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

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » international peace movement   » Canada's War Drive in Afghanistan: A challenge to the anti-war movement in Canada

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Canada's War Drive in Afghanistan: A challenge to the anti-war movement in Canada
Ivan Drury
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9935

posted 30 September 2005 06:53 AM      Profile for Ivan Drury   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
-----------------------
From:
Fire This Time newspaper
Issue #26-27
Sept/Oct 2005
www.firethistime.net
-----------------------

Canada's Occupation of Afghanistan:

A Challenge to the Anti-War Movement in Canada


By Ivan Drury

It's already old news that never made the front page: Canada has begun its war drive in Afghanistan.

When Canadian Chief of Defense Staff, General Rick Hillier made his July 14th announcement that 2 Thousand more Canadian troops will be sent to Afghanistan to "kill" "scumbags" and "murderers," Canada had already popped the cork on the third anniversary of the occupation of Afghanistan with a new "National Defense" plan, the first in 20 years, a doubled military budget reaching $24Billion in two years, and a new goal of an 8 Thousand soldier addition to the military. Hillier's statement was greeted with nods of approval by every single major political party in Canada, and, for the most part, the leadership of the anti-war movement said, "I gotta go to the bathroom," and skipped out on voting for or against either way.

Hillier's statements were not isolated ramblings of a racist phantom of the House of Commons who had slipped out of his attic prison long enough to hold a press conference and give the government a black eye. He is the head of the Canadian military and in his words we can glimpse the plans of future wars that his unanimous parliamentarian backers were not so bold as to share with the majority of people in Canada. It is here that the anti-war movement in Canada finds its real work, and the groups that head up this movement better prepare for a lot of overtime. In issue #25 of Fire This Time, we proposed, for this task, taking up a call for an Independent Public Inquiry into the Canadian war drive in Afghanistan. Here, we will investigate this question further.

The purpose of an Independent Public Inquiry into Canada's Afghanistan affair is simple: It is to build an effective anti-war movement in Canada against Canadian imperialism. The announced deployment of troops to Afghanistan has been shrouded in secrecy, and there is a desperate need for an investigation to be conducted into exactly how and why this war drive has been started unanimously by the government of Canada. Beyond this, the Canadian occupation of Afghanistan and the Canadian war drive will have a terrible impact on the lives and rights of every single working and poor person in Canada.

At the same time, the Canadian war drive in Afghanistan presents an opportunity to build the effective anti-war movement so badly needed for working and poor people to face this crisis. In order for working and poor people in Canada to mobilize against the Canadian war drive we all must first understand that it is in our interest to take on this struggle. People in Canada must stand united against Canadian imperialism. Currently, there is a vast gap between what must be and what is. We call for an Independent Public Inquiry to bridge this gap.

Problems with the anti-war movement in Canada and the difference between the anti-war movement in the US and in Canada

It is true that the occupations of Afghanistan, Iraq and Haiti were, for the most part, "Made in the USA." Because of this, the effects of the occupations of Afghanistan, Iraq and Haiti have been felt most deeply, first by the people of Afghanistan, Iraq and Haiti themselves for obvious reasons, and second, by people in the US. The conditions of poverty and desperation that have accompanied the US war drive into the US itself are nudging up and getting familiar with poor and working people in Canada as well.

Increasingly, people in the US (and the UK) are seeing things from the same perspective as people in Afghanistan and Iraq: that the imperialist ruling class is their enemy. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the imperialists run the show thanks to the power of their occupying armies. In the US, they operate through police forces, offices and congress directly. The difference is that this direct rule is carried out with the "consent" of people in the US. Hurricane Katrina and the disaster in New Orleans unearthed a lot of questions about the meaning of this "consent" and the question of whose interests the US Government really represent, but the lack of representation in the US Government for working and poor people in the US has always been clear. The numbers of those living in deep poverty in the US has increased by more than 1.5million families since 2000. Forty-five million people in the US live without Medicare. Full unemployment in the US sits at around 5.5%, but that number doesn't tell the whole story when you consider that of the nearly 24million people over the age of 17 who live in poverty in the US, 88% of them work full time, year round. The war and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has not improved the lives of the vast majority of people in the US in any way - actually quite the opposite.

On top of this, since the invasion of Afghanistan and then Iraq, the US ruling class has used the "war on terror" to justify massive attacks on the democratic rights of immigrants, refugees, non-status people, women and all working people in the US. It is increasingly difficult for people in the US to accept that the occupation of Iraq is in their interest, let alone worth sacrificing the lives of 2,000 young people who have been recruited out of poverty into the army… or the lives of upwards of 150,000 Iraqis.

The result of the connections between the war in Afghanistan, Iraq and Haiti and the conditions for working and poor people in the US has resulted in a widespread anti-war sentiment, the emergence of symbols of the 'regular American' against the war like Cindy Sheehan and the sharp decline of approval ratings for the biggest symbol of the US war drive - President George W. Bush.

Obstacles to building an effective anti-war movement in Canada

From the beginning, the anti-war movement in the US has confronted home-country imperialism directly, whether different political tendencies in the movement wanted to or not; there is no escaping it. However, in Canada, the problems of building an effective anti-war movement have been even more complicated than in the US. Since the first major anti-war demonstrations of the era, November 17th 2002, the focus has been on the US war drive, and for the most part, Canadian imperialism has been overlooked, sidelined, or denied.

The main obstacle facing the development of an effective anti-war movement in Canada is that working and poor people in Canada are disoriented over the question of whose rights the government of Canada represent. By and large working people in Canada are confused about the power base of the government of Canada and about the relationship between Canada and the US. This confusion takes shape in the confused brand of Canadian nationalism so common in the anti-war movement and amongst millions of working people in Canada. These (mostly well-meaning) people state, without ever being completely convinced, that Canada is basically good, and the US is basically bad; and they search constantly for proof of this conclusion after it has already been made. So where does this idea come from?

The root of this confusion is itself the other major obstacle to the building of an independent anti-war movement in Canada, as well as any other movement for social justice and real change. Canadian Nationalism is promoted directly from the mouths of the major leaders of working and poor people in Canada. They say that they want to protect "Canadian sovereignty" against the US and they never explain that this sovereignty means the suppression of the rights of Indigenous people and the Quebecois. They certainly never outline how the "sovereignty" of this imperialist country depends upon and demands the routine theft of the products and wealth produced through the labour of every single worker in Canada by the rich classes or the invasion and occupation of oppressed nations like Afghanistan and Haiti.

The Government of Canada is the enemy of working people at home and abroad

The government of Canada is the executive management body of the ruling class of Canada. The governmental actions, policies and laws that have brought the Canadian war drive and occupation of Afghanistan will not contradict the attacks on unions and workers by Telus, Sodexho, Teck-Cominco and so many other capitalist businesses across Canada. In fact, it is the symmetry of these simultaneous attacks that we refer to when we say, "Stop the war at home and abroad!"

Within Canada itself, from coast to coast, after the federal government neatly offloaded social services locally, all social programs have come under the knife by reactionary provincial governments. The Liberal government in BC is a perfect example, but the same could be said for Alberta, Ontario, Newfoundland, and even Quebec. Social Housing, welfare, Women's centres, Legal Aid; one by one they have been cut back or eliminated. Then on a federal and provincial level, the attacks began on first the public and then private sector unions. The Hospital Employees Union, the Telecommunication Workers Union, Canadian Media Guild have all gone on strike for what? Against contracting out. For the protection of union jobs. Basically, for the right of the unions to exist and represent the workers at all. At the same time, the democratic rights of the most vulnerable people in Canada have been crushed like a rib cage beneath the treads of a bulldozer. Security certificates, secret trials, the new immigration and refugee protection act, the safe third country agreement; all aimed at the rights of immigrants, refugees and non-status people.

Some of these domestic attacks have come under criticism from some of the major political parties, like the NDP, but these criticisms have always been a matter of degree: "Too deep" / "Too much" / "Too fast" etc… The Canadian war drive in Afghanistan was not even subjected to that sort of token criticism. The doubling of the Canadian military budget, the new "International Policy Statement" released in May of this year that laid out a policy of "advancing Canada's position" on the world stage beyond it's historic "middle power status", the planned addition of 5,000 new fulltime and 3,000 new reserve soldiers to the Canadian army, and the deployment of 2,000 more troops to Afghanistan; all carried through without a dissenting vote or even a public show of "consultation."

The more severe the economic cancer, the more deeply the surgical knife of the ruling class must cut into the flesh of working people to extract power and profit. The National Bank of Canada and the chief economist-doctors of all the powerful countries in the world have diagnosed this current economic crisis as malignant and potentially fatal. The ruling class and their governments in Canada, the US and every imperialist country in the world have prescribed the painful blood-letting of working, poor and oppressed people in Afghanistan and in Canada as remedy.

To make matters worse, these are the remedies of a dark ages alchemist. None of the suffering these 'solutions' have caused, or will cause, will stop the growth of the economic cancer. For all the schooling and think-tank institutions of the government of Canada, they have misdiagnosed the source of the disease. They themselves are the cancer that is bringing war, occupation, death, destruction and suffering to the majority of the people in the world.

To destroy this cancer is the job of working and poor people in Canada and throughout the world. But before that is possible, we must overcome the barriers to building an effective movement for the rights and lives of working and poor people internationally, independent of the government and ruling class in Canada. The nationalist ideology of "Canadian sovereignty" blocks the necessary understanding of the government of Canada as being just as opposed to the interests of working and poor people in Canada as the government of the US is. Canadian nationalism tells working people in Canada that the ruling class is "on your side" and the Afghan people are "scumbags," "murderers" and "terrorists," who "detest our freedoms, they detest our society, they detest our liberties." (Gen. Hillier, July 14) Nothing could be further from the truth. Canadian nationalism also blocks the necessary understanding of the Canadian troop deployment to Afghanistan for what it is: the beginning of the Canadian war drive.

Why an Independent Public Inquiry into the Canadian war drive in Afghanistan?

First: We maintain that the most important struggle of the anti-war movement in Canada is against Canadian-home-country-imperialism. It is through the demands of "Canada out of Afghanistan," "Canada out of Haiti," and "Self Determination for Indigenous Nations in Canada" that the anti-war movement in Canada can make its most effective contribution to the international struggle against war and occupation and for the self determination of all oppressed nations. This is just as true as that the anti-war movement in the US can be most effective in fighting against US imperialism. A victory against the Canadian occupation of Afghanistan would put all oppressed people fighting for self determination in a better position against imperialism. At the same time, a struggle for the right of oppressed nations to self determination furthers the struggles of working, poor and oppressed people within Canada for self determination for Indigenous Nations in Canada and for Quebec and for social justice.

Second: Because their war drive is their central campaign to "further" Canadian-imperialist interests on the "world stage," the Canadian war drive has been launched as a unanimous campaign of the Canadian ruling class that was passed through the so-called "democratic" parliament in secret. Is it probable that if they had debated it in public and even engaged in "consultations" across the country that they would have rammed their war drive through anyway? Yes. But if they had made their occupation of Afghanistan and their war drive an issue in Canada, then they would have made the work of the anti-war movement much easier. That is, they would have risked their bombs igniting, along with the remaining homes of people in Kandahar, Afghanistan, the opposition of working, poor and oppressed people in Canada against them.

This requires an equally unanimous campaign by working and poor people in Canada against this war drive. To do this, the anti-war movement has to correct the deep misunderstanding that exists about Canada as a "peacekeeping" country; that "Canada's sovereignty" is at risk from the US, and so on. A rigorous education campaign must be undertaken by the anti-war movement to overcome the lies that the US is the only problem in the world or that the wars and occupations that plague humanity can be attributed all to the bad character of one or two men, like Bush and Cheney.

An Independent Public Inquiry into the Canadian war drive in Afghanistan would not be a solution to the problem of the occupation or the war at home and abroad, but it would provide a necessary starting point. It is necessary to educate working people across Canada about the occupation, and to do this it is necessary to make the occupation of Afghanistan into a major issue for Canada - like Iraq for the US. To make it an issue, it is necessary to bring together all people and organizations against war and occupation into a united campaign to ask the questions demanded by the new Canadian war drive:

Why was the decision to send 2,000 more Canadian troops passed through parliament without public consultation?

Why are 25Billion tax dollars annually, and currently $47Million a day, being turned over to the Canadian military while the government cuts social programs?

Who decides how tax dollars are spent in Canada?

Is the occupation of Afghanistan legal? According to who?

Although slow to respond, some elements of the leadership of the anti-war movement in Canada is beginning to ask these questions. The "Canadian Peace Alliance," the country-wide network of the largely NDP-supporting anti-war movement, has released the program for their annual conference this November and its main theme is, "Canada's role in empire… and how the movement can stop it." This may be the positive sign of the beginning of a polarization within the NDP, between the rank and file and the leadership that has pulled too far to the right for the working membership to follow any farther.

Through the call for an Independent Public Inquiry into the Canadian war drive in Afghanistan, all these millions of people who dream of real, revolutionary change could come together against this central campaign of the Canadian ruling class. An Independent Public Inquiry take advantage of the Canadian war drive in Afghanistan to expose the government of Canada as anti-democratic war mongers and could build the movement needed to fill the howling vacuum heard by millions of working, poor and oppressed people in Canada over the question of ""But what can I do?"

The Canadian war drive that begins in Afghanistan comes as a tragedy for the Afghan people who continue to struggle against the occupation of their country, for their self determination and as a crisis for the millions of people in Canada who demand money for housing, health care, social services, and education, not war and occupation. But we cannot afford to miss the opportunity embedded in this tragedy. The Canadian war drive also comes as a challenge to the anti-war movement in Canada; it is a challenge is to act.

CANADA OUT OF AFGHANISTAN!

STOP THE CANADIAN WAR DRIVE!

CALL FOR AN INDEPENDENT PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO THE CANADIAN OCCUPATION OF AFGHANISTAN!


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 30 September 2005 07:56 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've said in these forums a couple of times in the past that Canada's priority has to be our homeless and poor. I stand by those comments. I think it's insane to be thinking about now spending billions more on the military when we have poor and homeless in our midst. Why are our troops used to support US imperialism?

PS: The troops need to be re-directed to peace and development initiatives as well as defence at home including the north and offshore. If the govt. insists on throwing new money at the military, I'd love to then see one branch of the military dedicated to something along the lines of Houses for Humanity or rebuilding infrastructure, directed at the homeless and extreme poor, nationwide, and more involved in assisting at home during natural emergencies. First thing that needs to be done: fire that gung-ho hawk Hillier.

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 30 September 2005 10:08 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
Ridiculous.

I've said it before, but I might as well waste my time saying it again - Canada's contribution is bringing real aid and assistance to the Afghan people. Our soldiers are rebuilding infrastructure, helping in the removal of mines, providing security, and yes, a small number are attached to U.S. efforts to hunt down and killing/capturing terrorists who threaten the peace and the people of Afghanistan.

To end Canada's "campaign to "further" Canadian-imperialist interests" ( ) would only condemn the people of Afghanistan to the deprivation and violence they have suffered through for more than a decade.

Imagine if in 1994 if we or the U.S. had gotten our act together and sent 2,000 or more troops to Rwanda. I bet we would have had to listen to paranoid ramblings as completely diconnected from reality as these calling for an end to "Canadian imperialism" in Central Africa.

Selfish isolationists are the enemies of working people abroad, to paraphrase Ivan here.

[ 30 September 2005: 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
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 30 September 2005 10:29 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
General Rick Hillier made his July 14th announcement that 2 Thousand more Canadian troops will be sent to Afghanistan to "kill" "scumbags" and "murderers,"

I don't see anything there about infrastructure.

Afghanistan would not be in the mess it is in if it were not for imperialist manipulation. Western money funded the Taliban and Osama bin Laden. We should get the fuck out before we do more damage.

And when do we take responsibility for our actions and begin paying reparations. If we gave the Aghan people just a fraction of the money we poured into their country to kill them, they would be well on their way to recovery.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 30 September 2005 10:38 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
I don't see anything there about infrastructure.
I don't see anything about how killing "scumbags" and "murderers" will be our only mission there, either.

Hillier made those comments to make Canadians aware that our troops will be going into combat, and that casualties are a very real possibility.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 30 September 2005 10:42 AM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, combat against people who are not soldiers and not arrested nor convicted of any crime.

Would you agree that a relative or friend of an Afghani killed by Canadian forces would then be justified to hunt and kill Canadians? Keeping in mind, the Afghanis being killed have not harmed any Canadians.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 30 September 2005 11:15 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Yes, combat against people who are not soldiers and not arrested nor convicted of any crime.
Again, you do realise that these people are armed and pose a very real threat, right? No, they're not a part of an organised army but we're not killing unarmed individuals here.
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Keeping in mind, the Afghanis being killed have not harmed any Canadians.
Oh, so we're only supposed to act when they hurt us, and stand aside and do nothing as long as they're only killing other Afghans. To think that you accused me of racism

From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 30 September 2005 12:34 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Again, you do realise that these people are armed and pose a very real threat,

Aren't the Canadians armed and posing a threat to Afghanis?

quote:
Oh, so we're only supposed to act when they hurt us, and stand aside and do nothing as long as they're only killing other Afghans. To think that you accused me of racism

They would never have been killing each other if we didn't arm them and incite them.

And I think a value system that will allow Westerners to invade, occupy and govern another state and then call their resistance terrorism while calling our own politically inspired violence legitimate is inherently racist, yes.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 30 September 2005 12:46 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Aren't the Canadians armed and posing a threat to Afghanis?
No, Canadian soldiers are not indiscriminately murdering civilians . . . unlike certain groups in Afghanistan.
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
They would never have been killing each other if we didn't arm them and incite them.
Quick! To the time machine!

The Taliban was oppressing and murdering Afghan civilians throughout the 1990's, is that acceptable? Before them, the Soviets were killing Afghans by the hundreds of thousands, was that acceptable? Because arming them to fight back may have been a little short-sighted doesn't mean something can't be done about it today.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 30 September 2005 01:05 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
Read an interesting article in the Georgia Strait this morning about the troubles that the Mobilazation against war and occupation group (mawao) is having convincing Afghanis in Vancouver to sign their petitions to bring the troops home. There were several Afghan expats quoted in the article basically mocking the group, and claiming that 99% of Afghanis in the city support the Canadian troops being in Afghanistan and oppose the Iraq adventure at the same time.

Where are the Afghan voices demanding Canadian troops get out of Afghanistan immediately? Or did they elect Wingnut to speak on their behalf?

Here's the article

Afghan Expats pro-troops

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: worker_drone ]


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 30 September 2005 01:47 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The Taliban was oppressing and murdering Afghan civilians throughout the 1990's, is that acceptable? Before them, the Soviets were killing Afghans by the hundreds of thousands, was that acceptable? Because arming them to fight back may have been a little short-sighted doesn't mean something can't be done about it today.

A selective history. Women are still being oppressed in Afghanistan only now the oppressors are your allies. And they were before when we armed and allowed the ongoing slaughter of Afghanis.

But what is a thousands of Afghani lives to you? Now that we are there killing them directly, we can say it is okay because we are doing it to stop them from killing themselves. You are sick.

By your twisted logic, they have every right to come here and kill us. But that would be terrorism, right? Hypocrite.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 30 September 2005 02:32 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:

Because arming them to fight back may have been a little short-sighted doesn't mean something can't be done about it today.

A little short-sighted ?. My gawd!. You forgot to add that the Soviet-backed PDPA had support in urban areas. After the Soviets left, the PDPA held-out against the mujihaden for another two years and defeating the CIA-backed mujihaden at Jalalabad. Afghanistan may have been the first war/civil war of the last century that centred around women's issues. Afghanistan is a great tragedy, and the ultra-right is to blame as per usual.

Change the world
Change life


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 30 September 2005 02:46 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
If we gave the Aghan people just a fraction of the money we poured into their country to kill them, they would be well on their way to recovery.

Ah, so giving them money is the answer.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 30 September 2005 03:06 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is preferable to shrapnel in their bodies.
From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 30 September 2005 03:23 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The right never actually want to contribute to the buildup of a nation, only to bomb it back into the stone age. VietNam was another example. Not one thin dime from the States went toward reparations. The military industrial complex doesn't get taxpayer handouts for nation building, only death and destruction. It's about repressing whole nations of people and preventing social democracy, which is essentially what the world is asking for. We'd never know this though from all the b.s in our newspapers and weak politicians.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 30 September 2005 04:04 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
The Taliban was oppressing and murdering Afghan civilians throughout the 1990's, is that acceptable? Before them, the Soviets were killing Afghans by the hundreds of thousands, was that acceptable? Because arming them to fight back may have been a little short-sighted doesn't mean something can't be done about it today.

The various wars in Afghanistan have been mostly proxy fights between the US and the Soviets.

What can we do now? Certainly the first thing we could do is to get out and leave them alone. Then we could try to persuade, or shame, our allies to get out. After that, we let them get on with rebuilding in their own way. If they ask for help at rebuilding, we should help. If all some puppet government wants is soldiers and weapons, we should stay clear.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 30 September 2005 04:25 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
The right never actually want to contribute to the buildup of a nation, only to bomb it back into the stone age. VietNam was another example. Not one thin dime from the States went toward reparations. The military industrial complex doesn't get taxpayer handouts for nation building, only death and destruction. It's about repressing whole nations of people and preventing social democracy, which is essentially what the world is asking for. We'd never know this though from all the b.s in our newspapers and weak politicians.

In some cases sure... But not where us Canadians are involved. A vast ammount of our resources in Afghanistan are geared towards the reconstruction effort, either directly (building schools and roads) or indirectly (hunting the terrorists that would stop the building of schools and roads).


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

posted 30 September 2005 04:34 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by worker_drone:
Read an interesting article in the Georgia Strait this morning about the troubles that the Mobilazation against war and occupation group (mawao) is having convincing Afghanis in Vancouver to sign their petitions to bring the troops home. There were several Afghan expats quoted in the article basically mocking the group, and claiming that 99% of Afghanis in the city support the Canadian troops being in Afghanistan and oppose the Iraq adventure at the same time.

Where are the Afghan voices demanding Canadian troops get out of Afghanistan immediately? Or did they elect Wingnut to speak on their behalf?

Here's the article

Afghan Expats pro-troops

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: worker_drone ]



Thanks for the link Worker... It is a very interesting article. Seems Canadians want us out of Afghanistan, and yet, Afghanis want us to stay... hmmm.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 30 September 2005 04:40 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:

In some cases sure... But not where us Canadians are involved. A vast ammount of our resources in Afghanistan are geared towards the reconstruction effort, either directly (building schools and roads) or indirectly (hunting the terrorists that would stop the building of schools and roads).


So essentially, we've taken over from where the Soviets left off - building hospitals and schools and roads while our soldiers dodge sniper fire from the hills. Great.

Meanwhile, the Bush admin has given the Taliban tens of millions of dollars since 2001 for opium crop "destruction." It's been said that drug traficking from Afghanistan has resulted in cash flows to Wall Street and US banks to the tune of $250-$300 billion a year. Hmmm I wonder what the CIA(dope delivery service, really) knows what's happening with the money.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 30 September 2005 04:52 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

So essentially, we've taken over from where the Soviets left off - building hospitals and schools and roads while our soldiers dodge sniper fire from the hills. Great.

Meanwhile, the Bush admin has given the Taliban tens of millions of dollars since 2001 for opium crop "destruction." It's been said that drug traficking from Afghanistan has resulted in cash flows to Wall Street and US banks to the tune of $250-$300 billion a year. Hmmm I wonder what the CIA(dope delivery service, really) knows what's happening with the money.



The Taliban administration is gone now... Having said this, yes, opium production is currently up in Afghanistan. This is a part of the fight. Not all of the weapons in that fight though kill main and destroy. The trick of that particular question, how do you convince a farmer to turn away from poppies when they are so profitable and easy to grow in comparison to other crops.

My suggestion is pharma should take a stake in that one. Maintain the poppy fields, but instead of opium, make morphine and codine. I cringe at pharma stepping in (don't trust the drug companies at all), but I can not think of a better idea that would allow the common Afghan farmer to make a sustainable living in place of poppies.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 30 September 2005 06:03 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That almost sounds like a big sugar argument though. Whenever sugar companies want to justify the price of sugar, they trot out some small farmer infront of congress with a sob story about barely scraping by. It works every time.

But surely there must be some other crops that need producing in Afghanistan?. By what I've read, the Soviets were interrupted in the process of redistributing rich "farmland" held by mujihaden tribesmen and warlords to peasant farmers. Is that same plan still on the agenda in Kabul?.

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 30 September 2005 06:26 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Imagine if in 1994 if we or the U.S. had gotten our act together and sent 2,000 or more troops to Rwanda. I bet we would have had to listen to paranoid ramblings as completely diconnected from reality as these calling for an end to "Canadian imperialism" in Central Africa.

Canadian soldier Romeo Dallaire was in charge of the UN mission, and he talks about that in his book "Shake Hands With The Devil." One crucial difference about Rwanda is that Rwanda had actually asked the UN to come in and monitor a ceasefire. There was no intervention in Rwanda because there were no resources to be gained so no one was interested in helping out. Military interventions are very expensive, and they generally aren't done unless there's some reward for that particular military in the end.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 30 September 2005 07:07 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
That almost sounds like a big sugar argument though. Whenever sugar companies want to justify the price of sugar, they trot out some small farmer infront of congress with a sob story about barely scraping by. It works every time.

But surely there must be some other crops that need producing in Afghanistan?. By what I've read, the Soviets were interrupted in the process of redistributing rich "farmland" held by mujihaden tribesmen and warlords to peasant farmers. Is that same plan still on the agenda in Kabul?.

[ 30 September 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]



It is sad but true... The poppy is the easiest and most profitable crop. Don't get me wrong, the world could do with alot more wheat, and other grains... Cattle too. You are right about the big sugar thing. The point I was trying to make is we can not just burn the crops and imprison the farmers... That would be the absolute wrong approach. We need to find a replacement function for the opiates, or replacement crops.

As for the agenda, I am not aware of redistrution of lands. I would think that is an issue for the Afghan government if it even is on the agenda. I mean after the past couple of decades, who is really in a postition to redistribute anything?


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

posted 30 September 2005 07:11 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

Canadian soldier Romeo Dallaire was in charge of the UN mission, and he talks about that in his book "Shake Hands With The Devil." One crucial difference about Rwanda is that Rwanda had actually asked the UN to come in and monitor a ceasefire. There was no intervention in Rwanda because there were no resources to be gained so no one was interested in helping out. Military interventions are very expensive, and they generally aren't done unless there's some reward for that particular military in the end.



Rawanda is the cornerstone of my arguement that Canada should step aside from UN "peacekeeping". We wanted to do something in Rawanda, however, Canada's resources were stretched far too thin to be effective. Further, we have/had zero lift capability to get in there with a meaningful force (read 1,000's of troops).

The UN must be reformed. We took a couple of baby steps, however, the partisan bullshit that occured to allow the genocide in Rawanda to occur is still firmly in place.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 30 September 2005 10:55 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
The UN must be reformed. We took a couple of baby steps, however, the partisan bullshit that occured to allow the genocide in Rawanda to occur is still firmly in place.

I can sum up the main problem with the UN in 5 words: Britain, France, Russia, China, America.

I'll shorten that down to 2: Security Council

As long as the Security Council exists and continues to provide authority to nations which stand to benefit from blocking a more just world for everyone, there isn't much the UN can do. The Security Council should be scrapped. Why should any one nation (or group of nations) have veto power over others?


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 30 September 2005 11:08 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
however, the partisan bullshit that occured to allow the genocide in Rawanda to occur is still firmly in place.

That is partisan bullshit. \

The reason the Rwanda genocide occured is becuase nobody, including you, cared.

VanLuke keeps trying to draw attention to an ongoing genocide of Bushmen right now. And where are you? Pretending you care about Rwanda and Afghanis.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
outlandist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10253

posted 01 October 2005 01:20 AM      Profile for outlandist        Edit/Delete Post
Originally posted by Ivan Drury:

"a doubled military budget reaching $24Billion in two years, and a new goal of an 8 Thousand soldier addition to the military."

Any sources for this incredible affront to Canadian sensibilities?

It appears that the folks at Stopwar have expelled Mr.Drury's friends from Fire This Time.


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

posted 01 October 2005 02:20 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by outlandist:
Any sources for this incredible affront to Canadian sensibilities?
I'm not sure about the doubling of the defence budget (didn't the Minister reject that idea a couple of days ago?) but the personnel increase of 8,000 was announced in the Speech from the Throne last spring: 5,000 regular and 3,000 reservist positions.
quote:
It appears that the folks at Stopwar have expelled Mr.Drury's friends from Fire This Time.
Didn't that happen two years ago? What's your point in bringing this up now?

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
outlandist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10253

posted 01 October 2005 02:51 AM      Profile for outlandist        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
Didn't that happen two years ago? What's your point in bringing this up now?

That Mr. Drury is a raving idiot.

I note the thread on billions to the military immediately devolved into bedlam.

With respect,Mr. Spector,I have read the 2004 Queens University School of Policy Studies Report "Canada Without Armed Forces".The site has been moved but I found a more recent study that includes this report.

I have not had a chance to read this study but it will be very informative.

http://www.cda-cdai.ca/pdf/Crisis_Cdn_Sec_Def.pdf


From: ontario | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 01 October 2005 04:53 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

That is partisan bullshit. \

The reason the Rwanda genocide occured is becuase nobody, including you, cared.

VanLuke keeps trying to draw attention to an ongoing genocide of Bushmen right now. And where are you? Pretending you care about Rwanda and Afghanis.


It is a damned shame you are not in front of me for me to break your fucking pompus fucking nose. I do and did care. FUCK YOU.


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

posted 01 October 2005 04:57 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:

I can sum up the main problem with the UN in 5 words: Britain, France, Russia, China, America.

I'll shorten that down to 2: Security Council

As long as the Security Council exists and continues to provide authority to nations which stand to benefit from blocking a more just world for everyone, there isn't much the UN can do. The Security Council should be scrapped. Why should any one nation (or group of nations) have veto power over others?


Agreed whole heartedly. It was the Security Council that Gen Dallaire was supposed to be able to count on. It is the Security Council that was at a dinner party and could give a shit when a General called and said genocide was happening.


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

posted 01 October 2005 11:52 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by worker_drone:
Afghan Expats pro-troops
Ok, this article made my day, thanks a lot
quote:
Canada’s efforts in Afghanistan are part of a military, peacekeeping, and reconstruction mission that involves 36 countries, is authorized by the United Nations, and is welcomed by Afghanistan’s provisional government. The multinational force includes such unlikely imperialist powers as Luxembourg, Latvia, Albania, Switzerland, New Zealand, Azerbaijan, and Iceland.

Naseri says that without the 8,000-strong force, a massive humanitarian crisis would result and Afghanistan’s transition to constitutional democracy would collapse.

. . .

Vancouver Coun. Tim Louis, a high-profile MAWO endorser and keynote speaker at MAWO’s September 24 Vancouver rally, concedes that the withdrawal of the UN–authorized military mission in Afghanistan would mean chaos. “The government would collapse in a matter of days,” he says. Nevertheless, when asked for his view on the Canadian military presence in Afghanistan, Louis replied: “Out now.”

Asked how he squares his contention that Canada is occupying Afghanistan illegally with the fact of several United Nations’ resolutions authorizing the mission since 2001, Louis said: “I don’t have a coherent argument against the fact that the UN has authorized it.…Even if the UN authorized it, it would still be against the rule of law.”


Nice to see something that sums up so perfectly how idiotic this crowd is.

From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 01 October 2005 11:56 AM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is a damned shame you are not in front of me for me to break your fucking pompus fucking nose. I do and did care. FUCK YOU.

Is this the type of little killer we'll be sending off to Afghanistan?

Reason, before I complain to Audra about the threat of violence, I just have to say you are exactly the type of military person that discredits the CF in many people's eyes.

[ 01 October 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 October 2005 12:05 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hinterland:
Reason, before I complain to Audra about the threat of violence...

Threats of violence simply should not be tolerated here. That's just outrageous.


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 October 2005 12:08 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by worker_drone:

Where are the Afghan voices demanding Canadian troops get out of Afghanistan immediately? Or did they elect Wingnut to speak on their behalf?


RAWA, without question the most courageous and effective political organization to have resisted the Taliban through the 1990s (effective in that they got the news out to the rest of the world, often at great cost [ie: their lives] to themselves), have repeatedly called for an end to the American colonial adventure in Afghanistan.

But what would they know? They're only Afghan women who live in Afghanistan.

The people who really know what is good for the women of Afghanistan are great big husky men from the U.S. and Canada. That's who knows how to liberate Afghan women, and of course, that's why they're going to Afghanistan.

Oh, excuse me: I forgot Laura Bush and Cherie Blair. They know all about liberating Afghan women too. They've made expensive commercials on the subject.

[ 01 October 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 October 2005 12:13 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
skdadl, the Taliban would still be firmly in place absent outside intervention.
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 October 2005 12:16 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sven, the Taliban would never have happened "absent" "outside intervention."

[ 01 October 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 October 2005 12:18 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Sven, the Taliban would never have happened "absent" "outside intervention."

[ 01 October 2005: Message edited by: skdadl ]


Given that there was prior intervetion and given the Taliban actually was in power, what would you have done with the Taliban?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 October 2005 12:22 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, since I was watching decades before, I would have been in favour of stopping the Taliban in the first place, eh? And I wouldn't have set up and funded Osama and his troops either, eh?

But would they listen to me? Noooooo.

Sven, it is one thing to recognize sometimes that something must be done.

But it is utter idiocy to respond to that perception by saying, "Well, this is something. Therefore, it is what we must do."

No. What must be done is the right thing, not a repetition of the same horrific crimes against humanity that have been committed by imperialist powers for two centuries in Afghanistan.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 October 2005 12:25 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
What must be done is the right thing, not a repetition of the same horrific crimes against humanity that have been committed by imperialist powers for two centuries in Afghanistan.

That was a non-answer.

Given that the Taliban was in power in 2001, a host to bin Laden and seething caldron of oppression, what would you have done in 2001?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 01 October 2005 12:42 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
I'm good at non-answers too. My nephew once asked me for some advice on whether he should head off a cliff with his mountain bike. He said he had done this before and it had always resulted in injury. I told him the only advice I had was not to do it. He called that a non-answer and asked specifically for advice on what he should do once he had headed of the cliff and in was in mid-air, poised to plummet to the ground. I suggested that at that point, he should learn to fly.

I think the best advice to the Americans on what it should have done to handle the Taliban in 2001 was to get all those Christians down there to pray hard that the Taliban would just disappear into thin air. If they did, and it didn't work, it means God really doesn't love them.

[ 01 October 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 October 2005 12:46 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
what would you have done in 2001?

I would have asked RAWA for advice, and then I would have followed it.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 October 2005 12:47 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
I would have asked RAWA for advice, and then I would have followed it.

And we know what RAWA's advice was then - no war.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 October 2005 12:48 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

I would have asked RAWA for advice, and then I would have followed it.


If that advice had been millitary intervention, would you still have followed it?


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 October 2005 12:49 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
It is a damned shame you are not in front of me for me to break your fucking pompus fucking nose. I do and did care. FUCK YOU.

audra(at)rabble(dot)ca.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 01 October 2005 12:53 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
It is a damned shame you are not in front of me for me to break your fucking pompus fucking nose.

Point of Order:

skdadl, since you're an editor, I have a question for you. Is "fucking pompous fucking nose" grammatically correct? It seems to me that "fucking" is an adjective being used twice to modify the noun nose? I'm horrible with grammar but it just struck me as a redundancy.

Your thoughts?

[ 01 October 2005: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 October 2005 12:54 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 01 October 2005 01:28 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
In Reason's defence, what WingNut said was very insulting.
From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Hinterland
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4014

posted 01 October 2005 01:33 PM      Profile for Hinterland        Edit/Delete Post
I don't think anyone's calling for you to defend anyone, Andrew_Jay. There is no excuse for threats of violence, no matter what the insult.

And personally, I doubt all you fighting keyboarders really care about the well-being of other people.

[ 01 October 2005: Message edited by: Hinterland ]


From: Québec/Ontario | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 01 October 2005 01:33 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, well, on a progressive board, you don't respond to an insult (and it wasn't THAT bad) by talking about breaking someone's nose.

Sorry, not a good enough defence. Sounds like, "Sorry for hitting you honey, but you made me do it when you mouthed off at me" kind of bullshit. Unacceptable.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 01 October 2005 02:28 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is a very interesting article. Seems Canadians want us out of Afghanistan, and yet, Afghanis want us to stay... hmmm.

But those Afghans don't LIVE in Afghanistan! Hmmm.

Let's face it. Some Afghans don't want Canadians/Americans there. Others do.

I believe that foreign occupation and assistance soon turns sour in third world countries. I expect the Afghan resistance to grow until we are basically fighting the whole population.

Killing rebels in a tribal society like Afghnaistan creates more rebels. They defeated the Soviet Union, a nearby neighbour. Canada nd the US have ten-thousand mile supply lines and, in contrast to the Soviet Union, minimal ethnic or religious associations with Afghanistan. (The northern third of Afghanistan is populated by Tadzhiks, for example, who also live in Soviet Tadzhikistan.) We have no similar advantage.

So, I think we'd be smart to get out soon. IOf not, Canadian soldiers will be coming back in body bags on a regular basis. I won't accept that.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
outlandist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10253

posted 01 October 2005 04:12 PM      Profile for outlandist        Edit/Delete Post
The Khandahar mission is crossing the line between nationbuilding with its associated force protection issues and interference in the internal governance of a sovereign nation.

It is not possible to provide assistance in the form of reconstruction,ie drilling wells,building schools etc and at the same time hunting and possibly killing the relatives of the recipients of the reconstruction.

Though Canada's Right to Protect initiative bit the dust at the UN,Canada still requires a foreign and defense policy that is based on Canadian values.

The mission appears out of character for Canadian involvement and may be the result of the government sucking up to the US for some undisclosed reason.


From: ontario | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 01 October 2005 04:17 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Goodness. I seem to agree with outlandist.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 01 October 2005 04:35 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's what the U.S. generals are now saying about Iraq:

quote:
the generals said the presence of U.S. forces was fueling the insurgency, fostering an undesirable dependency on American troops among the nascent Iraqi armed forces and energizing terrorists across the Middle East.


For all these reasons, they said, a gradual withdrawal of U.S. troops was imperative.


I believe that the time will soon come in Afghanistan, if it has not come already, when the insurgency's power will grow, the longer foreign troops are on Afghan soil.

Bring them home.


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

posted 01 October 2005 04:44 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
Yeah, well, on a progressive board, you don't respond to an insult (and it wasn't THAT bad) by talking about breaking someone's nose.

Sorry, not a good enough defence. Sounds like, "Sorry for hitting you honey, but you made me do it when you mouthed off at me" kind of bullshit. Unacceptable.


It was that bad. That is a line not to be crossed. I do care about what happens and for the idiot Wingnut to insinuate that I do not care on that level, that the preventable murder of over half a million people was meaningless to me.

Well, if you really are that uncaring, I feel soprry for you and all here.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 October 2005 04:44 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is a damned shame you are not in front of me for me to break your fucking pompus fucking nose. I do and did care. FUCK YOU.

See. Only understands violence.

Well before George W. Bush and The Flag Wavers discovered Afghanistan, groups like RAWA were doing everything humanly possible to try and get people like Reason and the other pro-military, right wing nuts on this board to notice.

But they didn't. And why should they? They could gas up their SUV's cheaply while the US negotiated a pipeline.

Rwanda has no oil and no strategic importance so the Flag Wavers couldn't give a shit.

Only when it became clear that Afghanistan would not negitiate a pipeline to Unocals satisfaction, and only after America's boy in Afghanistan -- while hooked to dialysis miraculously functioning in a cave -- attacked the WTC, did the excesses of the Taliban seem to matter to the "I Love A Good War" crowd.

So now we are all offended.

Well there are millions of Africans dying of treatable disease in Africa. There are millions of Africans, including Rwandans, who can';t get treatment for AIDS, there are millions dying over cell phones and chocolate in Central Africa and somewhere else, the Bushmen are facing genocide.

But Afghanistan, where we want a pipeline, is what you care about. Why not demand Canadian forces go to Africa? It is the conservatives and liberals that support policies that keep treatment frm reaching Africans. Will you vote NDP?

Or does your concern extend only as far as the next TV documentary?

I agree with Outlandist also.

To be certain, I support increasing military spending also so long as the spending meets Canadiam criteris, not to be a junior partner in America's imperialist adventures, and the primart role of Canada's military is peacekeeping and defence.

I do not believe that is what we are doing in Afghanistan.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
outlandist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10253

posted 01 October 2005 04:47 PM      Profile for outlandist        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:
Goodness. I seem to agree with outlandist.

very intelligent of you.


From: ontario | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 01 October 2005 04:47 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
[QB]
See. Only understands violence.

[QB]


Honour. Look it up. You have none.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Contrarian
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6477

posted 01 October 2005 04:54 PM      Profile for Contrarian     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Mark Levine's take on how the insurgency in Iraq was encouraged by different groups:
quote:
...At our meeting it was clear that just as President Bush and his advisors underestimated the strength and resolve of the insurgency, al-Dhari and his colleagues miscalculated the willingness of the US both to absorb significant casualties and to inflict a much higher toll on Iraqis in order to remain in the country. But as troublingly evident was the belief of al-Dhari and other Iraqi Sunni leaders' that they could use the foreign jihadis streaming into the country as a tool in their struggle against the United States.

They were dead wrong. Though they share a similar conservative theological orientation to Iraq's Sunni religious leadership, the military and ideological leaders of the foreign jihadis saw Iraq as merely a battle ground in a larger war...

...The stage is set for a long and bloody future for Iraq, and Iraq's religious leaders as well as the Bush Administration must both share the blame


[ 01 October 2005: Message edited by: Contrarian ]


From: pretty far west | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 01 October 2005 05:58 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
To be certain, I support increasing military spending also so long as the spending meets Canadiam criteris, not to be a junior partner in America's imperialist adventures, and the primart role of Canada's military is peacekeeping and defence.

I do not believe that is what we are doing in Afghanistan.


See, that's your problem. You're most bothered by the fact that the U.S. is involved, nothing more. It just galls you to know that the U.S. is doing anything overseas, and your knee-jerk reaction is to reject it, regardless of what evidence and information you have, what's being done, who's taking part, or who is being helped.

If George W. Bush told you that the sky was blue you'd have something to say about it.

I however cannot, in good conscience, argue with the purposes of the Canadian mission over there:

quote:
In its contributions to ISAF and Operation ENDURING FREEDOM, Canada’s overarching goal is to prevent Afghanistan from relapsing into a failed state that gives terrorist and terrorist organizations a safe haven.

Canadian efforts in Afghanistan have significantly contributed to the overall consolidation of peace and the improvement of human security. Canada’s enhanced efforts continue to help improve the quality of life for the Afghan people and help ensure that the progress made is sustainable.



From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 October 2005 06:09 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Honour. Look it up. You have none.

You only think that because you have no idea what it means.

quote:
See, that's your problem. You're most bothered by the fact that the U.S. is involved, nothing more. It just galls you to know that the U.S. is doing anything overseas, and your knee-jerk reaction is to reject it, regardless of what evidence and information you have, what's being done, who's taking part, or who is being helped.


Well, actually, that is part of it. It is part of it because 1) George W. Bush is a proven liar, 2) The US only pursues, ruthlessly, its own (corporate) interests.

But, more important, is that Canada is engaging in a war where the enemy is not afforded the same rights and considerations we would demand for Canadians. That is inherently racist.

As for knee jerk reactions, that would be yours. You conveniently ignore the history of Afghanistan, the role of the west in inflicting misery on these people, and our own role in a war of aggression and occupation because you are so faith driven to support our military no matter what they do, you pretend not to see. I am sure you defended our military's action in Somalia, as well. You are like the three monkeys: see no evil; hear no evil; speak no evil where the military is concerned.

quote:

If George W. Bush told you that the sky was blue you'd have something to say about it.

Not necessarily but I would definitely look up as the man is self-interested, mean spirited, a war criminal and liar.

You on the other hand wouldn't even bother to look up as you would be too busy getting down to kiss his ass.

quote:
I however cannot, in good conscience, argue with the purposes of the Canadian mission over there:

Oh, well, yeah, they say it so it must be true. Why is it all "failed nations" are filled with brown people and either have oil or stand in the way of it?

[ 01 October 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 01 October 2005 07:04 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Wingnut. Your continued speculations without facts mark you for the world class asshole you are.

Do you think, just once you could base an arguement on faacts rather then your usual crap? Or perhaps you could preface with "In my opinion...". I am doing everything I can to not call you a lair, but well.. At the end of the day, it's what you are eh.


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

posted 01 October 2005 07:24 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
You conveniently ignore the history of Afghanistan, the role of the west in inflicting misery on these people, and our own role in a war of aggression and occupation because you are so faith driven to support our military no matter what they do
Acutally, I've mentioned at great length that Afghanistan's tragic history is one major reason why we should be involved in helping the country. You on the other hand like to throw out inaccurate and inflamatory terms like "aggression" and "occupation" in a clear display of your own ignorence.
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
you pretend not to see.
Tell me, please, what exactly is it that I'm supposed to be seeing. You've provided no evidence that Canadian forces are acting as war criminals, or anything at all to support your claims. Just because you get weak in the knees when our military talks about killing people does not mean they're doing something criminal or that they're out there butchering Afghan men, women and children by the thousands, as you'd like us to believe.
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
The US only pursues, ruthlessly, its own interests.
Every nation on earth pursues their own interests, every last one. However, pursuing one's own interest does not necessarily mean screwing over someone else. In this case, Canada's interests are the same as Afghanistan's - to prevent it from becoming a failed state, from descending into violence and chaos or becoming once again a training ground and safe harbour for terrorists.
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
You on the other hand wouldn't even bother to look up as you would be too busy getting down to kiss his ass.
Right, I don't agree with you so the only logical conclusion is that I'm a huge supporter of George W. Bush, your deductive skills are astounding

[ 01 October 2005: 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
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 01 October 2005 07:32 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In this case, Canada's interests are the same as Afghanistan's - to prevent it from becoming a failed state, from descending into violence and chaos or becoming once again a training ground and safe harbour for terrorists.

Obviously, there are lots of places where terrorists can find a safe harbour. I'd say there are twenty countries where Bin Laden can hide out, and rely on Muslim supporters and infrastructure.

So, while I didn't oppose attacking Afghanistan to destroy the infrastructure there, that does not mean that a permanent military presence in Afghanistan is justified.

Slowly but surely, the foreign troops will become a magnet for jihadis, and Afghaniztan's relative stabilization will evaporate.

The legitimacy of the Afghan government depends on its ability to exist without being propped up by foreign armies. Afghans know this, and they won't be kind if Karzai doesn't get them out. He will be deemed a puppet, and rightly so.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 October 2005 07:32 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
not call you a lair,

Call me a lair if you want to, but you're a liar. How do you like that? Tell me, though, what facts have you provided?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 October 2005 07:41 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Acutally, I've mentioned at great length that Afghanistan's tragic history is one major reason why we should be involved in helping the country. You on the other hand like to throw out inaccurate and inflamatory terms like "aggression" and "occupation" in a clear display of your own ignorence.

Please do not use the word ignorance while displaying your own. Canada cannot possibly help the Afghan people by bringing more of what they already have too much of: killing and arms. And representing the US interests that has delivered so much of it.

You argument is akin to saying that we are helping a victim overcome repeated rape by teaching them to enjoy sex.

quote:
You've provided no evidence that Canadian forces are acting as war criminals, or anything at all to support your claims.

Maybe you would like to believe Canadians are butchering Afghans by the thousands but I have never made that claim. Who is the liar?

I do not have to provide evidence for facts not in dispute and Hillier has made it clear that Canadian troops are there to hunt and kill Afghanis. But we are not at war and the so-called "enemy" has no rights as soldier of war. That means we are fighting a civilian enemy who are afforded no rights, no trials, no appeals.

That, in itself, is immoral.

Admit we are at war and provide the "enemy" with the same rights we would demand for Canadian soldiers and take responsibilty for POW's and do not hand them over to the US for torture. In other words behave like an honourable army and then we can discuss the merits of the war.

quote:
Every nation on earth pursues their own interests, every last one. However, pursuing one's own interest does not necessarily mean screwing over someone else.

Canada has no interests in Afghanistan and we are screwing over the Afghanis for the interests of global oil. Your comment is demonstrably false.

quote:
Right, I don't agree with you so the only logical conclusion is that I'm a huge supporter of George W. Bush, your deductive skills are astounding

I applied the same logic you applied to me. Funny you would object to it.

[ 01 October 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 01 October 2005 07:45 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
So, while I didn't oppose attacking Afghanistan to destroy the infrastructure there, that does not mean that a permanent military presence in Afghanistan is justified.
I don't think anyone is talking about a permanent presence - 4 years is a pretty short time span so far, compared to missions such as Cyprus or the rebuilding of Germany and Japan - as they are perhaps in Iraq. However, if we topple a government (the Taliban) that is our enemy, I think there is a moral obligation to put the country back on its feet after doing so.
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:
Slowly but surely, the foreign troops will become a magnet for jihadis, and Afghaniztan's relative stabilization will evaporate.
...
The legitimacy of the Afghan government depends on its ability to exist without being propped up by foreign armies. Afghans know this, and they won't be kind if Karzai doesn't get them out. He will be deemed a puppet, and rightly so.

Possibly more accurate to simply say that Afghanistan's new democracy will become a magnet for jihadis and terrorists - it seems that stabilisation forces are hardly receiving the brunt of the attacks. Karzai's perceived legitimacy, and ability to fight back, is a good question. I think that in the future he (or who ever is in power) and the central government will be able to stand on their own and be accepted by the Afghan people, but not quite yet.

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 01 October 2005 07:52 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
I do not have to provide evidence for facts not in dispute and Hillier has made it clear that Canadian troops are there to hunt and kill Afghanis.
Kind, compasionate, peace-loving Afghanis I'm sure.
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
That means we are fighting a civilian enemy who are afforded no rights, no trials, no appeals.
Yes, "civilian" in the sense that large groups of trained and well-armed men are "civilians". The sensationalism doesn't stop with you, does it?
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Canada has no interests in Afghanistan
I already stated that we do. Explain to me, please, how Afghanistan descending into violence and once again playing hosts to terrorists is OK when it comes to the security of Canadians.

From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 October 2005 07:57 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I already stated that we do. Explain to me, please, how Afghanistan descending into violence and once again playing hosts to terrorists is OK when it comes to the security of Canadians.

Well first, the what you call terrorist were "freedom fighters' only a few years ago. Second, no Afghani has ever attacked Canada, or for that matter, America.

But given the US funded, armed and enabled the "freedom fighters" you now call "terrorists" if Canada's interests are served by reducing global terrorism, our first course of action would be to steer a foreign policy independent of the US and condemn their support of state terror, non-state terror, and their continued sale of small arms to non-state organizations (terrorists) and tyranical regimes throughout the globe.

But of course, that wouldn't make sense to you would it? Becausesurely terror is acceptable when it is supported by the US, eh?


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 01 October 2005 08:17 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
Well first, the what you call terrorist were "freedom fighters' only a few years ago. Second, no Afghani has ever attacked Canada, or for that matter, America.
The U.S. did not fund solely the Taliban, or Bin Laden, but an alliance of several groups. Many of the members of the former "Mujahideen" are part of the government and working for the people of Afghanistan today. Like I said before, arming guerillas to fight the Soviets and then cutting the country lose afterwards was short-sighted and a mistake. But that's neither here nor there - it has nothing to do with the current situation, unless you have in your possession a time machine of somekind.

On the second point, the Taliban knowingly harboured and protected the people who did attack the U.S. (and also killed numerous Canadians), and that's just as bad.


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 01 October 2005 08:19 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

Call me a lair if you want to, but you're a liar. How do you like that? Tell me, though, what facts have you provided?

what facts can I use to dismiss something that never happened?

Tell you what. Here's an alarming fact. You are a fucking idiot. How's that?


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 October 2005 08:33 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Andrew_Jay:

Ah, yes. Do you have any idea why the Taliban (religious students) arose to push out the so-called Mujahadeen who now form parts, large parts, of the government? Because they were terrorising the population and engaging in wide spread rape. That is who the US, and by default Canada, is allying themselves with -- terrorists.

They funded themselves through the opium market. And guess what has made an amazing come back?

What we are ensuirng is continued war and conflict. The best course of action is to get out and support NGO's committed to human rights, peace and justice such as RAWA and put in place with the international community a weapons embargo. Do you know what nation would, and has always, opposed any weapons embargo?

quote:
the Taliban knowingly harboured and protected the people who did attack the U.S. (and also killed numerous Canadians), and that's just as bad.

Yeah, funny that not a single Afghani participated in the attack and the accusers are the same people who invaded Iraq, further fueling global terrorism, telling us they had proof of WMD's, efforts to buy enriched uranium from Nigeria, and ties to Al Qaeda -- all lies. Every allegation a lie.

And funny Afghanistan just happened to be a route for a proposed oil pipe-line.

Have you ever seen the direct evidence linking anyone in Afghanistan with 9/11?

I haven't. So you send Canadians to risk their lives and to take lives based on the word of a regime that has no moral concern about killing in the name of a lie?

I think Canadian and Afghan lives are more important than that.

Finally, for the record, I would not really consider Canadian forces to be "death squads." I have more respect for most of our people than that. But I think it is very important that we understand that the very same language we apply to people who believe they are defending their lives and their faith and their country could be just as easily applied to us.

War is terror and terror is war and neither should be acceptable by civilized people except as an absolute last resort. And the one thing that has never been attempted in Afghanistan is peace.

And please do not tell me Canada is there to deliver that. We are not. To deliver peace we separate the warring parties. We do not side with a puppet regime installed by an occupying army.

When we do that, we become just a branch of the occupying army and a tool of the puppet regime.

Anyway, you can have the last word. I am off for a weekend.

[ 01 October 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 01 October 2005 08:36 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Tell you what. Here's an alarming fact. You are a fucking idiot. How's that?

Perhaps. And maybe one day if you study really hard you will reach the high enough to be an idiot too. Until then, try to control your violent impulses.

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 01 October 2005 08:52 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
And the one thing that has never been attempted in Afghanistan is peace.
Not until now, and yet people like you would have us give up and abandon them, again.
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:
And please do not tell me Canada is there to deliver that. We are not. To deliver peace we separate the warring parties. We do not side with a puppet regime installed by an occupying army.
President Karzai and the parliament have been elected by the people of Afghanistan in free and fair elections. For real peace to form in the country the terrorists who would re-assert their brutal tyranny have to be neutralised; your idealistic/naïve/misguided view of the world and our role in it is incompatible with reality.

[ 01 October 2005: 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
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 01 October 2005 08:59 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

Perhaps. And maybe one day if you study really hard you will reach the high enough to be an idiot too. Until then, try to control your violent impulses.

Try thinking before you type. I do care about my job. I do care about my soldiers. I do care about those that could have been saved and were not.

Did you know, that WRT to Rawanda, and entire PL of Belgians were taken hostage? The UN Security Council told Gen Dallaire to do nothing. So he did nothing. The Belgians were murdered. For what? Was it to buy time for reinforcements? Nope, we know that was not it. So the genocide happened. The UN Security Council has blood on it's hands. When in Belgim, you are better off claiming to be American then Canadian, as that loss still affects the national idenity there.

For you to say I did/do not care is about the worst insult you could heap on me. I will take a lot of abuse, but if you think I will sit still and have some fucking armchair wannabe general like you to tell me what I do and do not feel is contemptable.

This board calls itself progressive... I have seen nothing but regressive since I got here. You are not open to discussion, your minds are closed.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 01 October 2005 09:23 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Andrew, you seem to be a little naieve about wars, and you believe that leaders fight wars for noble purposes.

Let's say I'm the leader of a country, and the business groups that backed me could benefit if I invaded another country and propped up a brutal ruler. Maybe they could benefit from access to resources or the selling of arms to the new dictator who would be in place. Now, I'd have to tell the people of my country that I was going to war, as they would be the ones to pay for it. So, I could simply tell them that I'm going in there for the benefit of the business groups and that I simply want to make sure my friends do well. That's one way I could sell the war.

Or, I could tell the country people that their current government was bad and was murdering it's own citizens. I could use PR firms to create an image of a brutal government, which can only be taken down if I intervene to save the poor people of that country. I could also create an image of that country being a threat to my own, and that we have to take it out. Maybe I tell people that the other government is going to attack us, or maybe that it is involved in the drug trade. There are a whole bunch of reasons I could dream up.

In either case, the result is the same in the end. My friends are richer. Now I could either be honest with my country people (second paragraph) or I could lie to them to get them to support me (third paragraph). Which method, being honest or lying, do you suppose would be a more effective means of getting my country's population to support the war?


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
chubbybear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10025

posted 01 October 2005 09:45 PM      Profile for chubbybear        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
skdadl, since you're an editor, I have a question for you. Is "fucking pompous fucking nose" grammatically correct? It seems to me that "fucking" is an adjective being used twice to modify the noun nose? I'm horrible with grammar but it just struck me as a redundancy.
I hope skadl doesn't mind me jumping in for a second, but I think that the first use of "fucking" modifies the adjective 'pompous', thereby distinguishing it from the merely pompous, while the second "fucking" further modifies nose, extending the first adjective, pompous.

From: nowhere | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 01 October 2005 09:48 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Andrew, you seem to be a little naieve about wars . . .
Far from it actually, thank you very much, I am very well aware of how the world of international politics works. One need not jump to conclusions or resort to conspiracy theories in order to have a scrupulous outlook. Really, the "war for oil" nonesense is pretty simple-minded, and resources don't play the role in modern wars that you think they do. While there are always still ulterior motives to be considered (and gaining a foothold in Central Asia to offset China could be a possible objective), but in this case I think they do not play a role.

Really, it's pretty straight forward what happened in Afghanistan: the U.S. was attacked and had to respond. It was politically impossible to do otherwise and - unless we want to get really loony and claim that Bin Laden didn't do it and that the government itself carried it out, or something to that effect - Afghanistan was the only possible target.

Now the U.S. and many, many, other states are on the ground in Afghanistan. Partly because Bin Laden is still on the loose (though probably not in Afghanistan anymore) and partly because there is a need to rebuild the country and ensure that it does not become a safe-haven for terrorists all over again, which would mean that nothing has been accomplished.

[ 01 October 2005: 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
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 01 October 2005 10:00 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Really, the "war for oil" nonesense is pretty simple-minded, and resources don't play the role in modern wars that you think they do. While there are always still ulterior motives to be considered (and gaining a foothold in Central Asia to offset China could be a possible objective), but in this case I think they do not play a role.

Okay, if you don't think modern wars are fought over resource control, what are they fought over?

quote:
Really, it's pretty straight forward what happened in Afghanistan: the U.S. was attacked and had to respond. It was politically impossible to do otherwise and - unless we want to get really loony and claim that Bin Laden didn't do it and that the government itself carried it out, or something to that effect - Afghanistan was the only possible target.

The US was attacked by bin Laden and had connections to Saudi Arabia. I don't remember hearing any tough talk against the Saudis. It could be that the US Administration used 9/11 to justify carrying out pre-existing plans to go to war in Afghanistan.

Bin Laden had been wanted by the US for a long time. It also seems strange that many people beleive that 19 people armed with boxcutters who could easily have been subdued were able to turn 4 commercial jetliners into missiles and that American defences (given how much America spends on defence) were unable to respond. There have long been protocols in place that if an airliner stops communicating with air traffic control and/or goes off course, that the US Air Force is to send fighter jets up to the wayward aircraft in no less than 10 minutes. Yet, the US Air Force response on that day was very slow. Why?

quote:
Partly because Bin Laden is still on the loose

The fact is that bin Laden is worth more to Bush and Blair alive and free than dead or caught. As long as bin Laden is free, Bush and Blair can say, "he's still out there, so we have to catch him." Don't you realise by now that world leaders manipulate global events for their own purposes?

Have you read George Orwell's 1984? IIRC, Orwell used to be a soldier of some sort with the British Empire while occupying India. The book is about a hypothetical government that uses lies and violence to maintain its grip on power.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 01 October 2005 10:21 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
The US was attacked by bin Laden and had connections to Saudi Arabia. I don't remember hearing any tough talk against the Saudis.
Maybe because he wasn't in Saudi Arabia, but Afghanistan. Also, "tough talk" that has the potential to destroy one's economy is not likely to happen.

While keeping Bin Laden out there may very well work to their advantage, they still have to also hunt him and his network and I believe they are. Unfounded cynicism on par with cries of "we have always been at war with Eurasia!", shouldn't be passed off as a well-reasoned outlook on world affairs. I'm not even going to bother addressing your suspicions over the terrorist attacks.

You're talking to a student of political science here, and while I don't claim to know all of the answers, you also need evidence before jumping to conclusions, not suppositions.

quote:
Okay, if you don't think modern wars are fought over resource control, what are they fought over?
I think we can at least agree that the U.S. isn't intending to make Afghanistan the 51st state (or Canada's 11th province), it is still going to be an independent country. Resources are much easier managed through trade and business, not messy wars. Japan may have aimed to win resources in the 1930's, but modern wars have many, many other aims: political influence, coercian, ideology, balance of power, security, etc. Like I said, to say the U.S. went to Afghanistan to steal oil is very, well, naive.

[ 01 October 2005: 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
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 02 October 2005 12:00 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Andrew Jay:

quote:
You're talking to a student of political science here, and while I don't claim to know all of the answers, you also need evidence before jumping to conclusions, not suppositions.

I have a hard time believing that. I'm sure as a political science student you'd learn the techniques that leaders use to stay in power, and would be able to recognise them. I also find it quite naieve that you seem to believe our leaders have our best interests at heart.

And in your post talking about gaining a foothold to hold off China sounds like an implicit admission that wars are fought over resources. Also when you have trade, that requires investments in police and/or military to protect the trade.

The "war for oil 'nonsense'" is simple minded? Here are some facts for you that can easily be checked out:

Fact: Key people in the US administration, including Bush and Cheney, have connections to oil businesses

Fact: Oil prices are rising as people raise concerns about supply

Fact: The Middle East is home to one of the largest oil reserves in the world

Fact: The US is currently at war in the Middle East (unless you can prove me wrong on that one)

Fact: There are other genocides that happen around the world, particularly in Africa, and yet the US is and has been silent on those for a long time.

There are still a few questions I'd like you to answer:

1) If I was leader of a country and I wanted to start a war, should I tell my countrypeople that I have an ulterior motive, or should I try to sell it to them on the basis of it accomplishing some good?

2) How do you explain the fact that the US Air Force failed to respond when the jetliners went off course, considering that had they done so September 11 may very well have been an ordinary day?


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 02 October 2005 05:57 AM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
I think we can at least agree that the U.S. isn't intending to make Afghanistan the 51st state (or Canada's 11th province), it is still going to be an independent country. Resources are much easier managed through trade and business, not messy wars. Japan may have aimed to win resources in the 1930's, but modern wars have many, many other aims: political influence, coercian, ideology, balance of power, security, etc. Like I said, to say the U.S. went to Afghanistan to steal oil is very, well, naive.

[ 01 October 2005: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]




Andrew, its good to learn you’re a student of political science. Please, keep studying.

You have a touching faith in the prevailing establishment narrative re: Afghanistan and seem unable to muster sufficient critical detachment to notice the gaping holes in this rotten fabric of lies.

A few inconsistencies are sufficient to throw the whole happy picture into doubt.
The Americans went into Afghanistan with unseemly haste on the heels of 9/11. The government at the time, the Taliban had provided the terrorist Bin Laden with a safe haven it is true, but that is hardly grounds to go to war; it would have been sufficient to petition the Taliban to surrender him to an appropriate international body – such as the International Court, which, unfortunately, the Americans refuse to join.

Can we doubt that the world’s leading superpower would have had any difficulty pressuring the Taliban into such a course? Indeed, just before the onset of hostilities the then Afghan government started to smell the wind and their position was moving towards accommodation with the United States.

But this wouldn’t have suited Bush’s domestic requirement for some dramatic act of revenge in the wake of 9/11; retributive violence was needed and duly delivered before any threatening peaceful resolutions transpired.

That most of the casualties of that campaign were innocent Afghan civilians seems to have slipped once more out of the discourse here.

That the Taliban were international pariahs there is no question. After a decade or more of calamitious superpower intrigue played across this remote, feudal territory it is not surprising that a backward-looking and violently reactionary regime would come to power there amidst the ruins – much as the Ayatollahs took power in Iran - and the superpowers, principally the Soviets, have much to answer for there.

But this has no bearing on the question. There are, once again, more effective and less brutal means to deal with antisocial regimes than all-out war.

Cut to the present: while Afghanistan was arguably a ‘failed state’ before the American invasion it is most certainly one now. The Taliban at least seem to have managed some control over warlordism, had dramatically reduced the poppy harvest and kept the roads clear of brigands, in the course of rolling the culture back to the good old days of the 12th century.

Now we have a ‘national’ government led by – my goodness! – the former American oil executive Hamid Karzai which after two years seems strangely unable to provide its citizens with even the modicum of security the Taliban managed.
Say, this mightn’t be because Karzai has no real support domestically? That he is perched atop the tottering edifice of a political system IMPOSED on the Afghan people by the invader? An edifice that is more of an afterthought tossed into the cauldron to satisfy international appearances?

His rule is effectively limited to the city limits of Kabul in which he is only able to travel surrounded by big scary ISAF goons. A real man of the people, our Mr.Karzai.

I urge you to sweep aside your credulity and examine this question seriously. Note the lengths the United States went to to install the puppet Chalabi in Iraq; that they failed was not for want of slush money, tampering or election rigging. Address yourself to the actual details of the Jirga that oversaw the election process in Afghanistan, the horsetrading among contending warlords, tribes and factions and the instrumental role the invaders played in that process and you cannot honestly conclude that what you have in Afghanistan in any way resembles a representative democracy, or even a viable precursor to same.

That is not the point of it. The point is to ensure that a sufficiently pro-American regime maintains sufficient security on the ground there for oil interests to continue operating and expanding into the region and American geopolitical dominance of the region in the post-Soviet vacuum is maintained.

All the talk of restoring Afghanistan to anything like sovereign functionality is window-dressing. This is supported by the pitiful amounts of reconstruction aid actually channeled there since the invasion, once again I urge you to research this matter for yourself.

I do not doubt that many committed and intelligent westerners are putting their hearts into improving conditions there and I do not question their sincerity or such incremental progress as they may achieve but this, finally, is irrelevant to the wider analysis.

How is it that after two years Bin Laden remains uncaptured? Its funny because for a while there, getting this arch-baddy dominated the international landscape. What happened? How come no daily updates on The Search for The Evil One? Political expediency gives us our answer.

Canada’s involvement? Tokenism. That we didn’t join Bush for his Iraq adventure was embarrassing and here is a chance to discretely kiss a little butt. It’s politically safe – Canadians know and care as little about Afghanistan as Americans – there is little risk of an escalation scenario among the still fragmented and impoverished remains of this blighted land, little to lose and Uncle Sam brownie points to gain.

One consequence of course is that it frees up some token quantity of American military to go to Iraq and continue spreading the love around there and in that, we are unfortunately complicit in a colonial war, a war of aggression. No amount of good intentions – with respect to those honorable posters from the military in this thread – occlude this ultimate truth, I am afraid.


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 October 2005 07:40 AM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Merowe, that is simply a superb analysis, historical and current, and superbly well written. Felicitations, and thank you.

We must go on weeping for all the Stans, though. New waves of white men who either have genuine naive messiah complexes (see above) or use those as covers are headed towards them, and now, through the Shanghai Co-operative Organization, the Chinese are probably in the Great Game too.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
anne cameron
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8045

posted 02 October 2005 11:47 AM      Profile for anne cameron     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Canadian troops do not belong in Afghanistan. What will be spent to continue the slaughter there should be spent differently. Give that money to RAWA, let them handle the "reconstruction" of the country. You can bang someone on the head for however long you have the energy to continue banging but you aren't going to change their ideas. If they distrust you before you start banging, there is a good chance they will detest you before you stop. If you want to convince someone you mean them well it might be a good idea to start by treating them well. I don't see a whole helluva lot of difference between the Taliban and the Xian radicals in the USA. I like the idea of using an improved and properly equipped Canadian military to improve our rapidly deteriorating infrastructure at home. Canadian presence in Afghanistan will free up US soldiers for Iraq and for the soon-to-happen war with Iran. I have a sinking feeling that Dubya will kick that one off before the end of his term as unelected Prez.
From: tahsis, british columbia | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 02 October 2005 12:31 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why is it we see the myth of declined opium production come up? Yes the Taliban reduced production. At the same time, the world price of opium went up. Profit loss for Afghanistan opium production, exactly zero.

The Taliban were good at playing politics. Almost as good as they were at murdering their own people.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 02 October 2005 01:29 PM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
Why is it we see the myth of declined opium production come up? Yes the Taliban reduced production. At the same time, the world price of opium went up. Profit loss for Afghanistan opium production, exactly zero.

"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.

A 12-member team from the U.N. Drug Control Program spent two weeks searching most of the nation's largest opium-producing areas and found so few poppies that they do not expect any opium to come out of Afghanistan this year.

"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."

http://opioids.com/afghanistan/


The Taliban were good at playing politics. Almost as good as they were at murdering their own people.

Yes, they certainly dealt with the Rocket Scientist George Bush and his Cabinet of Deep Thinkers masterfully, no?


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
outlandist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10253

posted 02 October 2005 01:31 PM      Profile for outlandist        Edit/Delete Post
Skdadl:

and now, through the Shanghai Co-operative Organization, the Chinese are probably in the Great Game too. [end quote]

China has recently launched the first of its new "blue water " frigates. China is developing a navy capable of force projection worldwide.The reason given is to assert its claim to Taiwan and to protect its sea lanes.

China is very involved in oil extraction in Sudan and has troops there to protect its interests.

While not disputing American foreign policy objectives noted by previous posters,I suggest a measure of outrage be reserved for others in "the great game"


From: ontario | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 02 October 2005 01:33 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Merowe:
The government at the time, the Taliban had provided the terrorist Bin Laden with a safe haven it is true, but that is hardly grounds to go to war; it would have been sufficient to petition the Taliban to surrender him to an appropriate international body – such as the International Court, which, unfortunately, the Americans refuse to join.
Funny, the United Nations and the entire international community would disagree with you. Efforts were made to get the Taliban to surrender Bin Laden, and they would not.
quote:
Originally posted by Merowe:
But this wouldn’t have suited Bush’s domestic requirement for some dramatic act of revenge in the wake of 9/11; retributive violence was needed and duly delivered before any threatening peaceful resolutions transpired.
Yes, somekind of action was politically necessary on the part of the U.S. government, that's the unfortunate reality of how people's emotions run. Anything short of an absolute guarantee that Bin Laden would be handed over required war.
quote:
Originally posted by Merowe:
There are, once again, more effective and less brutal means to deal with antisocial regimes than all-out war.
"All-out war" is an extreme exageration. This wasn't a repeat of the Korean War here, or even Vietnam. It is the sad truth that civilians still continue to bear the brunt of wars, but to deny that the Canadian or U.S. armed forces go to great lengths to avoid innocent casualties is false.
quote:
Originally posted by Merowe:
Cut to the present: while Afghanistan was arguably a ‘failed state’ before the American invasion it is most certainly one now . . unable to provide its citizens with even the modicum of security the Taliban managed.
Your "rosey" picture of pre-2001 Afghanistan is innacurate. A civil war was raging between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance, and it was very much a failed state. At least today it has the potential to recover. No, it is not yet as stable as it used to be, but Karzai's government nor the ISAF is about to resort to the sheer repression and violence that created this "security" under the Taliban.
quote:
Originally posted by Merowe:
His rule is effectively limited to the city limits of Kabul in which he is only able to travel surrounded by big scary ISAF goons. A real man of the people, our Mr.Karzai.
He was elected through an internationally monitored vote. To say that he should have to wander around his country without protection in order to prove his popularity is a little much, don't you think?
quote:
Originally posted by Merowe:
One consequence of course is that it frees up some token quantity of American military to go to Iraq
And you could argue that assisting with the Indian Ocean tsunami freed-up Australian troops for Iraq, but that's simply not a good argument against the Canadian presence in Afghanistan
quote:
Originally posted by Merowe:
I do not doubt that many committed and intelligent westerners are putting their hearts into improving conditions there and I do not question their sincerity or such incremental progress as they may achieve but this, finally, is irrelevant to the wider analysis.
Then we should be calling for them to do a better job, to make better progress in rebuilding the country and providing security, not demanding that they pack-up and leave.
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
Why is it we see the myth of declined opium production come up?
And even if they did reduce production, stopping the flow of opiates is not worth the oppression of 20 million people.

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 02 October 2005 01:40 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by outlandist:
Skdadl:


While not disputing American foreign policy objectives noted by previous posters,I suggest a measure of outrage be reserved for others in "the great game"


Um. As you noted yourself, I raised the role of "others" in the Great Game. And believe me, I don't have to keep my outrage in "reserve" -- hourly, I ladle out great dollops of outrage on all the bastards.


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
outlandist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10253

posted 02 October 2005 01:41 PM      Profile for outlandist        Edit/Delete Post
Purely from a Canadian perspective,without comment on American motives or policies,Canada has squandered a 40 year reputation as an unaligned "honest broker".

Canada can do the most with the least by holding the trust of warring factions in failing states.Aligning itself with the self interest of other nations will do nothing to foster that trust.

There will be no resolution to the conflict in Afghanistan while the terrorists have the support,overt or covert,of neighbouring nations.Tribalism transcends national boundaries.The only path to success for the US is to engage the whole region.


From: ontario | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
outlandist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10253

posted 02 October 2005 01:54 PM      Profile for outlandist        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skdadl:

Um. As you noted yourself, I raised the role of "others" in the Great Game. And believe me, I don't have to keep my outrage in "reserve" -- hourly, I ladle out great dollops of outrage on all the bastards.


A general observation,not directed at you personally.

From my understanding,China was heavily involved in suppling weapons for the Afghani resistance to the Soviets.The Americans then reluctantly supplied advanced weaponry to up the ante in the great game.


From: ontario | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Cougyr
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3336

posted 02 October 2005 01:59 PM      Profile for Cougyr     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by outlandist:
Purely from a Canadian perspective,without comment on American motives or policies,Canada has squandered a 40 year reputation as an unaligned "honest broker".

I agree. Our leaders are mis-leading Canadians. Siding with the US in all things is a huge mistake.


From: over the mountain | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 02 October 2005 02:04 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
Well, we're still very selective in what we side with the U.S. on. Of the three major security questions that have arisen from Bush's presidency - Afghanistan, Iraq and ballistic missle defence - we've only co-operated on one.

A point to debate: considering the poor relations between the U.S. and Canada in the past few years, not siding with them on Afghanistan would have been the greater mistake, as the ramifications for the economy would have been huge.


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 02 October 2005 02:46 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Well, we're still very selective in what we side with the U.S. on. Of the three major security questions that have arisen from Bush's presidency - Afghanistan, Iraq and ballistic missle defence - we've only co-operated on one.

A point to debate: considering the poor relations between the U.S. and Canada in the past few years, not siding with them on Afghanistan would have been the greater mistake, as the ramifications for the economy would have been huge.


The reason that US-Canada (and US-World, for that matter) realations are poor is primarily Bush's confrontational attutide towards people and the bulliyng tactics of the administration. Bush said "you are with us or you are with the terrorists." Translation: " if you question our actions you are a terrorist."

Please stop with this "security" nonsense. As a political science student, surely you'd realise that one of the means dictators use to justify their brutal policies is to say that their policies are necessary to keep people safe.

Furthermore, given the low standing of the US in world public opinion right now, if Canada sides with the US on major points of policy, our global reputation will decline.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 02 October 2005 02:51 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Merowe:

"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.

A 12-member team from the U.N. Drug Control Program spent two weeks searching most of the nation's largest opium-producing areas and found so few poppies that they do not expect any opium to come out of Afghanistan this year.

"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."

http://opioids.com/afghanistan/


[qb]The Taliban were good at playing politics. Almost as good as they were at murdering their own people.

Yes, they certainly dealt with the Rocket Scientist George Bush and his Cabinet of Deep Thinkers masterfully, no?[/QB]


quote:

While the US does not receive large quantities of illegal drugs from Asia, historically Burma and Afghanistan have provided the raw materials for much of the world's heroin. In 2000, the US received only about 5% of its heroin from Afghanistan when it was the world's leading opium/heroin producer with 65, 510 hectares of opium cultivation. In 2000, the Taliban, governing Afghanistan at the time, controlled over 96 percent of the area where opium poppy was cultivated. Afghanistan managed to reduce its production levels by 97% from 2000 to a record low of 1,685 hectares in 2001. The Taliban were able to achieve this significant reduction by imposing a ban on poppy cultivation the year prior in July 2000.

Despite the Afghanistan poppy ban, large seizures of opiates originating in Afghanistan continued to be made in Pakistan and other neighboring countries in 2001. This indicated that, despite the poppy ban, drug traffickers were able to draw on stockpiles of opium produced in Afghanistan over the last several years. It is uncertain what stockpiles remain or what cultivation to expect in 2002.


Source

How much of the stockpiles in such a tightly guarded and watched society as Afghanistan at that time did the Taliba know about? We are talking about a society that stoned women to death for working. A society that had more "religious police" then anything else... I would argue, that they knew about all of it, and like any government took their fair share.

The reduction was hollow, as all it did was drive the price of it up world wide, maintaining the profit margins much as OPEC does with gas.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 02 October 2005 02:54 PM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Originally posted by Merowe:
The government at the time, the Taliban had provided the terrorist Bin Laden with a safe haven it is true, but that is hardly grounds to go to war; it would have been sufficient to petition the Taliban to surrender him to an appropriate international body – such as the International Court, which, unfortunately, the Americans refuse to join.

Funny, the United Nations and the entire international community would disagree with you. Efforts were made to get the Taliban to surrender Bin Laden, and they would not.

"On October 14, CNN.com reported President Bush again refused an offer by the Taliban to surrender bin Laden to a third country if the US would produce evidence of his complicity in Operation 911. ("Afganistan pounded in second week of airstrikes.")"

http://www.public-action.com/911/hvideo.html

Or try this one:

How Bush Was Offered Bin Laden and Blew It
http://www.counterpunch.org/cockburn11012004.html

quote:
Originally posted by Merowe:
There are, once again, more effective and less brutal means to deal with antisocial regimes than all-out war.

"All-out war" is an extreme exageration. This wasn't a repeat of the Korean War here, or even Vietnam. It is the sad truth that civilians still continue to bear the brunt of wars, but to deny that the Canadian or U.S. armed forces go to great lengths to avoid innocent casualties is false.


"What causes the documented high level of civilian casualties -- 3,000 - 3,400 [October 7, 2001 thru March 2002] civilian deaths -- in the U.S. air war upon Afghanistan? The explanation is the apparent willingness of U.S. military strategists to fire missiles into and drop bombs upon, heavily populated areas of Afghanistan."

"When U.S. warplanes strafed [with AC-130 gunships] the farming village of Chowkar-Karez, 25 miles north of Kandahar on October 22-23rd,killing at least 93 civilians, a Pentagon official said, "the people there are dead because we wanted them dead." 1. When asked about the Chowkar incident, Rumsfeld replied, "I cannot deal with that particular village."2

...the hollowness of pious pronouncements by Rumsfeld, Rice and the compliant corporate media about the great care taken to minimize collateral damage is clear for all to see. Sultanpur Mosque in Jalalabad was hit by a bomb during prayers, killing 17 people. As neighbors rushed into the rubble to pull out one injured, a second bomb was dropped reportedly killing at least another 120 people [though I have not included this figure in my tally].14

"The Afghan hospital system had collapsed by late October under the bombing onslaught as hospital staff fled for safety.36 Those wounded able to, head off to clinics in Pakistan, while "those too wounded or poor to make the journey have been left to die in their homes in Kandahar" [ibid]. In Kabul's 300 bed children's hospital, supplies ran out and most of the staff fled.37"

http://www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm
A pretty sobering link. You really need to look at.

He was elected through an internationally monitored vote. To say that he should have to wander around his country without protection in order to prove his popularity is a little much, don't you think?

Hm. US-appointed interim president wins Afghan election. Unprecedented!


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 02 October 2005 03:16 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Merowe, thanks again. At the time the assault was happening, some babblers were documenting every strike we could and the horrific cost in Afghan lives. Somewhere buried in the news and politics threads, so much probably remains. But I guess we have to go on repeating ourselves.
From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 02 October 2005 04:20 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
The reason that US-Canada (and US-World, for that matter) realations are poor is primarily Bush's confrontational attutide towards people and the bulliyng tactics of the administration. Bush said "you are with us or you are with the terrorists." Translation: " if you question our actions you are a terrorist."
Yes, he has a very poor and confrontational attitude, but all Canada can do is try and deal with it.
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Please stop with this "security" nonsense.
Regardless of what you think, these are three defense or security related issues, and Canada has only co-operated with one of them. We're hardly siding with them on everything, as some would claim.
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Furthermore, given the low standing of the US in world public opinion right now, if Canada sides with the US on major points of policy, our global reputation will decline.
Again, my question/point of debate still remains - considering Bush's (and much of the U.S. public's) confrontational attitude post September 11th, not co-operating on Afghanistan would have been very damaging to us. The U.S.'s actions against us on trade and immigration control were bad enough, I doubt they'd have done much to open border controls or ease trade, for example, if we didn't extend some assistance of our own.
quote:
Originally posted by Merowe:
A pretty sobering link. You really need to look at.
I am very familiar with the many mistakes and failures (and simple lack of thought) of the war, and can only wish that civilians everywhere did not, still, have to bear the brunt of warfare. That said, it is also an example of the very best that modern military technology is capable of . . . though whether that is worth anything is very debatable.
quote:
Originally posted by Merowe:
On October 14, CNN.com reported President Bush again refused an offer by the Taliban to surrender bin Laden to a third country if the US would produce evidence of his complicity in Operation 911. ("Afganistan pounded in second week of airstrikes.")
Frankly, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that the offer was turned down. like I said, the only politically tenable course of action was an absolute guarantee that the U.S. would receive Bin Laden, sooner rather than later. To spend several months dicking around with second-rate despots like the Taliban - without a guarantee anything would come of it - would not have been possible in the face of public outrage. In the end the evidence has satisfed everyone other than the the aluminium-hat crowd.
quote:
Originally posted by Merowe:
http://www.public-action.com/911/hvideo.html
"Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum"?, "The American Coup 'Etat And The War For Jewish Supremacy"? I'm sorry, try using real sources next time, not this trash.

From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 02 October 2005 06:07 PM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
"Waco Holocaust Electronic Museum"?, "The American Coup 'Etat And The War For Jewish Supremacy"? I'm sorry, try using real sources next time, not this trash.

Hey Mr. Jay,

point taken on the shitty link and I herewith disown it. (Though, come to think of it, Waco was a bit of a gaffe, no?) I was trying with minimal surfing, to confirm my own dim but firm remembrance of the circumstances at the time; in which I retain a clear impression corroborated by other posters here that just before the bombs started falling the Taliban had smelled the wind and were probably starting to come around. I have no doubt that further careful negotiation at this point would have seen Bin Laden expatriated from Afghanistan at the very least.

But it is precisely at this point that the initiative reverts to the Bush administration... and they chose war.

And they will burn in hell for it.

Frankly, it shouldn't be surprising to anyone that the offer was turned down. like I said, the only politically tenable course of action was an absolute guarantee that the U.S. would receive Bin Laden, sooner rather than later. To spend several months dicking around with second-rate despots like the Taliban - without a guarantee anything would come of it - would not have been possible in the face of public outrage. In the end the evidence has satisfed everyone other than the the aluminium-hat crowd.

No, no, of course not. Much better to ship thousands of people halfway around the planet at taxpayer's expense and bomb an entire country to fuck because its political leadership - you know, the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Taliban - had sheltered a Saudi lunatic for a few years. Yeah. Very fair. Very measured. Shining example for the rest of the world.

And when you say 'second rate despots' I guess you mean the Taleban but, dude, take a minute, think it through...(second rate despots...inherited title....patriarchal elite...oil wealth...no demonstrable intellectual gifts...raging narcissism).. are ya with me?

Of course, this particular course of action, which resulted in thousands of innocent fatalities - vaguely reminiscent of....9/11! - which, of course, was an act of TERRORISM - had nothing to do with a new administration of little provenance except a published record of imperial ambition.

UNTHINKABLE!

I am very familiar with the many mistakes and failures (and simple lack of thought) of the war, and can only wish that civilians everywhere did not, still, have to bear the brunt of warfare. That said, it is also an example of the very best that modern military technology is capable of . . . though whether that is worth anything is very debatable.

No, sheltered-young-white-middle-class-North American boy you are NOT 'very familiar with the many mistakes and failures (and simple lack of thought) of the war' for the simple reason that, if you were, you wouldn't talk half the shit that you do. No offence, eh? But that's the truth, I can smell it on you.

[ 02 October 2005: Message edited by: Merowe ]


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 02 October 2005 06:13 PM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 02 October 2005: Message edited by: Merowe ]


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 02 October 2005 07:04 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Merowe:


No, sheltered-young-white-middle-class-North American boy you are NOT 'very familiar with the many mistakes and failures (and simple lack of thought) of the war' for the simple reason that, if you were, you wouldn't talk half the shit that you do. No offence, eh? But that's the truth, I can smell it on you.

[ 02 October 2005: Message edited by: Merowe ]


Nor could you possbily understand Mr Holier then thu. Nice and safe in your Dresden home... Watching Sky news to get an inkling of the world, must be terrifying at times, eh? The danger, why you could throw out your back on the way to the kitchen for a snack.

Your arrogance smacks of asshole. I can smell it on you there Merowe ('course everyone has one... Most of us wipe or otherwise clean ours after using it).


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 02 October 2005 07:35 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Andrew Jay:

quote:
Again, my question/point of debate still remains - considering Bush's (and much of the U.S. public's) confrontational attitude post September 11th, not co-operating on Afghanistan would have been very damaging to us. The U.S.'s actions against us on trade and immigration control were bad enough, I doubt they'd have done much to open border controls or ease trade, for example, if we didn't extend some assistance of our own.

If the trade agreements are structured so that the US can hurt us economically if we don't co-operate, they should be torn up now. If the US is going to retalliate against us economically for not co-operating with them, that is blackmail/bullying, and it shows that the US has no respect for us. If you're being bullied and you just do what the bully asks each time, you send a message to the bully that (s)he can walk all over you.

Furthermore, the US alone has a right to decide what enters into its borders, and there isn't much that other countries can do about it. We can ask the Americans to open the border to whatever we may wish, but that decision is ultimately up to them.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 03 October 2005 12:47 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I am going to take a rare moment, step back, and apologize to Merowe. I have been enlightened as to his past, and I can not question the man's expereince WRT warefare, and the effects on a civilian population, nor the soul of those that witness it.

Though he and I will not likely agree on much, what I read of him will be coloured with his expereince (which is greater then mine and the rest here).

I beg his forgiveness at my blind jab at his expereinces in the real world.

(On a more personal aside, I would truely appreciate learning more on your travels sir)


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

posted 03 October 2005 09:03 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Merowe:
you know, the DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED Taliban
Okay, I missed this earlier. Seriously, you realise that they were nothing of the sort, right? Do you even have a clue about the nature of the regime that was toppled in Afghanistan? No sensible person ever shed a tear over the demise of the Taliban, who were some of the worst of the worst.

From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Merowe
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4020

posted 03 October 2005 11:33 AM      Profile for Merowe     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Okay, I missed this earlier. Seriously, you realise that they were nothing of the sort, right? Do you even have a clue about the nature of the regime that was toppled in Afghanistan? No sensible person ever shed a tear over the demise of the Taliban, who were some of the worst of the worst.

Hm. That was sarcasm, old chap.

Point being, declaring war on an entire country because of the actions of a military dictatorship that seized power out of the wreckage left from the last superpower makeover...well, it's a bit much, you know?


From: Dresden, Germany | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
saskganesh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4203

posted 03 October 2005 01:20 PM      Profile for saskganesh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:

Threats of violence simply should not be tolerated here. That's just outrageous.


neither should slander.


From: regina | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
outlandist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10253

posted 03 October 2005 01:25 PM      Profile for outlandist        Edit/Delete Post
Hundreds and perhaps thousands of injured Army National Guard and Reserve soldiers -- including many severely wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan -- have either lost or risked losing medical care and thousands of dollars in pay for months because a "convoluted" personnel system dropped them from active-duty status, according to a Government Accountability Office report released yesterday

http://www.ngwrc.org/index.cfm?page=Article&ID=1949

Very enlightening article. I wonder what sort of policy Canada has to deal with the requirements of wounded military.from what I have read in the media,stonewalling and denial of responsibility will be in abundance.


From: ontario | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
muggles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10070

posted 03 October 2005 03:08 PM      Profile for muggles        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Andrew Jay wrote:
It is the sad truth that civilians still continue to bear the brunt of wars, but to deny that the Canadian or U.S. armed forces go to great lengths to avoid innocent casualties is false.

When Marowe offered examples of massive civilian casualties in Afghanistan, you barely blinked:
quote:

[I]only wish that civilians everywhere did not, still, have to bear the brunt of warfare. That said, it is also an example of the very best that modern military technology is capable of

Are you aware that Human Rights Watch and others condemned the US for the (illegal) use of cluster bombs in civilian areas of Afghanistan? And do you recall that in the lead-up to the war, various international aid agencies predicted widespread famine as a result-- with estimates as high as 7 million dead? Does this sound like "great lengths to avoid innocent casualties"?

quote:
Andrew Jay again:
He was elected through an internationally monitored vote.


If you're interested in how that vote went down, try this fascinating interview with reporter Christian Parenti, who was there:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=6410
Also Human Rights Watch had some enlightening things to say about the election:
"Amazingly, because of the inadequate forces, current security plans for the presidential election include the use of deputised warlords of factional forces to guard polling stations -- the very people Afghans say they're most afraid of,"
Additionally, there was excellent reportage on US Amb. Khalilzad's bribing and strong-arming candidates opposed to the US favorite (Kharzai). And we wouldn't want to leave out the fact that US forces transported candidate Kharzai all around Afghanistan for his campaign. He was thus able to visit a large swath of the country while his opponents were lucky travel even short distances. (I can find some references on these if you'd like -- mostly print sources though I think). The term puppet goverment is an apt one it seems.

From: Powell River, BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 03 October 2005 04:00 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
It is the sad truth that civilians still continue to bear the brunt of wars, but to deny that the Canadian or U.S. armed forces go to great lengths to avoid innocent casualties is false.

Actually, U.S. statements on this usually make a distinction which the writer has not. Commonly, Secretary Rumsfeld and others say that the US does not TARGET civilians. And I believe that.

But their whole method of waging war from the skies, as well as howitzer bombardment of "suspected terrorist sites" in major cities such as Baghdad, make civilian casualties inevitable on a large scale.

Even their policy at checkpoints (which British military leaders have objected to) tells soldiers to TAKE NO RISKS and shoot to kill anyone not complying immediately with checkpoint rules.

All too often, the people killed as a result were innocent civilians, confused about what was expected of them.

Taking no risks means displacing all risk onto civilians.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
worker_drone
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4220

posted 03 October 2005 04:36 PM      Profile for worker_drone        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
And do you recall that in the lead-up to the war, various international aid agencies predicted widespread famine as a result-- with estimates as high as 7 million dead?

And how did those estimates work out in reality? Was there a famine that killed 7 million?


From: Canada | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 03 October 2005 07:46 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by muggles:
If you're interested in how that vote went down, try this fascinating interview with reporter Christian Parenti, who was there:
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=40&ItemID=6410

On the other hand, the BBC reports:
quote:
What was the result of the United Nations investigation?

The three man team - from the UK, Canada and Sweden - concluded that although the election process was "cumbersome" and there were some shortcomings, the election's outcome was not affected.

"This was a commendable election, particularly given the very challenging circumstances themselves," the team concluded.

"There were some shortcomings, many of which were raised by the candidates themselves...But they could not have materially affected the overall result".


No it wasn't perfect, but given the circumstances . . .

Though, stuff like this is a no-no:


The famine that was predicted was avoided:

Famine 'Prevented in Afghanistan'
UN 'Winning Battle' Against Famine
Life Hanging by a Thread

[ 03 October 2005: 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
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 03 October 2005 09:14 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The mortality rates for Afghanistan and Iraq are nothing less than horrendous - the price of democratic imperialism.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 03 October 2005 10:49 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Andrew_Jay

“Though, stuff like this is a no-no”

What is wrong with that picture? There is a good picture showing the co-operation level between ISAF and Afghan forces in downtown Kabul. The picture is of a German Soldier with a member of the Kabul City Police (KCP) securing a corner in downtown Kabul.


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

posted 03 October 2005 11:30 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
A friend pointed the picture out to me the other day, saying that it was a polling station (think about it . . .).

However, going back to the BBC I can't seem to find any such caption, so maybe things aren't so bad as he made it out to be. But everything else you said is completely correct.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
muggles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10070

posted 04 October 2005 12:03 AM      Profile for muggles        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Andrew Jay wrote
The famine that was predicted was avoided:

Yet, reading the third link provided, we find this:
"Thousands have died of hunger and hunger-related disease. Hundreds more will inevitably die before the crisis is over." The report is ambiguous as to whether that figure is for all of Afghanistan or just the one hard-hist area he was reporting from.
It goes on:
"In ultra-conservative village societies, women and small babies are dying behind the closed doors of their houses and these deaths are certainly a private, secret famine behind the big claim that famine in Afghanistan has been averted."

From: Powell River, BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 04 October 2005 12:09 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

The famine that was predicted was avoided:

Even if true, it remains entirely beside the point in evaluating the morality of the bombing, or of the US orders to Pakistan in late September, 2001, that truck convoys carrying food supplies to Afghan civilians be halted.

When people take actions, we evaluate those actions in terms of the range of likely outcomes, and don't retroactively justify them simply because the worst anticipated outcome didn't materialize.

Example: if sgm downs a six-pack and gets behind the wheel, he puts lives at risk. Those warning him of the risk don't turn out to be wrong just because he happens to get home without killing anyone on this one occasion. We easily recognize the criminally reckless nature of the drunk-driving, even if no fatalities result.

Clearly, according to all the credible information available prior to the bombing, the US-led coalition was putting millions of Afghan lives at risk of starvation. The putting-at-risk itself was wrong, even if the disaster didn't reach the worst levels feared.

Here's Noam Chomsky on this topic:

quote:

As to the facts, the basic story is this. On Sept. 16, five days after 9-11, the NY Times reported that Washington delivered to Pakistan a series of demands. Among then, Washington "demanded...the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population." It is worth reading and re-reading that statement. It would have been extraordinary if, say, 1000 people in Afghanistan's civilian population were relying on the convoys that the US ordered be eliminated. But it wasn't 1000. The numbers were estimated by the agencies at about 5 million. Simply think for a moment about what those orders meant. The fact that there wasn't an enormous outcry of protest is utterly scandalous.

The aid agencies did protest vigorously. You don't have to go to exotic sources to discover that. By late September, after the threat of bombing but before it began, the UN Food and Agricultural Agency estimated that 7 million Afghans might face starvation if bombing were initiated. At the same time, you could read in the NY Times that "The country was on a lifeline, and we just cut the line," quoting aid workers who were evacuated under the threat of bombing, as virtually all were. Just to cite a few of a flood of other examples, a director of the UN World Food Program said that after the bombing began, the threat of humanitarian catastrophe, which was already very severe, had "increased on a scale of magnitude I don't even want to think about." A spokesperson for the UNHCR said that "We are facing a humanitarian crisis of epic proportions in Afghanistan with 7.5 million short of food and at risk of starvation." After two weeks of bombing, the NYT reported that the number of Afghans in need of food had risen from 5 million to 7.5 million -- and the lifeline was cut. After a month of bombing, Harvard's leading specialist on Afghanistan wrote in the prestigious journal International Security that "millions of Afghans [are] at grave risk of starvation" (winter issue). And so it continues.

[snip]

All of this would have been horrendous enough even if there had been a credible reason for driving the aid agencies out of the country, demanding termination of the flow of food, and then the bombing with its shocking expected effects. But there was no credible reason. After several weeks of bombing, the US and UK concocted the claim that they were bombing to rid the country of the Taliban. One may decide for oneself how to react to placing 7.5 million people at "grave risk of starvation" to implement that goal, but it is irrelevant, because that was not the goal. The bombing was undertaken to compel the Taliban to turn over to the US people the US suspected of involvement in 9-11, but without presenting the evidence that the Taliban requested -- because Washington had no evidence. The head of the FBI conceded in Senate testimony 8 months later that after the most intensive international investigation in history, the FBI could only report that it "believed" the plot might have been hatched in Afghanistan but that it was implemented in Europe and the UAR, all US allies.


From the Chomsky blog at ZNet.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 October 2005 01:21 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
An interesting read

quote:

But the Taleban are obstructing operations by banning local staff from using international communication equipment.

The WFP says the Taleban have also blocked 1,650 tonnes of food stocks in Kandahar.

Oxfam operations have also been reduced by more than 50% because of restricted security guarantees.


I have, so far gone through 20 sources... None directly implicate anyone, or anything other then the security situation.


World Food Programe

quote:

Deteriorating security conditions and lack of commercial transport had forced WFP to suspend food shipments to Afghanistan on 12 September, shortly after the Agency had launched a multi-million dollar appeal to save millions from the hunger caused by a vicious cycle of drought and war.

I am going through a lot of sources here. Still not seeing who made the call to stop food shipments. First, not all NGOs stopped. OXFAM (crazy bastards have a very special place in my heart), is one of the ones that will say "dash it all, we go anyways".

For this search string in google food aid from pakistan 2001, I got a return of over 2 million hits. Needless to say, alot of information to sift through. Perhaps I entered the search string wrong, as, the above posting and quote from Chomsky suggests that it is readily available information that the US stopped all food shipments. The last 3 hours of researched turned up that the food shipments were stopped by the deteriorating security situation (which was on a very rapid decline as of Sept 12 2001).

This was a tragedy of epic proprotions to be sure. 3 years of drought led up to Sept 11, 2001. The very last thing the Afghani people needed was 9/11. Many crimes were commited, and I agree... Some of those fall right at the American's feet.

If some one has a link to point me to for who ordered the food shipments to cease, I and a few others here would find it an interesting read.

[ 04 October 2005: Message edited by: Reason ]

[ 04 October 2005: Message edited by: Reason ]


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

posted 04 October 2005 01:31 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
A friend pointed the picture out to me the other day, saying that it was a polling station (think about it . . .).

However, going back to the BBC I can't seem to find any such caption, so maybe things aren't so bad as he made it out to be. But everything else you said is completely correct.


UIf it was a polling station, might I draw to your attention the fact that the Taliban made direct threats against the election and any who would participate. Hence the polling stations were at that point named indrectly as a target.

What would the perception of the security situation have been had a polling station been hit by a suicide bomber? Or a drive by shooting or other such violent event? What would the voter turn out have been? More or less?


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

posted 04 October 2005 01:39 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here's a timeline of events from Answers.com

Timline covering Afghanistan Sept 2001


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 04 October 2005 02:33 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Reason, you wrote:

quote:

the above posting and quote from Chomsky suggests that it is readily available information that the US stopped all food shipments.

In fact, Chomsky wrote this:

quote:

On Sept. 16, five days after 9-11, the NY Times reported that Washington delivered to Pakistan a series of demands. Among then, Washington "demanded...the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population."

That is, he says that on Sept 16, the NYT reported that Washington demanded truck convoys be eliminated. He doesn't say, as you write, that the US 'stopped all food shipments.'

With respect, I think you are missing Chomsky's point here: he is asking us to think about the moral significance of the order itself, and , therefore, of the decision to put at risk millions of civilian lives, regardless of whether the worst consequences of the order/decision came to pass.

We would easily see the immorality of even an ineffectual order that risked innocent civilian lives, had it been issued by an official enemy like Saddam Hussein. So, suppose, for example, that Saddam really had had some WMD, as Bush/Cheney and others claimed he did. Further suppose that, seeing the imminent fall of Baghdad, Saddam had ordered their use against approaching American troops, even though many civilian lives would have been put at risk as well.

Had some hypothetical Iraqi general or colonel refused to follow Saddam's criminal order, we would still rightly condemn Saddam Hussein for having issued such an order in the first place--even though it hadn't been carried out, and even though its terrible effects had not come to pass on the civilian population.

I think Chomsky's asking us all to think about why we don't apply the same logic when someone on 'our' side orders, for example, a halt to vital food shipments, even if the order isn't fully implemented, or doesn't have the worst effect anticipated by those in the know.

One final point for now: I'm going to check my library's microfilm of the NYT for Sep 16, 2001 in the next couple of days, since that's the source Chomsky cites for his claim about the convoy order.

I must say that, not long ago, I checked a couple of Chomsky's claims about NYT coverage of US involvement in El Salvador, and I found him to be a trustworthy source. I'll be surprised if the same is not true in this case.

[ 04 October 2005: Message edited by: sgm ]


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 04 October 2005 07:34 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have spent several hours looking for any such demand. I have skimmed well over 100 articles now, including from the New York Times. There (at this time) is no such article. I have looked extensivly at the WFP news articles spanning Sept 08 until Oct 27th 2001... Found nothing there relating to any such order, or demand.

Having said that. If such a demand was made, then yes, you and Chomsky are right. There is no moral ground to stand on. No one could claim "every step was taken" to protect the civilians.

(This arguement is not to detract from the many other sins which are well documented, such as cluster munitions on populated areas, etc etc)


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

posted 04 October 2005 05:59 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
If it was a polling station, might I draw to your attention the fact that the Taliban made direct threats against the election and any who would participate. Hence the polling stations were at that point named indrectly as a target.

What would the perception of the security situation have been had a polling station been hit by a suicide bomber? Or a drive by shooting or other such violent event? What would the voter turn out have been? More or less?


You missed the point (I took a while to get it too, at the time). When you went into a school gym or church hall to vote last summer, you didn't have Paul Martin looking down at you from a campaign poster, did you?

That's the concern (if it was in fact a polling station). I'm all too happy to see that local police and ISAF troops are working together to protect voters.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 04 October 2005 07:30 PM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
I have spent several hours looking for any such demand. I have skimmed well over 100 articles now, including from the New York Times. There (at this time) is no such article. I have looked extensivly at the WFP news articles spanning Sept 08 until Oct 27th 2001... Found nothing there relating to any such order, or demand.

The text of the article by John F. Burns can be found here:Link.

The original article was called "Pakistan Antiterror Support Avoids Vow of Military Aid," and it appeared on page 5 of the first section, the running title of which was "After the Attacks: Preparing for Conflict," by the way.

I have checked the online text against the microfilm copy of the NYT for Sep 16th, 2001. There don't appear to be any omissions or errors in the online version, and the text of these key paragraphs in particular is correct:

quote:

The Bush administration has told the Islamabad government, under the implied threat of economic and other penalties, that it wants the use of Pakistani airspace and military airfields, as well as full access to the unique store of intelligence about Mr. bin Laden's operations in Afghanistan that has been gathered by Pakistan's military intelligence agency.

Washington has also demanded a cutoff of fuel supplies, an end to the use of Pakistani banks as conduits for clandestine money movements by terrorists and the elimination of truck convoys that provide much of the food and other supplies to Afghanistan's civilian population.


Reading through a few days' worth of coverage from September 2001 was interesting: almost instantly, in under a week, the US was issuing its ultimatum to the Taliban (which experts conceded had little chance of success), threatening Pakistan with every kind of leverage 'short of war,' (I'm quoting from another story), and generally preparing to invade. It certainly doesn't look like every possible step was taken--or even seriously contemplated--to avoid the bombing and subsequent invasion.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 04 October 2005 08:56 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sgm:
It certainly doesn't look like every possible step was taken--or even seriously contemplated--to avoid the bombing and subsequent invasion.
If you are going to threaten the use of force, it's going to have to be credible; and thus you need to have the planning in place to make good on those threats - that Pakistani airspace is available to the U.S., for example.

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 04 October 2005 09:28 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
I have spent several hours looking for any such demand. I have skimmed well over 100 articles now, including from the New York Times. There (at this time) is no such article. I have looked extensivly at the WFP news articles spanning Sept 08 until Oct 27th 2001... Found nothing there relating to any such order, or demand.
You're joking, right? Several hours?

I spent 30 seconds on a Google search, using a series of words lifted from what Chomsky quoted ("elimination of truck convoys that provide"), and turned up 533 web pages that quote from the same NYT article, including another copy of the original article here.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
muggles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10070

posted 04 October 2005 10:39 PM      Profile for muggles        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sgm:
It certainly doesn't look like every possible step was taken--or even seriously contemplated--to avoid the bombing and subsequent invasion.

quote:
andrew jay: If you are going to threaten the use of force, it's going to have to be credible

So let me get this straight: first andrew jay claims that the US bends over backwards to avoid civilian casualties. Counter-evidence is offered to which andrew jay responds that you have to make credible threats... hmmm. doesn't that logic apply the opposite way, though? ie. there should be a credible threat of PEACE, too? I mean if there really is a desire to spare the lives of innocents, etc.
I'll have to remember this line of reasoning if I ever become a greasy lawyer: "Your honor, of course my client didn't consider legal, non-violent means of getting rid of the trespasser -- he had to pose a credible threat."

From: Powell River, BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 04 October 2005 11:23 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
The two are not at all mutually exclusive.

Threatening the Taliban with the use of force and ensuring that the logistics are in place (access to Pakistani information, airspace, etc.) have nothing to do with how you will go about preventing civilian casualties.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
muggles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10070

posted 05 October 2005 02:00 PM      Profile for muggles        Edit/Delete Post
Andrew Jay:
I think there is some argument at cross-purposes going on here, but...
You contend that there is no contradiction in supposing that:
a)the US prepared a "credible" threat to the Taliban; and
b)at the same time, the US went to "great lengths to avoid innocent casualties".
The evidence being presented here says precisely the opposite. That is, when the US ensured that Pakistan would cut off essential truck convoys, and when US threats caused an exodus of aid workers, the US government showed precisely their utter disregard for the lives of Afghanistan's civilians. As one commentator put it at the time, the US attitude toward those civilians was like that of a person squashing an ant colony. And I'm afraid you haven't presented any evidence to the contrary -- just assertions which have been deftly rebutted.
At any rate, I think this seems quite absurd, responding to claims about minimizing innocent deaths. I mean, when did this policy begin? Surely after Hiroshima; surely after the bomblets dropped on Viet Nam, designed to look like toys so children would pick them up; Cambodia? Fallujah?

From: Powell River, BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
outlandist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10253

posted 05 October 2005 02:17 PM      Profile for outlandist        Edit/Delete Post
If Canada was not wasting its resources helping those Afghani ingrates,it could invest in sovereignty defense independently of the warmongering Americans.


From: ontario | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 05 October 2005 07:05 PM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by muggles:
I mean, when did this policy begin?
It's hard to put an exact date on the development of better and better laser and GPS guided bombs. Probably after the 1999 bombing of Serbia.

No, I don't know why they told the Pakistanis to end the truck convoys. Maybe because convoys of trucks - in a country where virtually no one owns a truck other than the Taliban regime - might be in danger of being targetted. I don't know.

However, I'm pretty certain they weren't sitting around at the State Department going "Dude, let's cut off food supplies, that'd be wicked cool when everyone starves!"

Recall that the invasion also involved massive airdrops of food into the country . . . and yes, the stupid use of cluster munitions complicated that.

It's not perfect, but like I've said before, this is unfortunately probably as good as it gets.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 06 October 2005 12:24 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
It's hard to put an exact date on the development of better and better laser and GPS guided bombs. Probably after the 1999 bombing of Serbia.

It's not that hard to put a date on these technological developments. More than 650 GPS-guided JDAMs (Joint Direct Attack Munitions) were dropped from B-2s on Serb targets in the spring of 1999. While these B2 flights accounted for only 3 percent of missions, their bombs accounted for 33 percent of targets hit. The JDAM retrofit kits are made by Boeing, which received its first contract in 1995.

In the early stages of the Iraq invasion, 60 percent of aerial bombardment was in the form of satellite-guided JDAMs. This type of 'precision' bomb may indeed keep 'collateral damage' down, as may the soon-to-be delivered GPS-guided artillery shells being developed by our friends at Raytheon.

However, while fewer civilian casualties are obviously better than more, the use of hi-tech weapons that can more precisely target enemies with 'greater lethality' and less 'collateral damage' doesn't really do much to justify the overall aims or motives of the party using them, or those of the war in which such weapons are used.

The source for the figures, by the way, is Loring Wirbel's book Star Wars: US Tools of Space Supremacy, pages 98 and 139.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
muggles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10070

posted 06 October 2005 02:17 PM      Profile for muggles        Edit/Delete Post
Andrew Jay: you write that the alleged US policy to go to "great lengths to avoid innocent casualties", probably originated with fancy new accurate laser guided missiles. I had already given an example of US tactics in Viet Nam: drop toy-like ordinances so children become their victims. As you didn't challenge my statement, the question arises: How will precise missiles prevent the targetting of innocents? Clearly, the toy-like bomblet is an example of a very precise ("smart") weapon -- yet it was used specifically to target innocents.

quote:
No, I don't know why they told the Pakistanis to end the truck convoys. Maybe because convoys of trucks - in a country where virtually no one owns a truck other than the Taliban regime - might be in danger of being targetted.

Okay, now you're making things up. If you had even a vague familiarity with journalism and academic work on the Taliban (eg. Olivier Roy, Barnett Rubin, Jason Burke, Ahmed Rashid) you would know that a major part of Afghanistan's economy (and indeed a source of support for the Taliban) was the transport mafia. In the late 90's over 500 trucks a day passed through Kandahar and Kabul -- few, if any, of these were owned by the Taliban.
quote:
However, I'm pretty certain they weren't sitting around at the State Department going "Dude, let's cut off food supplies, that'd be wicked cool when everyone starves!"

What I maintain to be their attitude is that they couldn't care less about those civilian lives. They probably cared about as much about those people as they did about animals that might also have fallen victim to their bombs.
quote:
Recall that the invasion also involved massive airdrops of food into the country

quote:
This public relations stunt quickly backfired, however, when every major relief agency in the world derided the drops for 1) being insufficient (enough to feed about .5% of the starving population for a single day, provided the rations got to the intended "targets"); 2) containing food Afghan people never eat (hello, peanut butter?!); and 3) having the disadvantage of landing in fields strewn with land mines, adding injury to insult.

-- from Chris Kromm, Counterpunch Oct 16/05
Meanwhile, UN official Jean Ziegler
quote:
described the US actions as "totally catastrophic for humanitarian aid".... [B]ecause the food drops were not targeted, "the man with the gun picks it up"... He also said combining military and humanitarian missions could endanger the lives of aid workers..."If you do not separate very clearly military operations and humanitarian operations, you destroy totally the credibility of the humanitarian operations".
BBC Oct 15/01
And Jean-Michel Monad of the Red Cross:
quote:
: "Food drops by the US air force raise another problem. Humanitarian action... has to be perceived by all parties in the conflict and the victims as independent and impartial," he said.
"Of course, in the eyes of some parties these airdrops might not appear as very independent and impartial,"

AFP: "Red Cross critical of US raid mistakes, aid airdrops", Oct. 18/05

From: Powell River, BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 06 October 2005 02:34 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
alleged US policy to go to "great lengths to avoid innocent casualties"

Cluster bombs. Napalm. On the road to the airport during the invasion of Baghdad, you will recall it was triumphed in the press as a division of marines going into the heart of the city, they cleared their way by killing everything on the highway that moved: man, woman and child.

If that is great lenghts to avoid casualties it is hard to imagine if they didn't give a shit.


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
VenomWearinDenim
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9092

posted 07 October 2005 02:31 PM      Profile for VenomWearinDenim        Edit/Delete Post
Looking over this "thread" of thought, Im not sure who Im most in agreement with (as if my vote counts): the devil's advocates who insist on defending the ISAF effort to the point where all critical thought is purged, or the moonbat lefties who helped drive them to that position with their indignation (which itself confirms a lack in the opposite kind of reasoning. It is one thing to allow shock and revulsion blow everything a protagonist does beyond approval, and another to wish revulsion away with "sober" rationales. I guess death and destruction bring out the worst in everybody.

It would be nice to see some here admit that their "authoritative sources" are not-so-authoritative, and that most of what is rarely recognized as propaganda is very factual in actuality. Goebbels insisted that all Wehrmacht communiques be as true as possible, and no doubt newspaper-editors and bloggers hold similar ideals.

Back to the matter at hand, it would be nice if the moonbat lefties might acknowledge that IN THEORY, interventions of the ISAF sort have some merit. Please note the caps.

It would be equally nice if it could be admitted that the reasons that draw states into war are many. Oil and war of course are a big power couple but resources in contemporary wars have receded relative to the role they played in older empires. I would argue that Afghanistan is primarily a useful geopolitical acquisition for the US (Keep in mind that this is not intended as a justification of ISAF):

1-they ARE interested in stabilizing India-Pakistan (believe it or not nuclear confrontations DO interest the Pentagon and foggy bottom). Leaders in India/Pakistan now must consider more deeply the NATO reaction to developments in this conflict. but this is less important than...

2-Afghanistan is adjacent to Iran and central Asia CIS. Indeed, as some friends of mine hold, he ISAF mission is more about Iran than anything else. The expansion of Iranian influence into Afghanistan continues, of course, as their social model has its inherent faithful appeal, but if ISAF succeeds in steering Afg away from Iran's "revolutionary" model, they will have avoided what could be a very serious Safavid-style Imperial Iran. (remember Muhammed Ali? ...not the boxer) Furthermore, it is quite possible that powers-that-be hold the hope that they can sponsor and magnify the penetration of moderate Islamic political traditions in Afghanistan by exposing them to greater international media (ie AlJazzeer or whatever). I wouldn't be surprised if they were effective in this respect in urban areas. This of course has geopolitical ramifications vis-a-vis Iran.

The relationship to energy markets is quite obvious (adjacency), even if the business possibilities in Afg are limited and will be for a very long time. There is talk of pipelines out there but I'd imagine the task would be presently insurmountable, even with a tremendous influx of state cash. But the important point is that war is not reducible to resources even if resources are the most salient elements (like in Iraq).

This all said, I do think that the ISAF-Karzai effort is floundering. Had it the attention of a serious and unified effort, Afghanistan could stabilize and move out of poppy production in an astonishly fast manner (8-10 y?). Afghanistan would have a functioning state operating on a mixed shari'a legal system minimally acceptable to the people. [A lot of moonbats would yell injustice, but they apparently have time machines and are under the singularly putrid notion that man changes in seven days!] But the US decided to pursue other prospects and Afghanistan is left to the hands of a bunch of NATO free-loaders (so to speak), not exactly the kind you'd expect to keep a firm international commitment (to Karzai or whoever).

As to the "morality" you insist of speaking of...to be nit-picky (or amoral), wars (often unintentionally) have often resulted in greater prosperity. What would you do with Haiti for instance? give money to those who hold the power to hand out? I mean, drug smuggling is a vital part of their real economy and all, but I don't think it needs further subsidization. I don't know whether it then becomes just to remove the authorities and install a more enlightened dictatorship that actually benefits the people? Do you?
Evidently many here are quite resolute and certain as to the answer. Canada or the US are unable to install an enlightened dictatorship and generally fuck it up, you say. That's right, the self-same state that somehow "delivers" precious entitlements to its own people in spite of its authoritarian and uncaring nature.
Me, I don't know.


From: Otto Von Wa | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 07 October 2005 02:38 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I guess death and destruction bring out the worst in everybody.

Yeah. Dammit. Everyone with me, always look on the bright side of life ...

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 07 October 2005 02:56 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
As to the "morality" you insist of speaking of...to be nit-picky (or amoral), wars (often unintentionally) have often resulted in greater prosperity. What would you do with Haiti for instance? give money to those who hold the power to hand out? I mean, drug smuggling is a vital part of their real economy and all, but I don't think it needs further subsidization. I don't know whether it then becomes just to remove the authorities and install a more enlightened dictatorship that actually benefits the people? Do you?
Evidently many here are quite resolute and certain as to the answer. Canada or the US are unable to install an enlightened dictatorship and generally fuck it up, you say. That's right, the self-same state that somehow "delivers" precious entitlements to its own people in spite of its authoritarian and uncaring nature.
Me, I don't know.

I like this.

On the one hand, the moonbat lefties argue there is no morality for the war. However, those who go and fight the war and/or support those fighting the war must believe their is a suprior moral reason for being there or else they are killing and possibly dying for, well, a "prosperity" they may not share in.

But, I especially like this part: "Canada or the US are unable to install an enlightened dictatorship and generally fuck it up, you say. That's right, the self-same state that somehow "delivers" precious entitlements to its own people in spite of its authoritarian and uncaring nature."

This is a "the ends justifies the means" argument and is a highly selfish (I appreciate that is a bit of morality slipping in) argument. Such a rationalization, that war and empire can pay dividends at home, could also be used as a rationalization for criminal activity. "Yes, I sell heroin to school children but it puts a roof over your head."

Of course VWD is mostly right. Global politics are played out in a vacuum of morality. His argument with the moonbat lefties is, as far as I can tell, that we are unhappy with the blood money while still benefiting from the privileges afforded to empire. Meanwhile, the pro-military folk can't seem to accept that not all military adventures in which they serve are of a noble and greater purpose. Some are just self-serving for the powers that be whether it is control of strategic resources or a move on the giant geo-political chess board.

If I were a dispassionate observer, I might think the moonbat lefties and the military folk have more in common than they think as VWD probably represents the mindset of the powerbrokers, on the whole, quite well.

[ 07 October 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]


From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 07 October 2005 04:20 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

I like this.

On the one hand, the moonbat lefties argue there is no morality for the war. However, those who go and fight the war and/or support those fighting the war must believe their is a suprior moral reason for being there or else they are killing and possibly dying for, well, a "prosperity" they may not share in.

But, I especially like this part: "Canada or the US are unable to install an enlightened dictatorship and generally fuck it up, you say. That's right, the self-same state that somehow "delivers" precious entitlements to its own people in spite of its authoritarian and uncaring nature."

This is a "the ends justifies the means" argument and is a highly selfish (I appreciate that is a bit of morality slipping in) argument. Such a rationalization, that war and empire can pay dividends at home, could also be used as a rationalization for criminal activity. "Yes, I sell heroin to school children but it puts a roof over your head."

Of course VWD is mostly right. Global politics are played out in a vacuum of morality. His argument with the moonbat lefties is, as far as I can tell, that we are unhappy with the blood money while still benefiting from the privileges afforded to empire. Meanwhile, the pro-military folk can't seem to accept that not all military adventures in which they serve are of a noble and greater purpose. Some are just self-serving for the powers that be whether it is control of strategic resources or a move on the giant geo-political chess board.

If I were a dispassionate observer, I might think the moonbat lefties and the military folk have more in common than they think as VWD probably represents the mindset of the powerbrokers, on the whole, quite well.

[ 07 October 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]


Moonbat lefties from a dingbat... This is very comical to say the least.

Ya know, there are much bigger things going on in the world then your inability to grasp the concept that one sometimes one has to choose between the lesser of two evils.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 07 October 2005 06:51 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
one sometimes one has to choose between the lesser of two evils.

True. But it is important to understand that one does not ALWAYS have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

For example, should Canada invade the United States? Or should Canada invade Malawi?

Those in positions of power can always conjure up an even worse policy than their own. (If we don't invade Iraq, we'll have to fight them right here in America!)

But that doesn't mean intelligent people can't ask whether there the choice is actually one we want to make.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
WingNut
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1292

posted 07 October 2005 07:01 PM      Profile for WingNut   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Moonbat lefties from a dingbat... This is very comical to say the least.

I can understand you always being angry. I can accept you always being toxic. But why must you always be an asshole?

From: Out There | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 08 October 2005 02:08 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by jeff house:

True. But it is important to understand that one does not ALWAYS have to choose between the lesser of two evils.

For example, should Canada invade the United States? Or should Canada invade Malawi?

Those in positions of power can always conjure up an even worse policy than their own. (If we don't invade Iraq, we'll have to fight them right here in America!)

But that doesn't mean intelligent people can't ask whether there the choice is actually one we want to make.


Hmmm.... Can not resist....

So, we can invade America? If we act today, we may pull it off.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
VenomWearinDenim
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9092

posted 08 October 2005 05:59 PM      Profile for VenomWearinDenim        Edit/Delete Post
the formulation of "lesser of two evils" always makes a few reach for their pisto..er..rolling papers. Pavlov's dogs unfailingly salivate. I, too, must admit to an aversion to the phrase, but that doesn't change its validity in the Haitian or Taliban examples (and they yield a fairly valid comparison).

[forgive the following simplified scenario, but points are made in polemic -call it stylistic convention] Say there is a big flux in domestic food markets (like at the outset of the USAF violence) and people are starving. Of course hungry people are perfect fodder for passion and can be incited in a flash by the smallest prodding. There is no real monopoly on violence: various groups have organized for their defence or "defence," sometimes coexisting uneasily in the same general areas. Worse, we know of the relatively booming new and used arms trade, so anyone who isn't already mobilized as a part of some collective can do so in a flash. And we intend to deliver AND distribute a substantial amount of raw foodstuffs? AND intend to be impartial despite the various conflicts that shift like sands?


From: Otto Von Wa | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 09 October 2005 04:53 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I, too, must admit to an aversion to the phrase, but that doesn't change its validity in the Haitian or Taliban examples (and they yield a fairly valid comparison).

I'm afraid I don't understand your point here.

What is the 'fairly valid' comparison yielded by the 'examples' of Haiti (a country) and the Taliban (a movement/government)?

Are you claiming that the situations in Haiti and Afghanistan are, or have been comparable in some way? If so, how? and when?

Or are you claiming that in both cases, Canada's form of intervention can be justified as the 'lesser evil' of the available options?

Just what are the terms of the 'comparison' (i.e. what things are you comparing), and what makes this comparison 'fairly valid'?

Does the comparison help validate something (e.g. Canadian policy), or is the comparison itself made valid by something else (e.g. similarities between the cases of Afghanistan and Haiti)?

Help me out here.


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 12 October 2005 08:13 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by muggles:
Andrew Jay: you write that the alleged US policy to go to "great lengths to avoid innocent casualties", probably originated with fancy new accurate laser guided missiles. I had already given an example of US tactics in Viet Nam: drop toy-like ordinances so children become their victims. As you didn't challenge my statement, the question arises: How will precise missiles prevent the targetting of innocents? Clearly, the toy-like bomblet is an example of a very precise ("smart") weapon -- yet it was used specifically to target innocents.

Oh, the military industrial complex shills like to talk a good missile, but when it comes down to testing the r&d of several billion dollars worth of ballistic missile defense somewhere in the Pacific last December, neither accuracy or precision could be measured as the damned missile refused to lift off the launch pad. The Pentagon's favourite recipients of billions in taxpayer handouts just can't deliver.

The Patriot missile was a joke, too, but it didn't stop Canadian companies from increasing shipments of all manner of armaments and our very own version of the disappointing Patriot missile to the Middle East five-fold since 1991. As long as taxpayers are on the hook for several hundred billion dollars in upside-down socialism every year in both countries, then who's squawking besides kids in the middle east and Afghanistan and whoever else makes the axes of evol list ?. Bush's father and the rest of the psychopathic, dead-from-the-assehole-up chickenhawks were saw nothing but dollar signs in the Middle East as the US military beckoned Iraqi women and children to banquets of death and destruction in the middle of the night. Iranian's are next on the list of innocent people to have their sovereignty challenged and oil confiscated by fascists.

Peoples revolutions in Iraq and Iran were delayed by the CIA in the 1950's and 60's as it was in Afghanistan in 1989. World revolution is unfinished business. Old-world colonialism hides behind Orwellian-like terms: globalism, democracy and freedom. They call it freedom when themselves are free.

Viva la revolucion!

[ 12 October 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 12 October 2005 06:57 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

Oh, the military industrial complex shills like to talk a good missile, but when it comes down to testing the r&d of several billion dollars worth of ballistic missile defense somewhere in the Pacific last December, neither accuracy or precision could be measured as the damned missile refused to lift off the launch pad. The Pentagon's favourite recipients of billions in taxpayer handouts just can't deliver.

The Patriot missile was a joke, too, but it didn't stop Canadian companies from increasing shipments of all manner of armaments and our very own version of the disappointing Patriot missile to the Middle East five-fold since 1991. As long as taxpayers are on the hook for several hundred billion dollars in upside-down socialism every year in both countries, then who's squawking besides kids in the middle east and Afghanistan and whoever else makes the axes of evol list ?. Bush's father and the rest of the psychopathic, dead-from-the-assehole-up chickenhawks were saw nothing but dollar signs in the Middle East as the US military beckoned Iraqi women and children to banquets of death and destruction in the middle of the night. Iranian's are next on the list of innocent people to have their sovereignty challenged and oil confiscated by fascists.

Peoples revolutions in Iraq and Iran were delayed by the CIA in the 1950's and 60's as it was in Afghanistan in 1989. World revolution is unfinished business. Old-world colonialism hides behind Orwellian-like terms: globalism, democracy and freedom. They call it freedom when themselves are free.

Viva la revolucion!

[ 12 October 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]



Fidel, what are your qualifications in the field of military hardware? Tactics? How about even a source for your claims... Or even a company name as to the:


quote:

The Patriot missile was a joke, too, but it didn't stop Canadian companies from increasing shipments of all manner of armaments and our very own version of the disappointing Patriot missile to the Middle East five-fold since 1991.


Now perhaps you meant to say component parts, as I am not aware of any missile production plants in Canada (either defensive or offensive).

As a soldier, in the infantry at that, I would tell you that every percentage point above 0% that any anti missile defence system is succesful, as every percentage point in success, is a percentage point towards my survival on the battlefield. The Patriot missile defense system was better then 0% effectice during the original Gulf War.

Lastly, I just want to remind you that nothing is free. Nothing aside the air you breathe now days (even that will cause you grief due to pollutants, later). ANY research leading to new technology is going to cost lots, and be subject to trial and error. So the only failure in any endevour ias failing to recognise the ability to learn from mistakes.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 12 October 2005 07:29 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes we have military industries in Canada, and yes their shipments to the Middle East increased by around five-fold since 1991. Why?. Because they make a sh!tload of money when they end up arming countries like Iraq and all their surrounding enemies to the eye teeth. And the MIC in each of the western nations who do it tend to blame each other, or the bogeyman and former CIA payrollee, Osama bin Laden. Whether big western corporations and banking elite were funding Hitler's war machine or whether it's Osama, doesn't matter to them because it's all gravy and anti-communist in spirit.

quote:
Now perhaps you meant to say component parts, as I am not aware of any missile production plants in Canada (either defensive or offensive).

And yes, Canada does make components for the Patriot missile. More specifically, the Patriot's sophisticated guidance system.

We used to have our own missile expert, Gerald Bull. Bull once owned a missile parts plant that straddled the US-Canada border. Bull, said to have been on the CIA's payroll in the 1980's, was murdered for sticking his nose in where it didn't belong. Canadian's ourselves don't really want to be known for dealing with the devil, but that's just what we do.

Two years ago, about 5 companies accounted for 20 percent of Canada's exports, and 100 companies accounting for more than 50 percent, with US trade accounting for 85 percent of Canadian trade, according to the Canadian government. Catering to and doling taxpayer handouts to big businesses that export to the USA is what the Canadian government is all about. And Uncle Sam loves a good lap dog, whether they're "red ones" or blue ones.

There are over 1500 defense contracting companies in Canada and all selling sophisticated electronic and other weapons components to the Pentagon.

When the government of Canada reports our weapons exports each year, sales to the US military/Pentagon are not included.

No country exports more per capita than Canada does, and no other country, except perhaps the USA, concentrates that wealth into so few hands.

[ 12 October 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 12 October 2005 11:34 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
Yes we have military industries in Canada, and yes their shipments to the Middle East increased by around five-fold since 1991. Why?. Because they make a sh!tload of money when they end up arming countries like Iraq and all their surrounding enemies to the eye teeth. And the MIC in each of the western nations who do it tend to blame each other, or the bogeyman and former CIA payrollee, Osama bin Laden. Whether big western corporations and banking elite were funding Hitler's war machine or whether it's Osama, doesn't matter to them because it's all gravy and anti-communist in spirit.

And yes, Canada does make components for the Patriot missile. More specifically, the Patriot's sophisticated guidance system.

We used to have our own missile expert, Gerald Bull. Bull once owned a missile parts plant that straddled the US-Canada border. Bull, said to have been on the CIA's payroll in the 1980's, was murdered for sticking his nose in where it didn't belong. Canadian's ourselves don't really want to be known for dealing with the devil, but that's just what we do.

Two years ago, about 5 companies accounted for 20 percent of Canada's exports, and 100 companies accounting for more than 50 percent, with US trade accounting for 85 percent of Canadian trade, according to the Canadian government. Catering to and doling taxpayer handouts to big businesses that export to the USA is what the Canadian government is all about. And Uncle Sam loves a good lap dog, whether they're "red ones" or blue ones.

There are over 1500 defense contracting companies in Canada and all selling sophisticated electronic and other weapons components to the Pentagon.

When the government of Canada reports our weapons exports each year, sales to the US military/Pentagon are not included.

No country exports more per capita than Canada does, and no other country, except perhaps the USA, concentrates that wealth into so few hands.

[ 12 October 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


Accuracy in writing, especially when dealing with people you know to be lurking who know about these things help emmensly. There is a
MASSIVE difference between electronic component parts and the missiles you elluded to earlier. Especially in light of the fact that those components will have multiple purposes, more then just military.

Now, if you were to drop the suposition, and rumour (or at elast set it up with a simple "in my opinion" or IMO) there would be little to argue.

The murder of Gerald Bull left many questions unanswered. Alot of fingers do point to Isreal, however, those fingers are all fueled once again by rumour and suposition, as he had alot of enemies.

The man was a dreamer, a brilliant scientist, but few people were willing to look at his dreams of an alternate means of space vehicle delivery if you will.

During the height of his creativity, he envisioned launching space vehicles by (for lack of a better term) cannon. The accepted methodology of space vehicle delivery is rocket (was then, is now) and hence, finding someone to finance his vision of an unproven technology was difficult, this despite, underfunding, he was able to acheive near orbit with projectiles in the mid 60's.

He turned to weapons manufacture, specifically, artillery. He worked for various countries, China, Taiwan, Iraq, Chile. He developed a new field artillery piece for the South Africans that was (at the time) far more accurate with far more range (+50%) then anything else on the market.

At the time of his murder, he was well under way in constructing a super gun Baby Babylon.

I am an infantryman yes, but even I can tell you that this gun would have been absolutly useless as an offensive weapon. It could not be moved, nor could be trained (aimed for indirect fire).

Source

So you see... All I want to point out here is do you research if you are going to choose to talk on a subject. Your portrayal of Bull is inaccurate. Is this deliberate? I hope so, as I was able to get this information in all of about 10 seconds on the net.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 13 October 2005 12:01 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
And then there's Missile Defence:

Contrary to public opinion, "missile defense” is alive and well in Canada. In fact, Canada’s role in this massive US-led, weapons development program has grown steadily for many years and Canada is actually contributing more than any other nation. Prime Minister Martin’s supposed “no” to "missile defense" was a completely meaningless, PR gesture with no real teeth. There is no evidence of any kind that the government will take any action whatsoever to stop even one of the many existing forms of Canadian complicity in “missile defense,” let alone prevent further complicity. The Liberal's "no" was carefully designed to deceive the public, cover up their existing involvement and buy support for their minority government. By claiming "We win on missile defense!" and by naively congratulating the government for "not joining," many in the peace movement fell into a trap that has undermined efforts to stop Canada's very real, ongoing role in this massive, weapons program. Until the lie about Canada’s non-involvement has been exposed, how can we hope to slow down, let alone halt, Canadian complicity in this offensive, weapons program?

from: http://coat.ncf.ca/main_frame.htm

[ 13 October 2005: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 13 October 2005 12:07 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
And then there's Missile Defence:

Contrary to public opinion, "missile defense” is alive and well in Canada. In fact, Canada’s role in this massive US-led, weapons development program has grown steadily for many years and Canada is actually contributing more than any other nation. Prime Minister Martin’s supposed “no” to "missile defense" was a completely meaningless, PR gesture with no real teeth. There is no evidence of any kind that the government will take any action whatsoever to stop even one of the many existing forms of Canadian complicity in “missile defense,” let alone prevent further complicity. The Liberal's "no" was carefully designed to deceive the public, cover up their existing involvement and buy support for their minority government. By claiming "We win on missile defense!" and by naively congratulating the government for "not joining," many in the peace movement fell into a trap that has undermined efforts to stop Canada's very real, ongoing role in this massive, weapons program. Until the lie about Canada’s non-involvement has been exposed, how can we hope to slow down, let alone halt, Canadian complicity in this offensive, weapons program?

from:http://coat.ncf.ca/main_frame.htm



Um, unless the plan is to launch thos missiles at a very fast speed straight up, with the hopes that the earth will rotate fast enough for them to fall somewhere other then the North American continent, I fail to see how the missile defense system is offinesive.

Your ignorance on this subject is astounding. Before you screech that this will give the Americans first strike ability... It will not give them something they do not already have. The Americans have had first strike for years (B2 bomber anyone).

Missile defense is exactly that. Defense. The Americans are footing the finacial cost of the program, so it only makes sense to follow along and give moral support.

EDIT TO ADD: I should have read your reference before I posted. COAT, what a bunch of blithering idiots.

[ 13 October 2005: Message edited by: Reason ]


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 13 October 2005 12:38 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:

Accuracy in writing, especially when dealing with people you know to be lurking who know about these things help spemmensly.


Ok, so we only aid and abet the pentagon in building weapons that destroy lives and kill women and kiddies. But don't forget, you're the one who didn't mention our involvement in the first place. And so now you know better.

quote:

So you see... All I want to point out here is do you research if you are going to choose to talk on a subject. Your portrayal of Bull is inaccurate. Is this deliberate? I hope so, as I was able to get this information in all of about 10 seconds on the net.

I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but if you step back a post or two, you'll discover that it was me who first mentioned Bull. If you want to monopolize Bull, then be my guest. You're doing a swell job as it is.

But I don't think it's accurate to say that Bull's guns wouldn't be effective even today. The military industrial complex and Pentagon don't make a habit of sharing the deadliest WMD "know-how" with just anybody. Not even anti-communists like Jonas Savimbi and UNITA in Africa. Bull's gun technology turned the tide in the butcher Savimbi's and UNITA's favor in the war against ANC fighters. Bull's guns turned the tide because the army of darkness could then lob shells quite a bit farther than opposing forces could. Big guns were and still are effective in killing a lot of people at once. Bull helped Savimbi and his mercenaries be much more efficient at killing, maming and destroying.

Gerald Bull was an opportunist who worked for the CIA. He got what he deserved. Bull was our "Quiet Canadian." He probably didn't even see it coming. You know what they say about those who live off the proceeds of death and destruction.

[ 13 October 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 13 October 2005 01:48 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:

Missile defense is exactly that. Defense.

I believe this statement is seriously mistaken, whether it refers to theatre ballistic missile warnings/defences that 'defend' deployed military forces, or to the Ground-Based Midcourse Defence portion of the overall layered, integrated BMD system Canada was invited officially to join by the Bush administration.

Canadian military planners have understood the offensive potential of BMD systems since at least late 1999, according to this May 24, 2000 article in the National Post:

quote:
At a closed-door military briefing in Ottawa last Nov. 15, Canadian defence policy officials pointed out the threat posed by nations such as North Korea or Iran is, at best, secondary to the main aim of the ballistic missile defence.

"Arguably [it is] more in order to preserve U.S./NATO freedom of action than because U.S. really fears North Korean or Iranian missile threat," read briefing documents prepared for the meeting, which were obtained under the Access to Information Act.

"[Intelligence] assessments are that those regimes would never lob ICBMs [intercontinental ballistic missiles] at the U.S. or allies unless their very survival was at stake."


The real meaning of 'freedom of action' has been spelled out quite clearly by the current US administration, including in its National Security Strategy of the United States, which raises the terrible spectre of 'even weak states and small groups [attaining] a catastrophic power to strike great nations' by their wicked acquisition of WMD and ballistic missile technology.

Who are 'they,' then, to try to deter with ballistic missiles whatever military action we might someday be forced by our offended consciences to launch against 'them' in the 'weak states'?

Furthermore, given 'our' unbroken history of virtue and benevolence, why should there be any questions at all about 'our' possession and use of the very same weapons we would deny other countries?

Who, after all, could seriously object to 'our' possessing the means to visit catastrophe (pre-emptively, even) upon the 'weak states' we think may one day threaten 'us' in the 'great nations'? Only someone who hates our freedoms, surely.

To speak more seriously, I apologize for contributing to thread drift. I'll not so do again in this thread, though I'm happy to discuss missile defence with Reason or anyone else interested in a serious discussion of the issue (send me a PM).


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 13 October 2005 04:05 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sgm:
Canadian military planners have understood the offensive potential of BMD systems since at least late 1999,

Not to mention some serious taxpayer handouts at stake for "private enterprise" making their own fortunes the hard way in the "free market."

We Canadian's, too, could begin having delusions that foreign nationals living in nations where there is great oil and mineral wealth want to harm us because they're jelous of our "prosperity and freedom." We, too, could start our own axes of evol nation-list and watch as our own children develop inabilities to locate the latest oil-rich nations on maps of the world and targeted for bombing.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 13 October 2005 06:00 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

Not to mention some serious taxpayer handouts at stake for "private enterprise" making their own fortunes the hard way in the "free market."

We Canadian's, too, could begin having delusions that foreign nationals living in nations where there is great oil and mineral wealth want to harm us because they're jelous of our "prosperity and freedom." We, too, could start our own axes of evol nation-list and watch as our own children develop inabilities to locate the latest oil-rich nations on maps of the world and targeted for bombing.


Why is it you are holding up opinion as fact yet again Fidel? It is puzzling. How do I debate your opinion, but to call it falsehood?

If you have supporting links, please do post them.


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

posted 13 October 2005 06:04 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

I'm not sure who you're arguing with, but if you step back a post or two, you'll discover that it was me who first mentioned Bull. If you want to monopolize Bull, then be my guest. You're doing a swell job as it is.

But I don't think it's accurate to say that Bull's guns wouldn't be effective even today. The military industrial complex and Pentagon don't make a habit of sharing the deadliest WMD "know-how" with just anybody. Not even anti-communists like Jonas Savimbi and UNITA in Africa. Bull's gun technology turned the tide in the butcher Savimbi's and UNITA's favor in the war against ANC fighters. Bull's guns turned the tide because the army of darkness could then lob shells quite a bit farther than opposing forces could. Big guns were and still are effective in killing a lot of people at once. Bull helped Savimbi and his mercenaries be much more efficient at killing, maming and destroying.

Gerald Bull was an opportunist who worked for the CIA. He got what he deserved. Bull was our "Quiet Canadian." He probably didn't even see it coming. You know what they say about those who live off the proceeds of death and destruction.

[ 13 October 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


Your first language is not english is it. If it is, your language comprehension is sub par (I know I make a lot of spelling mistakes, but please feel free to ask if something is not clear). The reason I say the above, is you divert from my arguement, and go off on some sort of fantasy arguement.

Yes you mentioned Bull first... With a whole lot of bull and speculation. I attempted to correct you of your falsehoods, thinking it was nothing more then a passing ignorance. I now beleive that ignorance in your case is not passing, but rather imbedded.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 14 October 2005 12:02 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, your spelling is atrocious.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 14 October 2005 12:36 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:

Why is it you are holding up opinion as fact yet again Fidel? It is puzzling. How do I debate your opinion, but to call it falsehood?

If you have supporting links, please do post them.


It's my second-hand opinion. I wasn't able to form this opinion all by my lonesome, no. Critics of various US republican governments have pointed out the immorality of their approach to militarism. Look up what some have referred to as Keynesian militarism in the States. It's a well known obsession with political conservatives to over-spend on the death and destruction industry.

Take Prescott Bush's grandson as an example. As dubya and his corporate-lobbied government made false accusations that Saddam had WMD, and Tony Blair made claims about mass Kurdish graves, big military defense contractors and their shareholders in the U.S. were seeing dollar signs. George H Bush was one of those shareholders. Too many Republican party elite have financial interests in military industrial complex. It's also called "war-fiteering" or perhaps just warfiteering. Lookup "Prescott Bush."
You know what they say, like grandfather like coke sniffing grandson.

[ 14 October 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 14 October 2005 01:13 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

It's my second-hand opinion. I wasn't able to form this opinion all by my lonesome, no. Critics of various US republican governments have pointed out the immorality of their approach to militarism. Look up what some have referred to as Keynesian militarism in the States. It's a well known obsession with political conservatives to over-spend on the death and destruction industry.

Take Prescott Bush's grandson as an example. As dubya and his corporate-lobbied government made false accusations that Saddam had WMD, and Tony Blair made claims about mass Kurdish graves, big military defense contractors and their shareholders in the U.S. were seeing dollar signs. George H Bush was one of those shareholders. Too many Republican party elite have financial interests in military industrial complex. It's also called "war-fiteering" or perhaps just warfiteering. Lookup "Prescott Bush."
You know what they say, like grandfather like coke sniffing grandson.

[ 14 October 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


Christ almighty! Do you have a rope for me to grab on to as you meander all over the bloody garden path?

You want to hate the American neo-cons? Christ, you have a ready supporter in me there. But you have yet to post anything decisive to link anyone from any Canadian company to the neo-cons.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 14 October 2005 01:15 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think I hear your mother calling, kid. Get lost.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 14 October 2005 01:55 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
I think I hear your mother calling, kid. Get lost.


What's the matter, don't want to play anymore? Tell you what... Preface opinion with "IMO" and you will find me to be ver freindly. Represent opinion as fact, and I'm gonna call you on it, ok?

For the record, I have put people older then you through battle school. So, please come back when not feeling so infantile.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 14 October 2005 02:24 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
oops!

[ 14 October 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 14 October 2005 02:29 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So what do you want to know about war, kid ?. Maybe I can help you out, now that you know about Canada's 1500 plus arms manufacturers and unannounced shipments to US military industrial complex.

Oh ya, and when I inform you of something, I'm not the one who needs a tutorial or hyperlink to information on it. So read it yourself and get back to us in about a year.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 14 October 2005 07:35 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
So what do you want to know about war, kid ?. Maybe I can help you out, now that you know about Canada's 1500 plus arms manufacturers and unannounced shipments to US military industrial complex.

Oh ya, and when I inform you of something, I'm not the one who needs a tutorial or hyperlink to information on it. So read it yourself and get back to us in about a year.


Tell you what, you provide the link. I will not do YOUR homework for ya. Till then, you are another clueless breeze on the landscape.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 14 October 2005 03:09 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What in hell are you on about now, slippery ?. If clues were shoes, you'd be barefoot.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 14 October 2005 05:52 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
What in hell are you on about now, slippery ?. If clues were shoes, you'd be barefoot.

Did you hear that?! That was me smacking my own head really really hard... OUCH!

Are you a part time politician perhaps? I have never seen anyone display so much talent in straying so far off the topic... Now, what the fuck were we argueing about again?

Perhaps we should just talk football, or camping... I wonder how long a conversation on footabll would take us to get to a conversation on the exploitation of space.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 15 October 2005 09:12 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Ivan Drury:

Canada's Occupation of Afghanistan:

A Challenge to the Anti-War Movement in Canada
By Ivan Drury
The numbers of those living in deep poverty in the US has increased by more than 1.5million families since 2000. Forty-five million people in the US live without Medicare. Full unemployment in the US sits at around 5.5%, but that number doesn't tell the whole story when you consider that of the nearly 24million people over the age of 17 who live in poverty in the US, 88% of them work full time, year round. The war and occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has not improved the lives of the vast majority of people in the US in any way - actually quite the opposite.


And they don't count several million American's imprisoned in gulags, on probation or on parole for everything small-minded, an estimated 85% of those US citizens in lockdown are there for minor narcotics infractions to petty theft.

CANADA OUT OF AFGHANISTAN!

American Woman, gonna mess your mind
American woman, gonna mess-your-mind Say "A" say "M" ...

[ 15 October 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 15 October 2005 09:41 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:

And they don't count several million American's imprisoned in gulags, on probation or on parole for everything small-minded, an estimated 85% of those US citizens in lockdown are there for minor narcotics infractions to petty theft.

CANADA OUT OF AFGHANISTAN!

American Woman, gonna mess your mind
American woman, gonna mess-your-mind Say "A" say "M" ...

[ 15 October 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


You don't have much of a say. We are there for at least as long as we were in Bosnia.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 15 October 2005 10:22 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I know. But we can't get our troops OUT OF AFGHANISTAN if we don't protest - the general theme of this thread. So all that space you just wasted above this post could have been used for constructive criticism, or for reasons why our guys should be there.

A point being made by the first article linked to is that Canada has no business propping-up American imperialism when we've got so many homeless Canadian's across this country.

We've got no business cleaning up the imperialists mess in Afghanistan when Canada owns one of the worst child poverty rates in the developed world.

We've got no business underwriting American imperialism when we've got economic and social crises right here at home.

If the Yanks would pay attention to what's wrong in their own backyards, instead of bombing 21 nations since Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and stopped sending their kids off to be shot to death in the name of Imperial Oil and Exxon, Nike and Monsanto, then maybe the world would look up to them as an example for liberal democracy instead of the imperialist plutocracy that they are.

CANADA OUT OF AFGHANISTAN!

American Woman, said get away
American Woman, listen what I say
Dont come a hangin around my door
Dont wanna see your face no more
I dont need your war machines
I dont need your ghetto scenes

[ 15 October 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 15 October 2005 11:06 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
I know. But we can't get our troops OUT OF AFGHANISTAN if we don't protest - the general theme of this thread. So all that space you just wasted above this post could have been used for constructive criticism, or for reasons why our guys should be there.

[ 15 October 2005: Message edited by: Fidel ]


Ok, let's take up the mantle of the left for a sec here. What are the root causes of war? Protesting war does little (war has been protested probably as long as man has figured out to club his/her neighbor with a stick).

So, if attacking the effect is ineffective, then find the cause. Wars are fought for "many reasons" (which I argue is complete bullshit)... These "reasons" are: Religion, race, land, power, and natural resources. In my opinion, the real reason for war is simple, and encompasses all of what I discussed previosly. GREED.

Greed is the beast we have to fight. Should we ever win that one, I will be out of work, and in all likelihood, all will want for little. But there will, for some time yet, always be people who want more. Who want what the other guy has.

Fighting greed starts at home. I admit, I sometimes lose this fight. I have myself a nice TV, a nice car (4cyl tho, really good on gas), and a pretty decent computer. I will not however ever buy myself a so called single family home. Why do I want to use all that floor space? A nice condo will do for me (be nicer if it faced water, but then, there I go being greedy again).

Untill we win the battle on greed, war will exsist. Wherever there is instabilty, there is an exponetially greater chance of war. Afghanistan is unstable right now. Are we potentially doing harm to innocent Afghanis while we are there? Yes. However we would do far more harm by leaving before we complete the task at hand.

The task is stabilise the country in such a way that it can sustain it self, and rebuild itself. Much in the same way that Bosnia can now. Afghanistan is unstable for as long as the NGOs like OXFAM are able to work freely in the country. The country is unstable when demining teams are being attacked (Afghanistan ranks amongst the most heavily mined countries in the world).

To stabilise the country, requires the neutralisation of those that are destabilising. Neutraisation could be a peaceful thing... Very simply, the "insurgents" come to the table, make there demands, listen to the demands of the government, and then negotiate a ceasefire. The "insurgents" have rejected the idea of negotiations, and instead choose to use suicide bombers now to disrupt the country (usually attacking Afghan citizens, NOT ISAF pers.

As a side note, land mines in Afghanistan are currently killing or maiming 150-300 people (mostly children) a month in Afghanistan. The stimate of numbers deployed there is well over 1 million. Deming ops in Afghanistan could take more then a hundred years now (barring any sudden shifts in technology to clear these mines).


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 16 October 2005 12:00 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:

Ok, let's take up the mantle of the left for a sec here. What are the root causes of war? Protesting war does little (war has been protested probably as long as man has figured out to club his/her neighbor with a stick).


Wrong. The American's were OUT OF VIETNAM because of protests and indifference to the war at home. They tore apart a country to kill an idea. And the most expensive, most technologically advanced army in the world had to high-tail it away from an unseen enemy of what the propaganda machine were describing as "insurgents" in Viet Nam. It was a lie even back then.

And American support for the Iraqi occupation is dwindling for dubya and the corporate-led military.

quote:
As a side note, land mines in Afghanistan are currently killing or maiming 150-300 people (mostly children) a month in Afghanistan. The stimate of numbers deployed there is well over 1 million. Deming ops in Afghanistan could take more then a hundred years now (barring any sudden shifts in technology to clear these mines).

There's no need to inform us about multinational corporate greed being responsible for blanketing the third world with land mines throughout the cold war and today. We already know that.

CANADA OUT OF AFGHANISTAN!

CANADA THE HELL OUT OF HAITI!


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 16 October 2005 12:36 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
Well, I didn't realise those monsterous multi-nationals were out working hand-in-hand with the Soviets. That's news to me (and most sensible people, I'd suppose)

I suppose you'd love to see even more people killed by landmines in Afghanistan, so you can continue to parrot your foolishness. Why even give a damn about a solution when you can just blame capitalism, democracy, the west and white people in general for every last problem and ill in the world?


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 October 2005 01:01 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Andrew, I suppose you'd love to see even more people working in sweatshops and living in slums in the Third World, so you can continue to parrot your foolishness. Why even give a damn about a solution when you can just blame socialism, communisim, Cuba, and Middle Eastern people in general for every last problem and ill in the world?

(If you don't like that kind of character assassination, I'll tell you that we don't like it either, and we've heard it several times before.)

Land mines? Are the soldiers in Afghanistan removing land mines? If so, how did you find this out?

(Aside: why have certain powerful countries, the US among them, refused to sign onto an international ban on landmines?)


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 16 October 2005 01:09 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
Ah, so the U.S. hasn't signed the anti-mine treaty, ergo, Canadian forces clearly aren't helping to demine Afghanistan.

Poor, poor logic, what has Aristotleded24 done to you this time?

I don't know if the Canadian troops are involved in demining, but they are certainly contributing to increased security that makes demining possible - either by several NGO's active in the country, the forces of other nations, or our Canadian soldiers themselves.

[ 16 October 2005: 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
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 16 October 2005 01:30 AM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Have there been any landmines removed that can be attributed to our military presence there?
From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 16 October 2005 01:40 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Have there been any landmines removed that can be attributed to our military presence there?
Definately. Without a doubt.

From a two-second search at the BBC:

War on landmines 'shows success'

quote:
The number fell in some of the countries worst affected by landmines. Afghanistan, Cambodia and Bosnia-Herzegovina showed the most improvement.
More UK troops sent to Afghanistan
quote:
The troops have been carrying out duties including clearing landmines and beginning the rebuilding of the country's shattered infrastructure.

[ 16 October 2005: 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
ToadProphet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10411

posted 16 October 2005 01:49 AM      Profile for ToadProphet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Excuse my ignorance on this one, but aren't the landmines mostly in rural farming areas while our troops are mostly in Kabul?
From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 16 October 2005 01:56 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The mining of farmland during the cold war was economic warfare on poor people should they decide to choose communism. Cambodian's and Vietnamese farmers are still having limbs blown off while tilling fields.

The truth is, Andrew and Reason, the military industrial complex never spend profits on nation building. Agent Orange still poisons farmland across Viet Nam. Cambodian farmers still have limbs blown off while tilling fields.

Why should Canadian taxpayers underwrite American colonialism abroad?. The Yanks should be cleaning up after they've bombed nations to smithereens, not us. And we shouldn't be listening to a damned thing they suggest to us about defense. They're the only damned country ever to have threatened our existence and sovereignty.

Why weren't we over there immediatley after the Soviets left and PDPA government forces, alomg with Soviet-trained professionals at their side, were fighting off Islamic militants for two years and defeating the mujihaden at Jalalabad before the Taliban finally took Kabul ?. The Soviet-backed PDPA was predicted to fall after the Russian's left. Why didn't we offer them help then ?.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 16 October 2005 01:57 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
Like I said, I'm not sure what Canada is doing right now, but the Canadian Forces have made several deployments in the country since 2001. And yes, the urban areas have probably already been taken care of in terms of de-mining, but I'm sure they're not perfectly safe either.

News from 2003, what happens without forces to provide security: UN freezes Afghan de-mining

quote:
On 3 May, gunmen shot and killed the driver of a car belonging to a local de-mining agency in Wardak Province on the Kabul-Kandahar road, also wounding a passenger . . . On 5 May, six gunmen stopped a car belonging to a UN-funded de-mining agency further south on the same road, shooting and wounding two employees . . . "This is one of the most severe examples of violence against the programme in the last 13 years of operations," said UN mine action country manager Dan Kelly.

"And we feel we have no choice but to protect de-miners from future violent attacks by ceasing operations in areas that are not adequately patrolled and secured."



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 October 2005 02:05 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
The Soviet-backed PDPA was predicted to fall after the Russian's left. Why didn't we offer them help then?
Yeah, why wouldn't the west rush in to prop-up a pro-Soviet government? Surely that would make perfect sense in terms of the late 1980's and the Cold War

I suggest you take two-seconds to actually think about what you just said there.

Why didn't we pay attention to Afghanistan before? I guess unfortunately most governments in the west were ignorant of the situation, and of the fact that a stable Afghanistan was in our interests just as much as it was in the interests of the Afghan people. September 11th caused a lot of people to wake up to the threat posed by instability, poverty and failed states.

[ 16 October 2005: 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
ToadProphet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10411

posted 16 October 2005 02:09 AM      Profile for ToadProphet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
Yeah, why wouldn't the west rush in to prop-up a pro-Soviet government? Surely that would make perfect sense in terms of the late 1980's and the Cold War

I suggest you take two-seconds to actually think about what you just said there.

Why didn't we pay attention to Afghanistan before? I guess unfortunately most governments in the west were ignorant of the situation, and of the fact that a stable Afghanistan was in our interests just as much as it was in the interests of the Afghan people. September 11th caused a lot of people to wake up to the threat posed by instability, poverty and failed states.


And we're stabilizing a country with the same population as ours with how many troops?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 16 October 2005 02:16 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ToadProphet:
And we're stabilizing a country with the same population as ours with how many troops?
20,000 plus the Afghan police and army.

Are you saying that you're in favour of more foreign troops in Afghanistan?


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
ToadProphet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10411

posted 16 October 2005 02:21 AM      Profile for ToadProphet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
20,000 plus the Afghan police and army.

Are you saying that you're in favour of more foreign troops in Afghanistan?


I wasn't taking a position at all, merely asking a couple of questions. However, it would seem obvious that we are doing little to stabalize the country at the current levels, how many would it take?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408

posted 16 October 2005 02:26 AM      Profile for Andrew_Jay        Edit/Delete Post
I don't know, things have actually been going fairly well lately - it is definately improving, in one way or another.

I think the main question is not if forces can be increased, but how long the ISAF can be maintained at these numbers - it might take several years with troop levels hovering around 20,000 personnel over that period.


From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 16 October 2005 02:35 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I've thought about what I just said from time-to-time since about 1989.


There was a picture taken by news journalists not long after the Taliban tookover: a trembling woman covered in religious veil. As she spoke with a Western reporter, sobbing, she explained to the world that she was the recently removed chief surgeon at the country's largest hospital, educated and trained by the "eeevil Soviets", Andrew. I don't buy the cold war shinola, so save it for someone who might nod their heads up and down for you in automatic agreement. I won't budge though.

Yes, the PDPA had Soviet backing. But then the Soviets left, and it was an Afghani affair. It was probably the first civil war inspired by a a women's rights movement. Women teachers, doctors and engineers were fighting alongside the PDPA forces against the mujihaden and routed them at Jalalabad. They were up against formidable opponents - terrorists basically, trained and armed by the CIA and Pakistan. Reagan showered Islamic mercenaries with billions in aid. They're still armed to the eye teeth today and buying more weapons with drug money.

The CIA and Pakistani militant dictators at the time were supporting a return to the stone age. They backed the wrong people, Andrew. And now the Yanks want us to help cleanup their mistakes. Like Haiti, another grand imperialist screwup. We shouldn't be accomplices to US imperialism in that shithole either.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
ToadProphet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10411

posted 16 October 2005 02:45 AM      Profile for ToadProphet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andrew_Jay:
I don't know, things have actually been going fairly well lately - it is definately improving, in one way or another.

I think the main question is not if forces can be increased, but how long the ISAF can be maintained at these numbers - it might take several years with troop levels hovering around 20,000 personnel over that period.


Interesting... that's pretty close to the numbers the Soviets had initially deployed and oddly enough all they ever could 'stabalize' was a couple of cities. They ended up at around 100k troops. Another interesting tidbit is that the same backers of the mujahidin (minus the US) still have a vested in keeping the occupiers out.
It would seem that we're the front line of a proxy war between imperial powers and things are likely to get pretty ugly pretty fast, wouldn't you say?


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 16 October 2005 02:59 AM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps it would help to focus less attention on BBC stories about what British troops are doing (with only tangential mentions of Canada), and focus more attention on what Canada says it's doing in Afghanistan.

A government backgrounder on Canadian involvement is here.

It has this to say about mine clearance:

quote:
Canada is the lead donor for mine action. In contaminated areas, mine action, which includes mine clearance, impact surveys, mine awareness and rehabilitation for victims, is a prerequisite to resuming economic and social life. The United Nations Mine Action Program in Afghanistan (UNMAPA) has developed a 10-year National Strategic Plan in consultation with the Government of Afghanistan.

Now, I note that this does not say that Canadian troops are themselves carrying out the mine clearance, but merely that Canada is the 'lead donor' (no figures provided) for 'mine action.'

The same document also outlines the missions and allocated resources for Operations Athena and Archer.

Operation Archer is the Canadian contribution to Operation Enduring Freedom (formerly known as Operation Infinite Justice), and is meant to 'reinforce the authority of the Afghan government in and around Kandahar and help stabilize and rebuild the region. It will also help monitor security, promote Afghan government policies and priorities with local authorities, and facilitate security sector reforms.'

Operation Athena, as Canada's contribution to ISAF [NATO's International Security Assistance Force], appears to be a surveillance operation, centred mainly on Kabul:

quote:
The CF continue to provide ISAF with key intelligence, situational awareness, and helps facilitate the Afghan National Assembly and Provincial Council elections process.

As part of Operation ATHENA, Canadian soldiers conduct regular surveillance missions in the ISAF area of responsibility. They are also involved in a number of projects in cooperation with other members of the ISAF team. Of the 900 troops deployed on Operation ATHENA, about 700 are based at Camp Julien in Kabul; the rest are deployed elsewhere in southwest Asia [does anyone else find that vague geographical reference interesting?] in support of the mission.


I hope it's understood that in putting up this post about details of this or that CF mission, I don't intend to divert attention from the overall implications of what Canada is doing in Afghanistan. I simply thought it might help move discussion along if we knew just which practical tasks the CF were charged with doing and which they weren't (regardless of whether we think those tasks ought to have been taken up).


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
ToadProphet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10411

posted 16 October 2005 03:02 AM      Profile for ToadProphet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Agree with almost everything, Fidel, except:

quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
And now the Yanks want us to help cleanup their mistakes.

I doubt it has anything to do with cleaning up mistakes and more to do with western imperial powers encircling and cutting off the mideast.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
ToadProphet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10411

posted 16 October 2005 03:04 AM      Profile for ToadProphet     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sgm:
Perhaps it would help to focus less attention on BBC stories about what British troops are doing (with only tangential mentions of Canada), and focus more attention on what Canada says it's doing in Afghanistan.

Thanks sgm... good info.


From: Ottawa | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 16 October 2005 04:05 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Aristotleded24:
Land mines? Are the soldiers in Afghanistan removing land mines? If so, how did you find this out?

(Aside: why have certain powerful countries, the US among them, refused to sign onto an international ban on landmines?)


We have not refused to sign on. We were amongst the first to sign on to Lady Di's prohibition.

And yes, we are not only activily deming, we are also training Afghanis to demine as well.


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

posted 16 October 2005 04:07 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sgm:
Perhaps it would help to focus less attention on BBC stories about what British troops are doing (with only tangential mentions of Canada), and focus more attention on what Canada says it's doing in Afghanistan.

A government backgrounder on Canadian involvement is here.

It has this to say about mine clearance:

I hope it's understood that in putting up this post about details of this or that CF mission, I don't intend to divert attention from the overall implications of what Canada is doing in Afghanistan. I simply thought it might help move discussion along if we knew just which practical tasks the CF were charged with doing and which they weren't (regardless of whether we think those tasks ought to have been taken up).



Our demining intiatives are for the most part force protection... We are also involved in the training of deminers.


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

posted 16 October 2005 04:14 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ToadProphet:
Excuse my ignorance on this one, but aren't the landmines mostly in rural farming areas while our troops are mostly in Kabul?


Rural areas are found around cities. The fact remains, we are clearing landmines... We would be clearing more, but... It would seem that someone has robbed our cupbords bare. And so we do what we can. Others, like the Brits (as Andrew mentions) are clearing more.


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

posted 16 October 2005 09:48 AM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
ToadProphet

There are plenty of mines in and around Kabul, the civilian casualties from landmines and UXOs is about 3-5 per week.

The current area of operations for the Canadian Forces in Afghanistan is quiet large, ISAF is now in working in at least 7 provinces around Kabul and have several smaller operations in at least 15 more provinces.

On a personal note, I have been involved in land mine clearing operations.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 18 October 2005 02:24 PM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yesterday in the House of Commons, Conservative Defence Critic Gordon O'Connor suggested Canadian soldiers might be exacerbating the problem of unexploded ordnance:

quote:
Joint Task Force Two is buying 40 millimetre grenade machine guns, which are definitely required by the army to replace protection previously provided by antipersonnel landmines. Unfortunately, they are not buying grenades that self-destruct. Unexploded grenades can maim and kill innocent people just like mines.

Is the minister prepared to contravene the spirit of the Canadian sponsored treaty to ban antipersonnel landmines by leaving unexploded grenades littered throughout Afghanistan?


Keith Martin's reply to O'Connor's question showed he didn't understand it; does anyone know if O'Connor's facts are correct?


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 18 October 2005 06:19 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by sgm:
Yesterday in the House of Commons, Conservative Defence Critic Gordon O'Connor suggested Canadian soldiers might be exacerbating the problem of unexploded ordnance:

Keith Martin's reply to O'Connor's question showed he didn't understand it; does anyone know if O'Connor's facts are correct?


I have never seen a dud on a 40mm HE round fired from an M203. This does not mean it doesn't happen... I would argue though that duds are rare (granted, I've only seen just shy of a thousand fired).


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

posted 18 October 2005 09:41 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by ToadProphet:
I doubt it has anything to do with cleaning up mistakes and more to do with western imperial powers encircling and cutting off the mideast.
One of the items on Condi Rice's agenda for next week when she come to Ottawa to hand Paul Martin his marching orders is the USian desire to have Canada play a larger role in helping to tidy up Iraq.

That sounds a lot like cleaning up U.S. mistakes.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Reason
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9504

posted 19 October 2005 12:09 AM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by M. Spector:
One of the items on Condi Rice's agenda for next week when she come to Ottawa to hand Paul Martin his marching orders is the USian desire to have Canada play a larger role in helping to tidy up Iraq.

That sounds a lot like cleaning up U.S. mistakes.


At which point, the only answer we can give is, "Sorry, but no thanks. Our cupboards are bare, and we do not care for your mess...".

Even if we did promise something, we have no troops available. All are either just back, gone, or prepping to go somewhere now.

As for the morality of such a request... Well, M Spector and all here, I have been at odds with you on many questions... This would not be one of them.


From: Ontario | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged
AFaulkner
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9827

posted 19 October 2005 01:25 AM      Profile for AFaulkner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hello all,

I've been reading through this thread, wanted to follow up many of the comments/posts - a conundrum in these days of CRS.

I found a letter that I posted to the Nelson, BC Guestbook around the time of the announcement of the Draft-Dodger structure in that city which, although somewhat dated, does contain much of what I wanted to say. (I had posted it on a non-profit site I host/design on a b/c page as it was too long for the Nelson Guestbook.)

fwiw:
http://www.glanmore.org/personal/DraftDodgersNelsonBC.html

I disagree that the current animosity was caused by George Bush. It is a "legacy" from VietNam, and I stand by those veterans 24/7.

This does not mean I advocate for War. I hate War. And I can only honor and respect those who go In Harm's Way so I can sit here and type this. It is still as it was.. people join because their country calls and it is their duty to "stand". Like our fathers and their fathers before them - on "both" sides of the border.

I support any and all legitimate efforts to bring Peace and an end to the War on Terror (which is how I see it), but, sadly, within the Peace movement that is impossible for me as it stands today, because you attack (and I do remember scenes where anti-war protestors were down-right rabid in conduct) those who serve. This is your history/lineage. I don't believe I am in any way unique.

It's very sad for "everyone" in that everyone loses.

My fear in this War (*although I think I may worry too much, as there is now a generation of veterans who will not allow this history to repeat itself) is that we will again through the efforts of the anti-war peace movement, have another generation of disenfranchised, damaged and hurt walking-wounded. That cannot be allowed again.

I respectfuly request that during the course of this War on Terror, the peace movement addresses its issues with our respective governments, and "not" those who serve.

I suppose I sound hostile. I'm not. Its simply that the thing I remember most about Vietnam (as a 16-18 year old civilian, foreign national too boot when I was in the US..)... The soul killing seachange for me was seeing how the Peace Movement treated those guys when they "tried" to come home.

The Canadian government treats, imho, our military like they are simply something distasteful - . I was overjoyed when I heard Villier's comment. Thank God for him. He calls it as it is and doesn't speak in placebos.

Many people I think believe that somehow "Peacekeeping" is tea at the palace, cucumber sandwiches.. It isn't. It's "hell" and it is "war" where we are sending them, be it tribal or not. Our peacekeepers are In Harm's Way and we do not support them enough at all.

It is possible to Support the Troops and be against War. The truly sad part is that somehow there is a disconnect in this as far I've seen in the Peace Movement over the years. Attacking the troops will not change anything. It will only do harm to them.

Please don't do that again.

Anne
Anne

p.s.: Ann Coulter is simply.. uneducated


From: BC | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
outlandist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10253

posted 19 October 2005 12:31 PM      Profile for outlandist        Edit/Delete Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by sgm:
[QB]Yesterday in the House of Commons, Conservative Defence Critic Gordon O'Connor suggested Canadian soldiers might be exacerbating the problem of unexploded ordnance:


Major General Lewis Mckenzie in the G+M:

Here's my message to some opposition MPs: Don't play politics with our soldiers. One defence critic who should know better questioned the wisdom of the Afghan visit even before our departure from Canada. The unit he commanded as a lieutenant-colonel in the 1970s is now serving in Kandahar. A number of the unit's solders indicated they would have him drawn and quartered if he showed his face in Afghanistan. Not exactly the type of endorsement he would appreciate, but one he should have expected

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20051019.wxcolewmack19/BNStory/National/


From: ontario | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
outlandist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10253

posted 19 October 2005 01:05 PM      Profile for outlandist        Edit/Delete Post
In 1993, when I took my release from the Canadian Forces, I promised myself that, in retirement, I would never don my uniform when there was a chance I might criticize government policy while wearing it. Loyalty to the principle of civilian control of the military is an essential characteristic of democracy. I had not worn my uniform for 12 years -- until this past week in Afghanistan.

Same link

General Mckenzie supports our mission in Afghanistan.I support its noble intentions but still consider it a cynical right of center vote grab by PMPM.

What do the vehement anti-war types wish to see in Canada's foreign and defense policies?

Canada requires a new White Paper which the present government keeps stalling so that they can cobble ad hoc policy to their political advantage.

Which direction should Canada take?


From: ontario | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
AFaulkner
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9827

posted 19 October 2005 04:37 PM      Profile for AFaulkner   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by WingNut:

I do not have to provide evidence for facts not in dispute and Hillier has made it clear that Canadian troops are there to hunt and kill Afghanis. But we are not at war and the so-called "enemy" has no rights as soldier of war. That means we are fighting a civilian enemy who are afforded no rights, no trials, no appeals.

That, in itself, is immoral.


[ 01 October 2005: Message edited by: WingNut ]


Is it not immoral to state that our Canadian troops are engaged in war crimes? And, yes, you do have to provide your sources.

I'm curious.. given that Canada is on Bin Ladin's hitlist, what would your reaction to an event such as September 11th happened in Canada? (in which, btw, Canadians were killed as well) Invite them for tea?

Villiers.. good for him to state things as they "are". Too long has Canada presented Peacekeeping as non-hazardous duty - in our government's quest to be perceived as a Swiss-neutral entity. The people that lose in this are our soldiers as, in Canadian perception which, imho, is tacitly condoned by our government, they just went for a holiday/light duty. I don't think Bosnia, for eg, was an afternoon at the beach.

As for Villiers? It seems it offends some delicate sensibilities to call what our troops are doing for what it is - a combat situation. What a pregnant rationalization for not supporting them.

For you to suggest, or infer in any way, that the Canadian military's primary Rule of Engagement is simply the "killing of civilians" is obscene.

Show me your documents, your evidence. or are you simply a troll.

Anne


From: BC | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468

posted 19 October 2005 05:10 PM      Profile for sgm     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anne,

I think you're right to draw a distinction between how we might address our policy makers and how we ought to address soldiers tasked with carrying out those policies.

Wouldn't you agree, though, that if Canadian soldiers--or any country's soldiers--were acting in violation of international norms governing armed conflict, that the citizens of the country would have a responsibility to speak up about it?

For example, Michael Byers had a piece in the Globe on September 27th warning that Canadian soldiers risked violating such international norms if they turned prisoners in Afghanistan over to American forces, given what is known about treatment of prisoners at Bagram AFB, Abu Ghraib, etc.

The Byers piece is sub-only now, but here are some key paragraphs from it:

quote:
Canadians think of themselves as supporters rather than violators of international human rights. But our troops in Afghanistan could be breaching Canada's obligations under the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1984 Convention against Torture.

In January, 2002, Canadian soldiers captured suspected Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan and handed them over to the U.S. military. The transfers took place despite the fact that U.S. Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had refused to convene the "status determination tribunals" required by the Third Geneva Convention to investigate whether individuals captured on the battlefield are prisoners of war.

Canada, by choosing to hand the detainees over, also violated the Third Geneva Convention. The transfers did not, however, violate Canada's obligations under the torture convention, since there was no reason to believe that U.S. forces would abuse the detainees.

Today, we know better. Photographs, news reports and official investigations into abuses at Abu Ghraib Prison in Iraq, Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan and Guantanamo Naval Base in Cuba indicate that, at best, the U.S. military has failed to educate its soldiers about human rights and the laws of war. At worst, the revelations suggest a policy of law-breaking that extends all the way up the chain of command. Leaked legal opinions that seek to justify torture, the denial of access to legal counsel, and the removal of detainees from occupied Iraq provide additional cause for concern.


Now, some people may think this is no big deal (I don't mean you), or think that Byers is wrong on the facts or on his interpretation of the law.

In my mind, though, he makes a persuasive case that Canadian soldiers could find themselves complicit in a violation of the norms that are supposed to govern armed conflict. I don't think Byers, furthermore, or anyone else should shrink from using clear language in describing such violations where they occur.

Byers concludes thus:

quote:
Canada has received assurances that the detainees will be treated properly. This is insufficient: Torturing governments almost always seek to conceal their actions. What matters is the recent track record of the United States.

Defence Minister Bill Graham says that Canada must transfer the detainees because we lack the facilities to hold them. The Canadian government should stand up for international human rights and the laws of war. If doing so requires building our own detention facilities or even pulling out of Afghanistan, so be it. There's no excuse for playing fast and loose with these fundamental rules.


I happen to agree with Byers that this is a feeble answer from Graham, who is responsible as minister for defence for what's happening in Afghanistan.

'We can't afford to avoid being complicit in possible torture,' is mere cover in this instance for, 'We're following orders from the Pentagon to ignore our obligations under international law.'

I don't see Byers as attacking Canadian soldiers here, and he's certainly not accusing them of torturing anyone, but he is taking seriously what I think is all of our responsibility in a democracy to speak out about what's being done in our name when we have good reason to think that's wrong.

[ 19 October 2005: Message edited by: sgm ]


From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 19 October 2005 05:29 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think any Afghan or foreign fighter capture by Canadian Forces should be held by the CF.

It does not matter whether the POW is kept in Afghanistan or in Canada. The POW should be kept in a military prison until the war in Afghanistan is over or he/she convicted of a crime under the Geneva Conventions.


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

posted 19 October 2005 06:35 PM      Profile for Reason   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
I think any Afghan or foreign fighter capture by Canadian Forces should be held by the CF.

It does not matter whether the POW is kept in Afghanistan or in Canada. The POW should be kept in a military prison until the war in Afghanistan is over or he/she convicted of a crime under the Geneva Conventions.


Hear here! Of course, there is the question of where we find the resources (material, personnel, and finacial) to carry this out.


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

posted 20 October 2005 12:38 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Reason:
Hear here! Of course, there is the question of where we find the resources (material, personnel, and finacial) to carry this out.
Funny how finding the resources (material, personnel, and financial) only becomes an issue when we talk about observing the Geneva Conventions.

As Byers says, "If doing so [standing up for international human rights and the laws of war] requires building our own detention facilities or even pulling out of Afghanistan, so be it. There's no excuse for playing fast and loose with these fundamental rules."


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 20 October 2005 12:54 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by outlandist:
[Quoting Maj-Gen MacKenzie] In 1993, when I took my release from the Canadian Forces, I promised myself that, in retirement, I would never don my uniform when there was a chance I might criticize government policy while wearing it. Loyalty to the principle of civilian control of the military is an essential characteristic of democracy. I had not worn my uniform for 12 years -- until this past week in Afghanistan.
MacKenzie never does tell us why he wore his uniform in Afghanistan. Is it because he knew there was no chance he might criticize government policy while he was there?

From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 20 October 2005 01:05 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by AFaulkner:
Show me your documents, your evidence. or are you simply a troll.

Pretty bold from someone with a grand total of two (2) posts under the belt.

BTW, would the guilty party (I think I'm looking at you, outlandist) please fix their HTML link to eliminate sidescroll. This thread is difficult enough to read as it is.

I swear, y'all must be surfing the net on metre wide screens. *sniff* rich folk.

[ 20 October 2005: Message edited by: siren ]


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 20 October 2005 01:12 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Anne Faulkner:

You are a very sick, warped, and hateful individual.

A whole generation of young men was scarred and maimed emotionally, psychologically, and physically by the Vietnam War. The war was unjust, and the majority of the American public finally came to realize that before it was ended, thanks to the anti-war movement telling the truth about the war that was denied and hidden by the US government and its media friends. Your anger against the anti-war movement is entirely misplaced; it should be directed at the criminals who sent those tens of thousands off to endure personal danger for no legitimate reason.

But apparently that's asking too much of you. For despite your pretensions to be against war, you bitterly denounce the Canadian government for refusing to send Canadians off to Iraq to be killed and maimed alongside the American and British soldiers whose lives are so greatly undervalued by their own treacherous, lying, and cynical governments.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   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