cent of the national GDP and there are few signs that poor farmers are willing to stop growing opium poppies, which produce the main ingredient in heroin, despite a government eradication program.

...NATO will take over from the American coalition forces over the course of the next year. The Canadian mission, which will grow to 2,000 soldiers next month, will not be able to bring the drug trade to heel, eradicate the Taliban and build roads and schools alone. And other members of the NATO mission may be of limited help.

The American military will not allow its soldiers to become involved in battling in the drug trade. The British, who will join the Canadian soldiers in the south later this summer, are also reluctant. The French, Spanish and Germans have refused to even take part in combat operations against the Taliban.


The US will not allow its soldiers to battle the drug trade.

From a story posted on Opoids.com

US and Britain accused of creating heroin trail

quote:
There is also the uncomfortable fact that almost half the heroin flowing out of Afghanistan is thought to come from areas controlled by the Northern Alliance, the West's putative partner in the campaign to oust the Taliban. Any expansion of the alliance's territory could see an increase in the drugs supply.

In his meeting last night with Mr Blair, Pakistan's military President, General Pervez Musharraf, would have been entitled to point out to his visitor that the drugs trade had its origins in the war against the Soviet occupiers of Afghanistan in the 1980s.

The Afghan mujahedin, with the full knowledge of the intelligence agencies of America, Britain and other allies, refined and exported heroin – previously unknown in this part of the world – to finance their struggle. Evidence even exists that the CIA encouraged the spread of hard drugs to demoralise Russian troops.


From the same website:

quote:
JALALABAD, Afghanistan (February 15, 2001 8:19 p.m. EST
U.N. drug control officers said the Taliban religious militia has nearly wiped out opium production in Afghanistan -- once the world's largest producer -- since banning poppy cultivation last summer.

..."We are not just guessing. We have seen the proof in the fields," said Bernard Frahi, regional director for the U.N. program in Afghanistan and Pakistan. He laid out photographs of vast tracts of land cultivated with wheat alongside pictures of the same fields taken a year earlier -- a sea of blood-red poppies.

...The Taliban, which has imposed a strict brand of Islam in the 95 percent of Afghanistan it controls, has set fire to heroin laboratories and jailed farmers until they agreed to destroy their poppy crops.


Further from same site:

quote:
Paralleling the rise of use in established consuming regions like Western Europe and North America, heroin abuse shot upward in new areas--Eastern Europe, southern China, mainland Southeast Asia, India, and Pakistan.

Rising from a situation of zero heroin addicts in 1979, Pakistan had, according to official statistics, 5,000 addicts in 1980, 1.2 million in 1985, and 1.7 million in 1993.


Further from same site:

quote:
End of Taliban will bring rise in heroin
By Richard Lloyd Parry in Islamabad 19 October 2001

The defeat of the Taliban would result in a surge in opium production, which has been virtually halted in Afghanistan by the Kabul regime over the last year, United Nations officials have warned.

A new UN survey reveals that the Taliban have completed one of the quickest and most successful drug elimination programmes in history.

The area of land given over to growing opium poppies in 2001 fell by 91 per cent compared with the year before, according to the UN Drug Control Programme's (UNDCP) annual survey of Afghanistan. Production of fresh opium, the raw material for heroin, went down by an unprecedented 94 per cent, from 3,276 tonnes to 185 tonnes.

Almost all Afghan opium this year came out of territories controlled by America's ally in the assault on Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance. Because of a ban on poppy farming, only one in 25 of Afghanistan's opium poppies was being grown in Taliban areas.


Then from Afghanan dot net

What Are ‘Taliban’ Objectives?

quote:
As it has been noted in some analytical circles, the 'Taliban' movement was created to address the chaotic state of Afghanistan at the time when the various factions were devastating the country, in their bid for power. It was felt that perhaps Pashtun nationalism was the only remaining force capable of pacifying and uniting the country. It proved to be true.

...People often ascribe the Taliban success to various erroneous factors, always ignoring the real reason: the Taliban 'values' mirrored the cultural and religious principles of the majority of the population of Afghanistan, and that is why they controlled almost 95% of the country up to the time of the United States' attack.

There is no doubt that the infiltration of the movement by Pakistani religious parties and Al-Qaeda was disastrous. However, people forget that the international Jehadi movement, and Pakistani involvement, was a situation which the Taliban inherited from the so called Mujahidin Government of the Peshawar Seven – the Mujadidi and Rabbani ‘governments were issuing passports to all and sundry, and welcoming all 'Muslim Brothers' to Afghanistan.

...So much for the past. The question which presently preoccupies most international analysts is what are the Taliban aims and negotiating positions now. To answer this, one can only have recourse to the two rare policy statements issued by Abdul Hai Mutmaen , the senior ‘Taliban’ spokesman: first, they want foreign forces withdrawn from Afghanistan; second, they do not accept the legitimacy of the present set up in Kabul. They have abjured the idea of forming their own government, only stipulating that a new government in Afghanistan should be led by someone who is qualified and a Muslim.

These demands will appear increasingly reasonable to the Afghan population because, for all intents and purposes, as Simon Jenkins has rightly pointed out, we're back to the situation that prevailed in Afghanistan in 1992, with all the usual suspects, and additionally the ex-king, ensconced in Kabul, playing at being the 'Afghan Government', while various provincial minor warlords rule the roost in their particular fiefdoms, under the 'Allies' protection.

Meanwhile, the ordinary Afghan people are once again being terrorised. Reportedly, things have deteriorated to such an extent that even the people in Afghan cities are harking back to the time of Taliban rule with nostalgia.

...The present choices facing the international community with respect to Afghanistan is a perfect example of such a situation. And, it is a matter which the government of countries already involved, or planning to be involved, in the Afghan debacle will have to consider carefully before committing their citizens’ blood and treasure to the Hamid Karzai government’s cause.

Source: Bahlol Lohdi - Afghan Informed Comment


Lohdi also had some nice things to say about Rick Hillier:

quote:
It would appear that the United States does not have a monopoly on promoting knuckle dragging morons to the highest level of its military: recently, Rick Hillier, Canada’s Chief of the Defence Staff, characterised the Pushtune insurgents in Afghanistan as “detestable murderers and scumbags” and that it was the military’s job “to kill such people”.

...It is to be noted that, in 1993, when the Canadian military was deployed abroad on a ‘peacekeeping’ mission, members of the Canadian Airborne Regiment had the singular ‘distinction’ of beating a Somali teenager to death, while photographing his torture. From the disgustingly blood-thirsty remarks of Defence Chief Hillier, it would not be surprising if his men behaved similarly in Afghanistan.

Lohdi - 04 Jan. 2006


As should be apparent, the US involvement in the heroin trade is inescapable.

Someone mentioned that all that stuff is just history, 'the unscrupulous western support for the guerillas, the abandonment of the country once the Soviets left'

But the US didn't abandon their Islamic fundamentalist project just because the Soviet occupation was defeated. That was not the objective. The objective was the destruction of Soviet Union, and by extension, any countries still allied with them, like Yugoslavia. US support for fundamentalist networks continued up to and beyond 9/11.

The one salient fact that seems to have been overlooked is that 9/11 for the first time caused the US to stop supporting some sections of those groups they had mid-wived. Not all. Only those sections which they had lost control of.

The US adventure in using religious fundamentalism to carry on a proxy war, providing funding with drug money, teaching the networks how to destabilize by suicide bombs and assassinations, will go down in history as the most utterly depraved episode ever to be experienced on planet earth.

There is no excuse, no justification, no protestation, no professed ignorance, nothing, that can exculpate the base criminals that made the plan, then executed it.

And most of them are currently ensconced within the inner circle of the Bush administration.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 18 January 2006 05:33 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And a quote from the Globe & Mail editorial of Tuesday, January 17, 2006

quote:
The province (Kandahar) is doubly dangerous becausde U.S. forces, a particular target, will remain in overall command of coalition troops in the region, even after Canada assumes leadership of a multinational brigade assembling in Kandahar next month.

There is no longer any excuse for Canadian participation in Afghanistan. It can only make the situation worse. Canadian subservience to the war criminals of the US, even as the US draws down its own troops, and leaves the 'multinational brigade' to take the fire, is beyond the pale.

None but the unreconstructed US bootlickers could envisage this shameful use of Canadian troops.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Clog-boy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11061

posted 18 January 2006 08:42 AM      Profile for Clog-boy   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Red Albertan:
You agree there should be war.

I never agreed there should be war. As far as I'm informed by the news here, the situation in Afghanistan is a dangerous one. Dangerous to the world and to the Afghans.
I was under the assumption the troops were going to be sent there to pacify the region and protect the civilians. Not to kill and slaughter innocent people.
The way the situation in Afghanistan is depicted in the media here, it leaves no alternative but sending troops.

Maybe the media aren't painting an honest, complete picture of the situation at hand. So sue me! And start sueing at least 8 million Dutch people, since I think it's fair to say that at least half of the Dutch population is kept under the impression that armed intervention is the only solution for Afghanistan...

I've joined Babble to discuss and learn. This thread I've learned a great deal. Thanks for enlightening me on this subject, although I think it could have been done without the unfounded accusations....

[ 18 January 2006: Message edited by: Clog-boy ]


From: Arnhem, The Netherlands | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 18 January 2006 09:51 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Red Albertan:
You cannot see that it is in the present, not just in the past. The US was selling weapons to Iran even as they were allied with Saddam.
That was in 1980-1988, no more recent than the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan.

The U.S. may have played both sides in the Iran-Iraq, but they're not so foolish as to arm an enemy they're currently fighting. Try again.

quote:
Originally posted by Red Albertan:The US funneled funds for the Taleban, Al Qaida and the Northern Alliance through Pakistan.
Yes, while the Soviets were still in the country. The U.S. wasn't sending arms and funds to "the Taleban, Al Qaida and the Northern Alliance" last week.
quote:
Originally posted by Red Albertan:
Who supplies them?
My guess would be sympathisers in Pakistan (not necessarily the government, but there could be unofficial transfers of arms), especially warlords in the border regions, and possibly Iran.

[ 18 January 2006: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 January 2006 06:32 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your an expert on selecting shells to look under. Hint: If you look under all the shells you will not find the pea under any of them.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 18 January 2006 08:05 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Yes, while the Soviets were still in the country. The U.S. wasn't sending arms and funds to "the Taleban, Al Qaida and the Northern Alliance" last week.

So why was it okay for the US to support groups like the Taleban back then but it isn't any more?


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 18 January 2006 11:23 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Aristotle - from the US point of view, it's not ok to sell the Taliban weapons now because they are now being used against American forces. Politics is a dirty game, said Trudeau. International power politics is particularly dirty, and self-interest driven at all times. And not just in the case of the US. When I mentioned Somalia as an example of American intervention in an area where they have no vital interests, I didn't mean to suggest they had no self interest in the matter. Again, if we are going to discuss international politics we must realize it is a game played by its own rules which often have little connection with our everyday personal morality. The attempt to inject human morality into international power politics is a noble and worthy one, but one that is destined to fail if we do not begin by understand the rules of the game as it is currently played. Case in point - many here who are as disgusted and afraid of America as I am are aghast that Canada is co-operating militarily with the US without considering that our current relationship requires this kind of co-operation from time to time. We have been fairly adept in Canada in signing on to only those adventures which are more consonant with our values (Haiti excepted). I think many Canadians are willing to entertain measures which would put more distance between us and the US, and I would welcome (I would love) an informed discussion on this topic. But in the meantime, we have realities to deal with, including the reality that any precipitate and un-thought out rejection of our ties with America might well be counter-productive and bring us more into the American orbit. This is the root of my impatience with those whose moral and ideological fervour seems to be accompanied by a lack of geo-political sophistication. (Although I conceed, many on the other side of this argument are clearly very well informed.) A great number of other nations who have even less connection and love for the US administration than we do are also involved in the attempt to rehabilitate Afghanistan. Are we to believe they are all Yankee boot-lickers? Or is it possible that the whole world sees that a stable, democratic Afghanistan is in the world's best interests, and certainly in the interests of the average Afghani?
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 19 January 2006 02:43 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Are we to believe they are all Yankee boot-lickers?

We are, if they allow their troops to be commanded by the US, even while the US is removing their troops and shipping them off to Iraq.

From an editorial in today's Globe & Mail criticizing Jack Layton for suggesting there should be a parliamentary debate over the Afghanistan 'mission'.

quote:
If Kabul is tricky turf, Kandahar is a military nightmare where drug dealers, warlords, and terrorists jostle for power.

This is pretty funny considering they published an article yesterday which pointed out the US does not allow their troops to take on the drug traffickers.

Which means that those who were successful in limiting the drug trade are the terrorists, and those who facilitate the drug trade aren't.

Further from the same editorial:

quote:
But the mission in Afghanistan also fulfills the central foreign role for the Canadian military in an increasingly perilous world: to ensure that failing states do not become a danger to themselves and to others.

That's hilarious. If that was the case, the Canadian military would be marching on Washington right now. Who is that rains terror down on the earth from flying robots? Who is it that has military establishments in about 140 different countries? Who is it that ignores international law, to say nothing of common decency? Who is it that is flying people around the world for torture sessions? Who is it that has the largest prison population on the planet?

Most of all, who is it that presents the clearest danger to themselves and the rest of the world?

Lest anyone accuse me of anti-Americanism, I'll just quote a right-wing weblogger called the Mogambo Guru, a financial adviser often quoted in Barron's and other financial media. Here he is speaking of the Iranian plan to start an oil bourse this March, which will do their deals in the Euro rather than the US dollar.

quote:
It's all mox nix to me, as oil is going to rise mightily in price anyway, but all of those American oil-business scumbags have families to care for, bills to pay and these big, fancy cars that speed by me as I sit with my "Will work for food" sign around my neck.

So, you can bet that they are all crapping in their pants at the thought of the end of a very long, very cozy and very profitable deal.

Ergo, you can certainly make a case that George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress will OK a plan to invade Iran and take over the place, because that is the kind of treacherous, thieving, murdering scumbag that my beloved America has become in its increasing desperation.


Those same 'treacherous, thieving, murdering' scumbags are in command of the Canadian mission in Afghanistan, and we can't even have a debate over whether we should be there, under US control or not.

The bootlickers are in charge.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 19 January 2006 08:15 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Starting next month a Canadian General will be in charge of all OEF forces operating in south-east Afghanistan. He will be in charge of many nations including the British and American troops.

The US military are slowing scaling down their forces, of the nearly 20,000 soldiers there currently only 2000 are not being replaced this year. These military units not being replaced are light infantry units, and are of little use in Iraq.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 19 January 2006 08:35 PM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ah, gee, isn't that nice of them? To actually allow Canadian troops to be under the command of a Canadian.

Gosh, oh golly gee, I am so touched.


From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 19 January 2006 08:48 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Would you prefer that Canadians troops are under US military control?

I was just stating a fact. Anything productive to add to this discussion?


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 19 January 2006 09:23 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
Where are all the massive protests by Afghanis demanding that Cdn and Nato troops leave their country? Let me guess, they're afraid Canadian troops would gun them down in the streets...they're in their homes hiding. Where's the Afghan presence at rallies demanding Canada exit Afghanistan? I hear a lot of white westerners demanding we get out but not many (if any) Afghans.

Anybody know where I can find a credible Afghan voice demanding Canada exit? I already checked RAWA, this is what they have to say:

quote:
RAWA believes that the United Nations has not been able to address the problem properly. If the UN can send a large number of peace-keeping forces to places like Cambodia and Bosnia, why should it not be adopting a similar policy in Afghanistan? It is all the more important to have large peace-keeping forces in Afghanistan where most fundamentalist groups owe their power to the support of foreign countries....

we believe that the only way to restore stability and find a solution to the Afghan crisis is by fully disarming all the armed groups and their accomplices. This is possible only by a peace-keeping force not including troops from countries that have involved themselves in the Afghan infighting and that might support any bandit groups


They're asking for more UN (foreign)troops!

http://www.rawa.org/points.html

[ 19 January 2006: Message edited by: worker_drone ]


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 19 January 2006 10:36 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
If I can echo what I said in another thread, Canadian forces are uniquely well skilled at this very difficult kind of mission, given their training and military culture of peace-keeping. We do not give our forces nearly enough credit for their cultural sensitivity, common sense and compassion in these types of situations. The Canadians are exactly the right military to be involved in Afghanistan. The sooner the US gets out the better. With RAWA onside now, I guess this discussion is about concluded?
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 19 January 2006 10:50 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
I'm ashamed to leave this thread on that last note - the most important thing to mention now on this thread, is quoted from the Toronto Star

"The attack killed Glyn Berry, 59, the top Canadian foreign affairs official in the area.

The injured soldiers arrived Monday night for emergency treatment at the Landstuhl Regional Medical Centre, which has treated thousands of U.S. soldiers, many of them maimed by bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Pte. William Edward Salikin, from Grand Forks, B.C., and Cpl. Jeffrey Bailey of Edmonton remain in a medically-induced coma. Withers refused to name the soldiers when he described the condition of one of them as serious and the other as "very serious."

The third soldier, Master Cpl. Paul Franklin, also from Edmonton, lost a leg in the blast and was reported as stable."


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 19 January 2006 11:32 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
Starting next month a Canadian General will be in charge of all OEF forces operating in south-east Afghanistan. He will be in charge of many nations including the British and American troops.

The US military are slowing scaling down their forces, of the nearly 20,000 soldiers there currently only 2000 are not being replaced this year. These military units not being replaced are light infantry units, and are of little use in Iraq.


The Globe editorial was very clear that the US would still be commanding both the Canadian troops and those of the other nations.

Here is what they said;

quote:
The province is doubly dangerous because U.S. forces will remain in overall command of coaltion troops in the region, even after Canada assumes leadership of a multinational brigade asssembling in Kandahar next month.

So Canada will be in 'leadership' while the US remains in 'overall command'.

This is just sop to the boneheads who want to think of Canada having a leadership role.

More importantly, given the US does not allow its troops to interfere in the drug trade, and most of the others on the ground don't either, will Canada also be proscribed by the 'overall' US commmand?

Also given Canadian troops will be under US command, what exactly is the US mission in Afghanistan? They won't interfere in the drug trade, they don't interfere with the local warlords, the accept no orders from the 'government' of Karzai (which by itself tells you how legitimate it is), and they support the Pakistani dictator Musharraf, whose administration is closer to the 'terrorists' than any government on earth.

What are Canadians doing there? We are certainly not there to help the Afghani's.

The simple reason we have troops in Afghanistan is to soothe the ire of the US government.

What a terrific use of Canadians forces.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 20 January 2006 12:15 AM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Maestro

I like what you have been saying in this discussion, I understand what you are trying to argue. I do not like the fact that the Americans are not getting involved with the drug trade. The British have been tackling the drug problem in Helmand province since the spring and to so success.

The Globe editorial, is wrong in assessment of the chain of command of troops. All nations in multi-nation missions have the final say on how its troops are used for missions, this is a problem in Haiti currently.

As of August, Regional Command South will fall under ISAF control, not American forces.

What Canadians are doing depends on the unit, and where they are located.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 20 January 2006 03:41 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
From an earlier post of mine, quoting Hamida Gahfour, a correspondent currently in London, also reporting directly from Afghanistan:

quote:
...NATO will take over from the American coalition forces over the course of the next year. The Canadian mission, which will grow to 2,000 soldiers next month, will not be able to bring the drug trade to heel, eradicate the Taliban and build roads and schools alone. And other members of the NATO mission may be of limited help.

The American military will not allow its soldiers to become involved in battling in the drug trade. The British, who will join the Canadian soldiers in the south later this summer, are also reluctant. The French, Spanish and Germans have refused to even take part in combat operations against the Taliban.


The British are no more interested in stopping the drug trade than the US is. After all, they were in at the beginning when the drugs were first used to finance Bin Laden and cohorts.

Remember the British were also drug traffickers bacdk in the days of the Opium Wars.

As to their efforts in Helmand province, according to this story about 1.5 tons of heroin, opium, and hashish were seized during a 3 month raid. Given the annual production of opium is around 4,000 tons, that represents about o.o4% of the total.

That particular 3 month long operation resulted in the arrest of a single trafficker.

According to the story, Gen. Mohammed Daoud, a former warlord who is Afghanistan's deputy interior minister in charge of the anti-drug effort built his family fortune in the drug trade.

There are those who believe he is still involved.

All the rhetoric is just that, rhetoric. The presence of the US and other military forces in Afghanistan is designed to destablizie, not establish order.

Canada has no military business in Afghanistan. We are there only as a propaganda excercise designed to show Canada in lockstep with US foreign policy.

In that US foreign policy is overtly criminal, we cannot avoid being tarred with that brush.

There might be ways in which Canada could be helpful to the people of Afghanistan. Putting our military forces there, operating at the command of the US, is not one of them.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 20 January 2006 05:54 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Further comment from the website of RAWA:

US duplicity in Afghanistan

quote:
The Frontier Post, September 6, 2000
By Muhammad Ahsan Yatu


... The problem of Afghanistan, however, will not be solved so easily to the satisfaction of Americans who maintain duplicity towards the over all scenario prevalent out there. In fact they want to maintain anarchy in Afghanistan but at the same time they would like to make others believe that they are doing all possible to bring peace and moderation to the Afghan situation. And that is because situation in Afghanistan is part of a well thought strategy that brought together twenty-five thousand Arabs, thousands of Pakistanis and tens of thousands of Afghan youth.

...It was a joint venture project of Americans, western countries and Pakistan. That is why when finally the trained warriors known as Taliban were inducted into Afghanistan they faced little resistance because majority of the other fighting groups were asked to surrender in their favour and, thus, within days 90% of Afghanistan was won.

Americans were well aware that Taliban would not be able to capture whole of Afghanistan due to resistance from the people bordering central Asian States; and due to opposition from, Iran, China, Russia and CARs. And that was what Americans wanted. Afghanistan should remain under volatile conditions.

...Now present scenario is that America is pressurizing Pakistan to influence Taliban in three areas: terrorist activities, drug trade and Islamisation of society.

...By terrorist activities American mean only targeting Osama Bin Laden and the rest is fine with them. By Islamisation they means that Taliban should be lenient on working women and specifically on those who are working with Western NGOs; and by drug trafficking only God knows what they mean because they have simply been watching the growth of drug production to four hundred percent since Taliban came and they are protesting against that only now.

Why Americans first helped Taliban to be inducted into Afghanistan and why they are now opposing them and that too very softly? Answers lie in the overall game plan that America has for the region since decades. After the withdrawal of Russians from Afghanistan, situation could have returned to normalcy, had America or Pakistan, Iran and Central Asian States wished so because all of them could influence their sponsored groups to sit on negotiating table and form a moderate government, which could be friendly to the Afghans and to the regional countries.

However, that was not done and instead Taliban were launched successfully to avert any possibility of formation of a liberal government. This simply means that Americans want to keep the region turbulent and volatile so that a regional bloc comprising of Afghanistan, China, Iran, India, Pakistan, Central Asian states and Russia is not formed.

And in this regard even a fraction of ever lasting peace coming to the region will not be tolerated. Americans are true to their national interests because one can imagine if it happens that way and regional block is formed or peace returns to an area stretching from Bengal to Baltic Sea, then the monopoly of America would reduce to only one third of planet earth.

So Taliban are sitting at a right place, and doing a right job for the Americans.

...It looks strange that Taliban are surviving without producing a fraction of national wealth needed to run a country. Not only that they also have modern armament, which is being used against the northern alliance.

Who is supporting them financially as well as militarily; and who is helping them to sell drugs to the outside world? It cannot be China, Russia, Iran and central Asian states. They have almost sealed their borders with Afghanistan and question of things going out or coming in from the borders of these countries is impossible.

Now only one out let remains and that is of Pakistan. Pakistan is not in a position to help them financially because a country, which is fighting for its own economic survival, cannot do so.

...Thus, Taliban are getting financial and military aid from other sources and these sources cannot remain hidden from American eyes unless they are American themselves. And how can drug trafficking continue from one border only if it is not being allowed by the superpower herself?

...However, Pakistan has for the first time in its history retaliated and exposed the Americans.

Foreign Minister Abdul Sattar has disclosed the figures of twenty five thousand Arabs that were given to Pakistan for training By Americans and for onward posting in Afghanistan.

...To satisfy the outside world America on one had will keep on pressurizing the Taliban on Osama factor, women, NGOs and slightly on terrorism. And on the other hand it will keep on furnishing financial and military aid to them.

...the Taliban will remain in power and will keep on fighting against fellow Muslims, and infidels. They will also continue with their trade of the precious produce and will try to implement the kind of Islam, which was taught to them by American and Pakistani teachers while they were being trained in Pakistani schools.

A question and a very interesting one arises here about the proposed gas line to be built from Turkmenistan to India. There is no doubt that Americans are not causing any hindrance to that project, rather they are themselves interested in the construction contract. If it is so then why they are not interested in bringing peace to the region?

According to them gas line and disorder can coexist. However, if it comes to choosing between the two, the anarchy would get the preference.


Note this story is almost exactly a year before 9/11, and accuses the US of supporting the Taliban, even to the point of being their instructors. It also accuses the US of being the source of 25,000 Islamic fighters brought to Afghanistan from outside the country.

It also makes a very interesting point. The US is more interested in destabilizing the region than they are even in the pipeline the want to help construct.

As this writer makes clear, the US policy has always been destabilization, not the establishment of order.

Canada is now complicit in this international criminal enterprise.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 20 January 2006 06:19 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And another documentation of US involvement. Note this document is also prior to 9/11.

CIA worked with Pak to create Taliban'

quote:
India Abroad News Service, March 6, 2001
Sanjay Suri


London March 06, 2001 11:40 Hrs (IST) THE CENTRAL Intelligence Agency (CIA) worked in tandem with Pakistan to create the "monster" that is today Afghanistan's ruling Taliban, a leading US expert on South Asia said here.

"I warned them that we were creating a monster," Selig Harrison from the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars said at the conference here last week on "Terrorism and Regional Security: Managing the Challenges in Asia."

Harrison said: "The CIA made a historic mistake in encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan." The US provided $3 billion for building up these Islamic groups, and it accepted Pakistan's demand that they should decide how this money should be spent, Harrison said.

...The old associations between the intelligence agencies continue, Harrison said. "The CIA still has close links with the ISI (Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence)."

Today that money and those weapons have helped build up the Taliban, Harrison said. "The Taliban are not just recruits from 'madrassas' (Muslim theological schools) but are on the payroll of the ISI (Inter Services Intelligence, the intelligence wing of the Pakistani government)." The Taliban are now "making a living out of terrorism."

Harrison said the UN Security Council resolution number 1333 calls for an embargo on arms to the Taliban. "But it is a resolution without teeth because it does not provide sanctions for non-compliance," he said. "The US is not backing the Russians who want to give more teeth to the resolution."

..."the CIA made the historic mistake of encouraging Islamic groups from all over the world to come to Afghanistan," he said. The creation of the Taliban had been "actively encouraged by the ISI and the CIA," he said.


Note Harrison specifically says that the US was opposed to giving force to a UN Security Council resolution calling for an arms embargo against the Taliban - as late as 2001.

Included as an insert to the above article is more information courtesy of John Pilger of the Guardian:

quote:
For 17 years, Washington poured $4 billion into the pockets of some of the most brutal men on earth - with the overall aim of exhausting and ultimately destroying the Soviet Union in a futile war.

CIA director William Casey backed a plan by Pakistan's intelligence agency, the ISI, to recruit people from around the world to join the Afghan jihad.

More than 100,000 Islamic militants were trained in Pakistan between 1986 and 1992, in camps overseen by the CIA and Britain's MI6, with the British SAS trained future al Qaeda and Taliban fighters in bomb-making and other black arts.

Their leaders were trained at a CIA camp in Virginia. This was called Operation Cyclone and continued long after the Soviets had withdrawn in 1989.


The terrorists that are killing Canadians troops 'trained in Virginia'...

Hands up anyone who still thinks we have any business at all allowing Canadian troops to take part in Afghanistan.

Edited to fix spelling.

[ 20 January 2006: Message edited by: maestro ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 20 January 2006 12:40 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Maestro, your unstated assumption is that because America is the original instigator and very senior NATO partner in Afghanistan, that all other participants from NATO are dancing entirely to America's tune. A moment's reflection will suggest this is unlikely. As Webgear has mentioned, ultimately the governments of the NATO nations involved have the final say on the goals of the mission and whether it will continue. I have little difficulty accepting that American goals in Afghanistan may have included maintaining a state of permanent de-stabilization for their own geo-political reasons. But again, this makes my case. I am sure that the governments of Canada and other NATO nations involved included in their calculations that they could influence and moderate US behaviour more effectively on Afghanistan by participating rather than sitting it out. Now that all NATO nations involved have a direct interest in promoting stabilization in Afghanistan, I'm sure the US realizes that any actions on their part to thwart this stabilization will provoke a major crisis with their NATO allies. This is closer to the way international politics works, I think, than assuming a monolithic unquestioned American direction of events. And putting Canadian troops under Canadian operational command in the field is much more than window-dressing, as any soldier will tell you.
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 20 January 2006 03:25 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
An analysis piece by Ahmed Rashid in today's Globe and Mail (Jan 20) is by far the most informative and convincing comment I have yet seen on NATO's role in Afghanistan. Almost all of the points raised on this thread are addressed in it. Mr. Rashid makes a very convincing case for maintaining and increasing our troop deployments in southern Afghanistan. As usual, I can't link to the article because it is behind a "subscriber" fence. But it's really worth hunting down and reading.

And this links to an update on the surviving Canadian soldiers conditions.


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 20 January 2006 04:34 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by looney:
Maestro, your unstated assumption is that because America is the original instigator and very senior NATO partner in Afghanistan, that all other participants from NATO are dancing entirely to America's tune.

That is not an assumption on my part. That specific bit of information was contained in the Globe & Mail editorial.

I've already posted it twice here, so I won't bother again. The fact remains that the US in in complete control of all the NATO operations in Afghanistan, and will remain so even as they themselves draw down their troops.

The bit of sop that was given Canada is that they would be the 'leaders' of an international brigade. However, overall command remains with the US.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 20 January 2006 06:17 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ahmed Rashid’s op-ed piece in the Globe & Mail

It’s worth the sacrifice – Ahmed Rashid, Globe & Mail, Jan. 20/06

This piece is just loaded with hogwash that has already been shown to be that. However, it’s worth examining some of the points Rashid uses in favour of continued Canadian involvement in creating chaos in Afghanistan.

quote:
The Canadian deployment lies at the heart of several contradictions. It is part of a major NATO deployment to the south, a result of the Americans’ insistence on pulling some 4,000 troops out of Afghanistan by the spring. Unfortunately that pullout has nothing to do with conditions in Kabul and everything to do with congressional elections in November.

So the US is not going to bother trying to run this one past the voters, while we here in Canada are expected to take up the slack. In other words, Canadian involvement is required in order to facilitate the election of more of the morons who started this shit in the first place!

quote:
…NATO countries made a commitment to Afghanistan in the aftermath of 9/11. Western promises that they would not abandon the Afghans and that they would help to reconstruct their country and stave off any renewed threat from Islamic extremists took a back seat to the war in Iraq.
The insurgency in Afghanistan is much worse now because of that neglect.

But that ‘neglect’ wasn’t NATO’s, that was the US. NATO didn’t go to war in Iraq, the United States invaded Iraq, and thus self-limited their role in ‘reconstructing’ Afghanistan. If Rashid wants someone to buck up, it should be the US.

quote:
Today NATO has as much of a responsibility to Afghanistan as the Americans do.

Rashid has an interesting way of remaking NATO as required. He constantly differentiates between ‘Americans’ and NATO, but NATO is almost completely a creation of the United States. Since it’s inception post WW2, the United States has been the most powerful member, and the one who has given the orders.

quote:
Afghanistan is not Iraq. For every layer of lies, subterfuge and lack of legality that we now know constituted Washington’s raison d’etre for its invasion of Iraq, there was a parallel layer of transparency, international legality and massive public support when the United Nations Security Council and NATO sanctioned the removal of the Taliban regime in 2001.

Transparency? Who is he trying to fool? The history of the involvement of the US in Afghanistan is a history of lies, deception, and opacity that makes Iraq look like schoolboy stuff.

quote:
But no advance can be expected with the current sate of insecurity and mayhem that exists in the six provinces of southern Afghanistan, where the Taliban are now killing teachers and girl students in a bid to shut down the few social sector projects such as schools and hospitals that exist.

What about the women and children that were just killed by bombs from an aerial robot sent by the US? What about all the other innocent civilians killed by the US aerial assault?

They were every bit as innocent, and every bit as defenseless, even more so in that they couldn’t even run and hide. This kind of rhetoric on Rashid’s part is the last refuge of the propagandist.

What about the support for the Taliban from the United States, Pakistan and the United Kingdom? Do they carry any of the guilt for creating them in the first place? Do they carry any of the guilt for providing the training for their mission?

quote:
The south is also the centre of the opium farming and the heroin trade, a result of the failure of the West to deliver resources to the agricultural sector quickly enough, rather than a desire by Afghan farmers to grow poppies from which opium is derived. The Taliban finance their movement with the drug trade, which, in turn spawns a much higher level of violence because it involves the drug mafias.

As I have shown, the drug trade in Afghanistan was a project of the United States. The US was instrumental in forcing farmers to grow poppies so there would be enough opium to finance their support for al-Qaeda. After the Taliban succeeded in wiping out the poppy fields, the US invaded and that ‘agricultural sector’ was back in business. Who does Rashid think he’s fooling?

quote:
The Taliban are prepared for a long war of attrition that will continue until NATO forces show their staying power. Any weakness shown by the Western alliance now will only bolster the Taliban’s morale and claim more Afghani lives. A resurgence of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in southern Afghanistan will only help create more recruits for Islamic extremist groups right across the region, and that will ultimately strengthen such groups in Europe and American.

There is so much bullshit in this last paragraph it’s hard to know where to start.

Once again, Rashid differentiates between NATO and the United States. If indeed ‘any weakness shown by the Western alliance’ bolsters the Taliban, then the principal ‘Western’ power there should stay the course. The principal western power that is showing weakness is the US. They’re the ones that are drawing down their troops. And why is that? Because they got elections coming, and they don’t want to scare the voters.

Why we should be picking up the slack so Bush can retain his hold on Congress is beyond me.

Then there is the comment that a stronger Taliban will create more recruits. Pardon me for saying so, but it is the bombing and killing of innocents by the US, with nary a comment from the international community that creates recruits for Islamic fundamentalism. Right now there are protests going on in Pakistan against the US bombing that took place last week, killing up to 30 people, most of them women and children. Can anyone think that event doesn’t create recruits?

In fact the way to minimize the recruitment powers of various groups is to show that the international community believes in the rule of law, and the equal enforcement of it.

Right now, all the world can see the US is not held by any international law, and the ‘Western’ powers are powerless to do anything about it. Either that or they don’t care. One way or the other, recruitment will continue apace until the US is reined in.

The story of US involvement in Afghanistan, and their utterly cynical use of Islam as the connective tissue holding together their proxy armies in the war against the Soviet Union has to be brought out into the open.

Those who were responsible for this criminal action have to be brought to justice, or at least exposed as the international criminals they are.

Only then can ‘reconstruction’ begin, only then can some sort of secure future for Afghanistan and the rest of the world be contemplated.

As it stands, Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan is furthering the crimes already committed, and creating more chaos that the future will have to deal with.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 20 January 2006 08:49 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
maestro

“Only then can ‘reconstruction’ begin, only then can some sort of secure future for Afghanistan and the rest of the world be contemplated.”

How can reconstruction begin if there is not a stable environment to start the rebuilding process?

How does Afghanistan create a stable environment at this point?

I agree that the USA, USSR, UK, NATO, Warsaw Pact had a major role in creating the Islamic problem back in the 1970s.

But Afghanistan has suffered long enough, we need to heal Afghanistan.

The problem of Afghanistan is very similar to the current gang problem in Toronto area. There is no easy solution, there is no quick fix. Throwing money at Afghanistan will end up in the hands of the warlords and criminal elements and using a hard offensive military stance will not correct the situation either.

Instead of one answer to solve the problem, a bit of each solution has to be put in place, there needs to be stable environment for rebuilding, there needs to be strong security presence, the Afghans need a strong financial system to allow ex-soldiers, poppy farmers and population to feed their families and to create a decent life.

This will take time, effort and energy. We all know what created the problem in Afghanistan but how can we create an answer to the problem. We need solutions and a proper plan to end the suffering in Afghanistan.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 22 January 2006 12:52 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
maestro

“Only then can ‘reconstruction’ begin, only then can some sort of secure future for Afghanistan and the rest of the world be contemplated.”

How can reconstruction begin if there is not a stable environment to start the rebuilding process?

How does Afghanistan create a stable environment at this point?

I agree that the USA, USSR, UK, NATO, Warsaw Pact had a major role in creating the Islamic problem back in the 1970s.

But Afghanistan has suffered long enough, we need to heal Afghanistan.

The problem of Afghanistan is very similar to the current gang problem in Toronto area. There is no easy solution, there is no quick fix. Throwing money at Afghanistan will end up in the hands of the warlords and criminal elements and using a hard offensive military stance will not correct the situation either.

Instead of one answer to solve the problem, a bit of each solution has to be put in place, there needs to be stable environment for rebuilding, there needs to be strong security presence, the Afghans need a strong financial system to allow ex-soldiers, poppy farmers and population to feed their families and to create a decent life.

This will take time, effort and energy. We all know what created the problem in Afghanistan but how can we create an answer to the problem. We need solutions and a proper plan to end the suffering in Afghanistan.


Webgear, either you're incredibly ignorant (Imean that in the classical sense of not knowing), or you just don't want to get it.

The point I made about beginning reconstruction was that the first requirement is for the 'Western' world to acknowledge their role in using Afghanistan as a proxy weapon against the Soviet Union.

This is a first requirement, one that must be taken before any other 'reconstruction' can take place.

You agree that the US had a role in the 1970's, but apoparently it has escaped you that they also had a role in the 80's, the 90', and even up to 9/11. Acknowledging that role is part of the first requirement for reconstruction. By (apparently) denying any involvement after 1970, it becomes impossible for any reconstruction to take place.

The problem of Afghanistan is similar to the gang problem in Toronto????? Wow. That is pretty close to the most incredibly stupid thing I've ever heard said about Afghanistan...or Toronto.

Then you say, "Using a hard offensive military stance will not correct the problem either."

But that is precisely the stance that has been taken by the Canadian military, and the mouth breather in charge, Rick Hillier. Or did you forget what he said a while back?

And what of the US stance of using unmanned aerial vehicles to bomb civilians to hell? Is that a reasoned response? Or is that another 'hard offensive military response?

You say there must be a 'stable environment' for reconstruction to take place. I'll agree with you there, but Canada and the US are not providing a stable environment, they are doing all they can to destabilize the environment.

There isn't any way that anyone beyond grade two could characterize our involvement there as a stabilizing force. By reinforcing the regional warlords, by facilitating the drug trade, by blind killings of civilians, the US has shown repeatedly they have no interest in a stable environment. And we are there under their command. Their goal is our goal. Their priorities are our priorities. Our prisoners are their prisoners.

You say, 'We all know what created the problem in Afghanistan', but do we? You don't, or at least you profess not to know.

You say, "But Afghanistan has suffered long enough, we need to heal Afghanistan."

Afghanistan's suffering is a result of 'Western' power politics being played out in their land.

Aside from exposing the role of the US in that suffering, the next best step is to get out. The Afghans have as much right to 'heal' themselves as anyone else does. We need to get out, and let that healing begin. As long as we're there, there won't be any healing, just more death and destruction.

The best role Canada could play in facilitatin the 'healing' would be to begin the process of exposing those who created the problem.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 22 January 2006 01:07 AM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Maestro, you wrote : "The point I made about beginning reconstruction was that the first requirement is for the 'Western' world to acknowledge their role in using Afghanistan as a proxy weapon against the Soviet Union.

This is a first requirement, one that must be taken before any other 'reconstruction' can take place."

I think recent history would argue otherwise. If South Africa had tried to establish truth and reconciliation committees before they had established a modicum of real central government, it would have been a recipe for disaster.


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 22 January 2006 02:20 PM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's a historical might-have-been topic for debate.

When Franco lauched his coup and his fascist troops invaded Spain in July 1936 with the purpose of overthrowing the elected government of Spain, many active members of the Canadian Left volunteered to help the Republican cause. Many gave their lives.

In August 1936, England, the greatest international power broker of the time, adopted a policy of non-intervention for Spain. Those aseptic words meant that the legal government of democratic Spain, the Republic, would be prevented from acquiring the means for its defense while, at the same time, the military rebels led by General Franco had no problem obtaining massive amounts of assistance from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, two countries themselves members of the Committee of Nonintervention.

Now, if England and other countries, perhaps in a stronger League of Nations, had come to the defence of Spain against Franco, would some of the Canadian left have said "We should not be wading deeper into this mess. We are making things worse. We should not be part of invading and occupying Spain. We have no divine mission to civilize the world. Canadian Forces have no business being in and occupying other nations."

Maybe so.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 22 January 2006 03:58 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Here's a historical might-have-been topic for debate.

When Franco lauched his coup and his fascist troops invaded Spain in July 1936 with the purpose of overthrowing the elected government of Spain, many active members of the Canadian Left volunteered to help the Republican cause. Many gave their lives.

In August 1936, England, the greatest international power broker of the time, adopted a policy of non-intervention for Spain. Those aseptic words meant that the legal government of democratic Spain, the Republic, would be prevented from acquiring the means for its defense while, at the same time, the military rebels led by General Franco had no problem obtaining massive amounts of assistance from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, two countries themselves members of the Committee of Nonintervention.

Now, if England and other countries, perhaps in a stronger League of Nations, had come to the defence of Spain against Franco, would some of the Canadian left have said "We should not be wading deeper into this mess. We are making things worse. We should not be part of invading and occupying Spain. We have no divine mission to civilize the world. Canadian Forces have no business being in and occupying other nations."

Maybe so.


So, what part in this analogy is the US playing? The part of Germany, or the part of England?


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 22 January 2006 04:20 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by looney:
Maestro, you wrote : "The point I made about beginning reconstruction was that the first requirement is for the 'Western' world to acknowledge their role in using Afghanistan as a proxy weapon against the Soviet Union.

This is a first requirement, one that must be taken before any other 'reconstruction' can take place."

I think recent history would argue otherwise. If South Africa had tried to establish truth and reconciliation committees before they had established a modicum of real central government, it would have been a recipe for disaster.


Between you and webgear and Wilf I think we're going to have to call in the analogy police.

I was not referring to any truth and reconciliation committee in Afghanistan, although that's not such a bad idea.

I was referring to our responsibility to expose the criminals who created and suppported the Islamic fundamentalist networks that used Afghanistan as a base for operations against the Soviet Union (and the Balkans).

It is also our repsonsibility to make it clear to the world that there is not a double standard when it comes it international law.

Right now it is absolutely clear to everyone that there are two sets of laws, one for the industrialized nations, and one for the rest of the world.

Until that changes, there can be no peace.

I'll just add a couple of interesting quotes from an article on Afghanistan and heroin in the Globe & Mail Focus section from Saturday's issue.

quote:
There are hints that some big players in Afghanistan are beginning to recognize the dangers. The latest U.S. budget update shows Washington plans serious cuts to its reconstruction work and military presence, hoping that by this summer, the bulk of its responsibilities will fall to North Atlantic Treaty Organization forces and the Afghans.

...The situation on the ground, howevger, is shifting rapidly. With the United States effectively bowing out of Afghanistan, the onus is on other countries to come up with a solution before the drug trade, coupled with the insurgency, causes Mr. Karzai's government to buckle.


If you're really concerned that military intervention is required, you should be going after the United States. They created the problem, and now they're leaving it to others to clean up.

Partly, as was posted earlier, to try and salvage their majority in the upcoming congressional elecctions, and partly to better continue their illegal war in Iraq.

The US already knows that the little contingent of NATO forces on ground will be unable to stem the flow of drugs. In that they refused to allow their own troops to try and stem the tide, it seems this situation is to their liking.

At the same time, they also know the NATO troops on the ground will do little more than exacerbate an already chaotic situation, their leaving the field seems to be designed to alllow that situation to continue while someone else (Canadian forces) takes the hit.

So what are we there for? Are we there to further US aims in Afghanistan, which are a continued drug trade, and continued chaos?

It sure looks like it.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 22 January 2006 08:59 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
maestro

“You agree that the US had a role in the 1970's, but apparently it has escaped you that they also had a role in the 80's, the 90', and even up to 9/11.”

Sorry, I meant to say since 1970’s. Poor communications on my part throughout that last post and most likely all my posts to date.

I was trying to state that there is no easy solution when I talked compared Toronto to Afghanistan. Throwing money at the problem, withdrawing all the troops or destroying the country’s only major economical source of money will not do any good. I was not trying to make a connection between those two problems.

“I was referring to our responsibility to expose the criminals who created and supported the Islamic fundamentalist networks that used Afghanistan as a base for operations against the Soviet Union (and the Balkans).”

I would agree with this. As you stated earlier, we know who caused the problem, the various countries within NATO and the USSR since the start of the cold war. I would like to see them exposed however how is this going to help Afghanistan?

“So what are we there for? Are we there to further US aims in Afghanistan, which are a continued drug trade, and continued chaos?”

I believe this is the problem is about Afghanistan. Some people are talking about politics on a global level about who caused the current situation, trying to solve the problems by trying to place the blame, while other people are trying to solve the problem on the ground.

I think I will be in Afghanistan to help better the lives of the people that I will be in contact with on the ground. I know that I can not fix the problems created at least 36 years ago, however I feel if I can help bring water to a village, help train Afghan soldiers and police and build new schools and other community projects.

This will allow Afghans to have a longer and better life, because they will have access to water, which will allow them to grow crops other than poppies, give them access to better education thus bettering Afghanistan as a whole. And in one day in the near future allow them to protect Afghanistan from Islamic fundamentalist such as the Taliban.

I am not a highly educated man, but I am trying to better the world around me, one problem at a time. I know enough to realize that I can not change the national politics of any country but maybe I can make a life better of in Afghanistan by being on the ground.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 23 January 2006 01:07 AM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Actually, if you wanted to help fight the drug trade, you would be fighting with the Taliban, not against them.

They have shown they are the only force in Afghanistan capable of stopping poppy growing.

By helping train Afghan police and soldiers, you are providing support for those who are deeply involved in the drug trade.

If you've truly bought the bs you've been spouting I feel for you. You say you're uneducated man. Well, get some education. Perhaps then you won't be taken in so easily.

You say some are trying to place blame, while others (youself) are trying to solve problems on the ground.

The point I was making is that the people there see that those who are to blame are not held accountable, and as long as they're not, what is the point of 'law and order'.

By pointing directly at the criminals, and showing that they will be held accountable, the biggest single factor in recruitment of 'terrorists' is taken away.

They are able to recruit because they see clearly the US bombing and killing innocent civilians, with no repercussions, no punishment. Not even one 'Western' voice raised against the killing. When someone comes along and suggests they can take revenge, they are an interested audience.

You seem to think they can't make the connection because, well I don't know why you would think that.

Our job is to show them, and the world that we believe in 'international' law and order, and there is no way we can do that as long as we support the US mission there. Have we even asked the US whether, as they draw down their troops, they'll also stop using unmanned aerial vehicles to bomb whomever they please?

Will more Canadians be killed by an accidental UAV bombing? Or the same kind of idiotic confusion that killed Pat Tillman?

Amd outside the moral and legal questions, there is the financial question.

Is sending troops to Afghanistan the best use of resources to accomplish 'good' things? Have any other avenues even been explored?

Of course, the avenue that we're going down has one facet that any other avenue wouldn't have. It shows Canada to be in solidarity with the United States.

And that is the principle reason the Canadian mission will fail. We're not fooling anyone there with bleatings about law and order and water and school. They know better.

All the drivel about 'reconstruction' is purely for local consumption. Every time someone objects to the mission, the powers that be start calling up drugs, rape, terrorism, whatever cynical device they have at hand, to try and short circuit any debate. Why don't they want debate?

Because even a cursory look would show everyone that the reason we have troops in Afghanistan is because the US wants us to.

We're not their for the Afghanis, we're their to show the world we're onside with the US.

What a sick and disgusting use of Canadian forces.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 23 January 2006 02:38 AM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
I think I will be in Afghanistan to help better the lives of the people that I will be in contact with on the ground. I know that I can not fix the problems created at least 36 years ago, however I feel if I can help bring water to a village, help train Afghan soldiers and police and build new schools and other community projects.

So you will be there to train Afghan "soldiers and police" who in turn are expected to obey the warlords which have been 'legitimized' through the 'democratic elections' the US forced on Afghanistan, where the candidates appearing on the ballot had to be pre-approved by the occupying powers. Interesting point that the US/Canada/NATO chose to 'approve' these criminal warlords to be 'on the ticket', while the Taliban were of course not allowed to be on the ballot... like Iraq, where the Baath Party was not allowed to be on the ballot... and much like Haiti, where Canada is training criminals to be 'the Police'. I see a pattern. We train the thugs, so that the civilian population will 'forever' have to live in fear of their lives.

quote:
This will allow Afghans to have a longer and better life,

You really ARE a naive man.

quote:
because they will have access to water,

Provided they won't be killed by the warlords' troops first, whom you will train in expert methods of killing.

quote:
which will allow them to grow crops other than poppies,

The CIA depends on the drug trade for much of its operational budget. Don't you find it odd that the Taliban eradicated the drug trade, and the US/Canada helped reestablish it again? "Air America" all over again.

quote:
give them access to better education thus bettering Afghanistan as a whole.

Right. Perhaps the men, because women have been reenslaved thanks to western 'help'.

quote:
And in one day in the near future allow them to protect Afghanistan from Islamic fundamentalist such as the Taliban.

That almost sounds like the ending to some Fairy Tale. Of course it isn't true. A divided, destablized, internally fighting country is what the western powers need while they plunder the land, whether it be Afghanistan or Iraq.

quote:
I am not a highly educated man, but I am trying to better the world around me, one problem at a time.

You cannot better the world at the barrel of a gun.

quote:
I know enough to realize that I can not change the national politics of any country but maybe I can make a life better of in Afghanistan by being on the ground.

Why? Because Afghans are friggin' animals who don't know how to govern themselves? White Man's Burden. I am sure glad 'us Westerners' have evolved so much more than anyone else, so we can bless the other primitive nations around us with our presence.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 23 January 2006 03:06 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Here's a historical might-have-been topic for debate.

When Franco lauched his coup and his fascist troops invaded Spain in July 1936 with the purpose of overthrowing the elected government of Spain, many active members of the Canadian Left volunteered to help the Republican cause. Many gave their lives.

In August 1936, England, the greatest international power broker of the time, adopted a policy of non-intervention for Spain. Those aseptic words meant that the legal government of democratic Spain, the Republic, would be prevented from acquiring the means for its defense while, at the same time, the military rebels led by General Franco had no problem obtaining massive amounts of assistance from Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy, two countries themselves members of the Committee of Nonintervention.

Now, if England and other countries, perhaps in a stronger League of Nations, had come to the defence of Spain against Franco, would some of the Canadian left have said "We should not be wading deeper into this mess. We are making things worse. We should not be part of invading and occupying Spain. We have no divine mission to civilize the world. Canadian Forces have no business being in and occupying other nations."

Maybe so.


There is no Nazi Germany in Afghanistanh.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 23 January 2006 02:15 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Red Albertan:
Provided they won't be killed by the warlords' troops first, whom you will train in expert methods of killing.
A national army is being trained specifically in order to break the power of the warlords - the only military or police power to be exercised in Afghanistan is that controlled by the government in Kabul.

Try not to make things up, m'kay?

quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
They have shown they are the only force in Afghanistan capable of stopping poppy growing.
And Mussolini made the trains run on time too, we all know what a swell guy he was.

Yeah, the fall of the Taliban saw a resurgence of the poppy crop, the task now is to convince farmers to grow other thnigs through incentives and ideally, better international prices for legitimate crops such as wheat, etc.

However, there are worse things than the drug trade. It would be disgustingly selfish of us to pat ourselves on the back and gloat that we had gotten heroin off the streets of Europe and North America . . . and all it took was the enslavement of an entire country to the Taliban.

quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
By helping train Afghan police and soldiers, you are providing support for those who are deeply involved in the drug trade.
Same goes for you re: making crap up.

From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 23 January 2006 05:41 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Same goes for you re: making crap up.

You've accused me of making 'crap' up.

I'll just point out that your ignorance of what is going on doesn't mean others are ' making crap up'.

You want some information on the Afghani drug trade I suggest you do a little reading.

You could do worse than start here:

The Lure of Opium Wealth Is a Potent Force in Afghanistan

quote:
By Paul Watson - Times Staff Writer
May 28, 2005 - Kunduz, Afghanistan.

...The stocky, plain-spoken cop glumly tossed another photo onto a desk in his basement office as if playing a losing hand of cards. In this one, a man in a white pillbox cap is handcuffed to a police officer and standing next to 62 pounds of opium. A local judge sentenced him to 10 years in prison. A higher court ordered his release.

One of Nyamat's biggest catches, arrested with 114 pounds of heroin, a derivative of opium, hadn't even appeared in court when the local prosecutor let him go in late March.

...For decades, poor farmers trying to make a living in Afghanistan's mountain valleys have harvested the opium poppies that feed the world's drug pipeline. Now the trade is booming, partly the result of the U.S. strategy for overthrowing the Taliban and stabilizing (! - maestro) the country after two decades of war.

U.S. troops forged alliances with warlords, who provided ground forces in the battle against the Taliban. Some of those allies are suspected of being among Afghanistan's biggest drug traffickers, controlling networks that include producers, criminal gangs and even members of the counter-narcotics police force.

...The list of those suspected of involvement in the drug trade reaches high into Karzai's government.

Nyamat and an Afghan trafficker singled out Gen. Mohammed Daoud, a former warlord who is Afghanistan's deputy interior minister in charge of the anti-drug effort.

...Some drug barons have changed their ways because they have already made millions of dollars and now see their self-interest in reform and politics, said a senior Western official involved in the anti-drug effort.

"Others are still involved in drug trafficking and today are part — at the highest level — of government," said the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "The idea is not to leave them in the provinces anymore, but to bring them on board in official positions in order to better control them."

But the official said he doubted the strategy would work.


...In late 2001, U.S. Special Forces and Central Intelligence Agency operatives worked with the Northern Alliance rebel group to besiege thousands of Taliban soldiers in Kunduz. The fight to take the city helped form close ties between U.S. forces and warlord Daoud, who had been finance secretary to Ahmed Shah Massoud, the Northern Alliance leader who was assassinated two days before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Before the attacks and the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan, State Department officials had often cited Northern Alliance drug trafficking as one reason the U.S. should not publicly support the anti-Taliban militia.

But police and traffickers interviewed in Kunduz said Daoud did more than use narcotics to help fund the fight against the Taliban: He made drug smuggling a family business. They said he continued to profit from the opium and heroin trade even after Karzai brought him into the central government last August.

...Nazir said traffickers had no trouble finding phone numbers to harangue counter-narcotics police at any hour. "All of these people have friends inside the government," he said.

...Like many in the front-line drug squad, Shamsuddin, a 23-year police veteran, is angry that warlords with a long record of crimes and abuses in the country's wars have been promoted to top police positions, putting uniformed officers at their mercy.


Or here:

End of Taliban will bring rise in heroin

quote:
By Richard Lloyd Parry in Islamabad
19 October 2001

The defeat of the Taliban would result in a surge in opium production, which has beenvirtually halted in Afghanistan by the Kabul regime over the last year, United Nations officials have warned.

A new UN survey reveals that the Taliban have completed one of the quickest and most successful drug elimination programmes in history.

...Almost all Afghan opium this year came out of territories controlled by America's ally in the assault on Afghanistan, the Northern Alliance.

...Some UN officials privately believe that the Taliban have not received enough credit for controlling drugs, and that under any post-Taliban regime cultivation, consumption – and the amount of opium and heroin on world markets – would inevitably increase. (which, as we know now, turned out to be true - maestro)


As is made perfectly clear, the highest levels of the US backed government are deeply involved in the drug trade, and are the self-same 'warlords' you've claimed were going to have their power broken by the national military and police.

How this is possible when those warlords are in charge of creating the police and military is kind of difficult to understand.

As far as your comment about Mussolini, I'll point out that it wasn't me who said 'we' needed to be there to combat the drug problem. I just said that if indeed you did want to combat the problem, you should probably be fighting with the Taliban, not against them.

This is borne out by the facts.

This is where the supports of military intervention just fly off the rails. They're constantly harping on drugs, killings of women and children, motherhood, etc., asa if doing so closes the debate.

Well, the debate isn't closed by calling up all the motherhood issues you can think of.

The US is deeply involved in drugs, killing of innocents and terrorism as well. And Canadian troops are in Afghanistan at the behest of the US, who is now removing their own troops, to be replaced by others, at the same time as the US retains command of those forces.

And why is the US doing this? All the better to fight their illegal war in Iraq, and, according to Ahmed Rashid, to avoid losing in the upcoming congressional elections.

My point is that the only reason there are Canadian troops in Afghanistan is to show solidarity with the US.

Our little force will effect nothing, and ultimately will be sent packing with their tail between their legs specifically because they are part of the US effort.

At the very least, in order to retain some level of credibility, and to begin to be effective, Canada has to distance itself from the US effort in Afghanistan.

We should not be 'filling in' for departing US troops in order to help Republican success in November voting.

As I said before, Canadian participation in the US military effort in Afghanistan is cynical and disgusting. The sooner we get out, the better for everyone.

When we can identify a worthwhile contribution we might make to the people of Afghanistan, they we should have a debate, and go from there.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 23 January 2006 07:06 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
As far as your comment about Mussolini, I'll point out that it wasn't me who said 'we' needed to be there to combat the drug problem. I just said that if indeed you did want to combat the problem, you should probably be fighting with the Taliban, not against them.
Fair enough, and I'm just saying that if indeed you want help Afghans and their new democracy, you'd fight against the Taliban and support the job that the Canadian Armed Forces are doing right now.
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
End of Taliban will bring rise in heroin
Duh. I didn't say it wouldn't. Anybody who said the war was about drugs was wrong - but like I said, that's not a good reason to quit.
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
My point is that the only reason there are Canadian troops in Afghanistan is to show solidarity with the US.
Partly, yeah, of course we are there in solidarity with the U.S. - events like September 11th kind of do that. But I don't believe at all that that's the only reason we're there. A show of solidarity to the U.S. is fine by me if it means that Afghanistan receives tangible aid and support in the process.
quote:
Originally posted by maestro:
Our little force will effect nothing . . .
So let's not even try, right?

And it's not just Canada and the U.S. there, but 6,000+ troops from 30+ countries. Yes, the bulk of Canadian forces are involved in a U.S. mission in the south - but that doesn't really matter: you're not calling for "Canada out of Kandahar", but the more extreme and unreasonable position: "Canada out of Afghanistan".


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red Albertan
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9195

posted 23 January 2006 07:29 PM      Profile for Red Albertan        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
A national army is being trained specifically in order to break the power of the warlords - the only military or police power to be exercised in Afghanistan is that controlled by the government in Kabul.

Several Warlords were allowed on the ballot and ARE 'the government in Kabul' with US/Canadian blessing.


From: the world is my church, to do good is my religion | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 23 January 2006 08:33 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
What's a warlord anyways? Is it like a terrorist/insurgent/freedom fighter kind of thing, all in the eye of the beholder?

Why the concern over heroin in Afghanistan? It's not the biggest issue and how would the troops fight the drug trade anyways? Spraying pesticide over poppy crops, shooting farmers and low level dealers?

The warlords need the opimum because private armies aren't free. The farmers grow it because what else are they going to grow to make money? They'll only stop growing the poppies when there's a viable alternative for them to grow. The Taliban got them to stop down by force, and who wants to see our troops use their methods?


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 23 January 2006 10:08 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Andrew_Jay
quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by maestro:
As far as your comment about Mussolini, I'll point out that it wasn't me who said 'we' needed to be there to combat the drug problem. I just said that if indeed you did want to combat the problem, you should probably be fighting with the Taliban, not against them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair enough, and I'm just saying that if indeed you want help Afghans and their new democracy, you'd fight against the Taliban and support the job that the Canadian Armed Forces are doing right now.


There is no possible way for Canadian troops to 'help' Afghanistan as long as we are associated with the US. The job that the Canadian troops are doing now is political support for the US.

quote:

Originally posted by maestro:
End of Taliban will bring rise in heroin
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Duh. I didn't say it wouldn't. Anybody who said the war was about drugs was wrong - but like I said, that's not a good reason to quit.


This is slightly disingenuous on your part, in that what you show as my quote was actually the headline of a story I posted. In any case, if 'anybody who said the war was about drugs was wrong', why are you not arguing with them?

quote:

Originally posted by maestro:
My point is that the only reason there are Canadian troops in Afghanistan is to show solidarity with the US.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Partly, yeah, of course we are there in solidarity with the U.S. - events like September 11th kind of do that. But I don't believe at all that that's the only reason we're there. A show of solidarity to the U.S. is fine by me if it means that Afghanistan receives tangible aid and support in the process.


Please give me a break. 'Events like September 11th kind of do that'. Then presumably events like the US bombing of a bunch of innocent civilians should also 'do that'. Apparently not.

quote:

Originally posted by maestro:
Our little force will effect nothing . . .
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So let's not even try, right?
And it's not just Canada and the U.S. there, but 6,000+ troops from 30+ countries. Yes, the bulk of Canadian forces are involved in a U.S. mission in the south - but that doesn't really matter: you're not calling for "Canada out of Kandahar", but the more extreme and unreasonable position: "Canada out of Afghanistan".


This is outright spinning. I also said:

quote:
As I said before, Canadian participation in the US military effort in Afghanistan is cynical and disgusting. The sooner we get out, the better for everyone.

When we can identify a worthwhile contribution we might make to the people of Afghanistan, they we should have a debate, and go from there.


So in fact I am in favour of doing something to help Afghanistan - when we have identified a worthwhile contribution, and when we have had a debate about that contribution. So far we have neither a clearly expressed mission, nor a debate about that mission.

What we've had is a bunch of shouting down the opposition using the rankest of propaganda techniques (which is aptly demonstrated by your invocation of 9/11, as if that is enough to trump any debate).

In the meantime what? Continue to be toadies for the US, taking the hit while they sit back and bomb from a distance?

Is asking that Canadian troops be recalled at least until there's been a debate 'extreme and unreasonable'?

Of course, to the toadeaters it is, because it could very well result in our little 'solidarity mission' coming to an end. And that is the ultimate excuse for the exercise, as even you (partially)admit.

I've called the Canadian mission cynical and disgusting, and it is. To put troops on the ground with no clear direction of what they are there for except to 'kill bad guys' is beyond stupid, it is criminal. Canadians are being killed in an effort to shore up the US image abroad.

I will never accept this as a reasonable use of Canadian forces.

[ 23 January 2006: Message edited by: maestro ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 29 January 2006 11:52 AM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Maestro, you wrote :

"There is no possible way for Canadian troops to 'help' Afghanistan as long as we are associated with the US. The job that the Canadian troops are doing now is political support for the US."

This may sound like a reasonable assumption, given the evil the US is perpetrating around the world. But it lacks realism on several different levels. For starters, we are associated with the US. We are forced to start from this premise, unless you can offer a way to disengage ourselves from the US. Now this might be a very worthy goal, and I would happily entertain all suggestions as to how we could do so. Throwing the Afghanis to the Taliban wolves does not seem to be such a hot way to start. And any disengagement plans will have to demonstrate that they are not likely to backfire and leave us more subservient to US projects than when we started. And this debate must not the overlook the occasional possibility of affecting or moderating American actions because of association with the US. This ability may be negligible, or may not. In any case it would be lost by a Canadian policy of frank disengagement.

And of course the work Canadian troops are doing in Afghanistan is providing "political support" for the US. The question is, is this the only goal of Canada, or are there other more worthy objectives also connected with Canada's involvement?


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 January 2006 12:05 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I can't believe Canadians debating what's good for the Afghans and what isn't. The White Man's Burden has no place in our society.

By sending troops to Afghanistan without the fig-leaf of self-defence, Canada is guilty of war crimes. It is frightening to witness Canadians who are capable of recognizing war crimes committed by others (U.S. in Iraq), but not when it comes to their own nice government.

Political parties and trade unions incapable of taking a consistent stand on this issue bring shame to us all.

The only comforting thought is that unless Canada withdraws now and condemns all interference in Afghanistan's internal affairs, it will suffer the same humiliating fate as previous colonial aggressors in that country (Brits, Soviets, etc.). Unfortunately it will be on the backs of our misled soldiers and their grieving families.

[ 29 January 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 29 January 2006 12:38 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Unionist, I think you need to read the entire thread, as some of the points you raise have already been addressed. Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is entirely legal under international law. If you have some specific information about Canadian "war crimes" I suggest you offer it to support your foul and unfounded accusations against the Canadian military.
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 29 January 2006 01:35 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Canada's presence in Afghanistan is legal only in the sense that the United Nations has sanctioned it - that is, in the same sense that Canada's presence in Haiti is legal.

That doesn't mean, in either case, that all of Canada's actions in those countries are legal, or that they are incapable of being characterized as war crimes.

The UN approval for NATO's Afghanistan presence came long after the country had been reduced to rubble by the Americans' illegal attack on that country. It was not a retroactive approval of the attack, but a belated attempt to bring some kind of international authority to bear in a situation that had become a humanitarian crisis because of the devastating attack.

It is therefore irrelevant to respond to criticism of Canadian military action in Afghanistan by simply saying our presence there is legal under international law. We are not exempted from codes of morality or from international conventions and laws on the conduct of war, nor from the domestic laws of Afghanistan.
-----
"It is not what a lawyer tells me I may do, but what humanity, reason and justice tell me I ought to do" - Edmund Burke


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
maestro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7842

posted 29 January 2006 03:02 PM      Profile for maestro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by looney:

...For starters, we are associated with the US. We are forced to start from this premise, unless you can offer a way to disengage ourselves from the US. Now this might be a very worthy goal, and I would happily entertain all suggestions as to how we could do so. Throwing the Afghanis to the Taliban wolves does not seem to be such a hot way to start.


You've obviously accepted the propaganda that the Taliban are 'wolves' and the people we deal with are - well what are they, 'not wolves'? Who has done more damage to Afghanistan, the Taliban, or the US? Once you ask the question, the answer is obvious. The Taliban couldn't begin to compete with the terrorism visited on Afghanistan by the US, and as you admit, we are associated with that effort.

quote:
And any disengagement plans will have to demonstrate that they are not likely to backfire and leave us more subservient to US projects than when we started.

And this debate must not the overlook the occasional possibility of affecting or moderating American actions because of association with the US. This ability may be negligible, or may not. In any case it would be lost by a Canadian policy of frank disengagement.


As has been demonstrated amply dozens of times over, the US doesn't have friends, it has interests. That means it matters not one whit what we do, the US will follow their own agenda.

Even this recent little contretemps over the Arctic should tell people all we need to know about the US. Canada elects a government (albeit a minority) which is known to be favourable to US interests, and the first thing their ambassador does is make remarks about Canada not owning the Arctic, putting Harper in a squeeze.

So much for friendship.

quote:
And of course the work Canadian troops are doing in Afghanistan is providing "political support" for the US. The question is, is this the only goal of Canada, or are there other more worthy objectives also connected with Canada's involvement?

You've changed my statement from showing solidarity to political suppport. There is a difference between the two.

As far as other objectives, I too wonder what they are. Certainly they've not been made clear.

We're 'killing bad guys' and 'helping reconstruction', whatever that means. Seems obvious to me that even the language used to describe our 'mission' is deliberately vague.

There is an article which I'd like to post from, but this thread is getting close to the 'tipping point', so I'll start another thread with that article.


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 January 2006 03:35 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by looney:
Unionist, I think you need to read the entire thread, as some of the points you raise have already been addressed. Canada's involvement in Afghanistan is entirely legal under international law. If you have some specific information about Canadian "war crimes" I suggest you offer it to support your foul and unfounded accusations against the Canadian military.

Sorry, I didn't say Canada was in Afghanistan illegally -- I'm not a lawyer and don't grasp those fine points. My judgment was a moral one. Canada should get out, now.

The Soviets (if memory serves) were invited in by some puppet government in the late 1970s. Did that make their intervention "legal"? The U.S. was invited into Viet Nam in the 1960s by some other puppet government. Must have been very comforting to all the Afghanis and Vietnamese who died.

I recall that Canadians died in Korea as part of a U.N.-sanctioned invasion. That invasion was wrong, too -- morally wrong. All those Canadian youth died in vain, for the greater glory of the U.S. Now you've got me for dishonouring our Korean war vets -- ouch!

I make no accusations against our military. I have nothing but respect and empathy for them (except of course for the fanatics like Rick Hillier). Read my post again if you really care about discussion.

My "foul" accusations were against those Canadians who can't see that our own country is perpetrating an injustice. Who resort to pretexts to justify trying to impose a political system on others. Who can see evil when committed by others but are blind to our own. I will condemn such evil for rest of my days.

Unionist


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 29 January 2006 03:44 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Looney,

I took your advice and read the whole thread, and I found an excerpt from one of your posts with which I wholeheartedly agree (even though I have taken it out of context):

"... Canadians, no matter how well-intentioned, will be hated and attacked by the locals and eventually forced to conceed [sic] defeat..."

Like all other burdened white men before them.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 29 January 2006 03:55 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
I recall that Canadians died in Korea as part of a U.N.-sanctioned invasion. That invasion was wrong, too -- morally wrong. All those Canadian youth died in vain, for the greater glory of the U.S.
That's . . . um, an interesting interpretation of history

You haven't, by any chance, studied at Kim Il-Sung University have you?


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 31 January 2006 08:05 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
Looney,

I took your advice and read the whole thread, and I found an excerpt from one of your posts with which I wholeheartedly agree (even though I have taken it out of context):

"... Canadians, no matter how well-intentioned, will be hated and attacked by the locals and eventually forced to conceed [sic] defeat..."

Like all other burdened white men before them.



I wish I could comment on your wit... But hey, you have none.

Now as to people hating us... Not at all the reaction I get from Afghanis. So you must be talking about the Taliban and aQ. If they hate me, too bad, they'll get over it or do something really stupid.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca