It is clear that both Harper and Hillier are very possessive of their war.

I'm increasingly convinced that our forces in Afghanistan are viewed no differently than U.S. Forces and may even be targetted because of Harper's obsequious attachment to the Bush clique.

Thinking and compassionate people can only be left frustrated and incredulous when faced with the drivel of the warmongers. How is it that we are controlled by this lowest sort of human? When will we finally acknowledge the elite for what they are and rid ourselves of them?

Another thing that Candians must acknowledge is that war is good for their pocketbook since the CPP "invests" in the warmongers' industries. I doubt many of us would approve of our funds being used in this way. Talk about cold comfort.

Murray,

I agree that we should withdraw our contingent when its tour finishes. However, Mr. Warner's proposal is not realistic. A UN aid project is not viable while the fighting is still going on. There is why the NGOs have fled the country.

We do have a responsibility to try to shape the post-NATO era in Afghanistan. We could return to our mediator/honest broker role. Can Karzai strike a deal with the rebels? The UN could be deployed in its traditional peacekeeping role to monitor the peace accord.

On the other hand, Afghanistan still needs advocates in the UN for humanitarian and development aid, if Karzai falls. We mustn’t allow the Americans to embargo Afghanistan like they did to Vietnam after 1975.

Indeed, this is a chance for Canada to distance itself from the Americans. And, pursue a humanitarian and rational foreign policy.

Anybody who studied military history, excluding generals without brains, knows that to conquer and hold Afghanistan would need 500,000 infantry, with their feet on the ground, for an indefinite period, while taking large casualties.

The reported Soviet losses were 11,608 dead and 454,464 wounded. Of course, being the military of a dictatorship, the real numbers could be double. I'd doubt that even the wildest so called "conservatives", would put up with such casualty figures.

20,000 foreign, motorized soldiers, locked up in their armoured vehicles floating around in a huge, roadless country are a criminal waste of resources and lives, apart from the fact that they're hated by the local population, with very few exceptions. They are indeed doing more harm than good.

The Taliban just walk around them, hiding in the bushes and grow stronger every day. The reported Taliban casualty figures are plain lies, but then the military and big business always survived and grew on lies, fraud, coercion, so it is nothing new.

The Taliban were put into power, armed financed and feted by the USA, until they refused to permit the bulding of an oil pipeline across the country.

All the countries that now have troops in to country ignored the Taliban's inhuman and criminal behavour against women and the "infidel", but miraculously discovered this well known fact, when Bush called them to arms in the fraudulent cause to "spread democracy".

The Taliban also eliminated the poppy fields, cutting into the budget of the the CIA and other "democratic" institutions.

As far Gen.Hillier is concerned, he's the typical "universal soldier" and a general to boot.....

Canada's participation is a propaganda campaign to get people and the military used to the idea of becoming part of the American, corporately controlled empire under the now negotiated NAU, and fighting for the profit demands of the multinational corporate mafia.

Ed Deak, WW2 vet.

I had hoped that there could be some more favourable report on the awfulness of this situation.

If there was any sensible way to "support our troops" beyond getting them back home, some of us "pinkos" would likely agree with that.

The only adjustment I see to the modern reality of war is in the rhetoric of the spokesperson for the government or military - not in the actual delivery of "aid" or "stabilization" on the affected area: quite the opposite.

It was difficult in the extreme to deliver "Humanitarian Aid" from the cab of a pickup with big "NO GUNS ON BOARD" signs emblozened on it's doors. I am sorry for the people looking out of a leopard tank through computer enhanced visors with fingers ready on triggers of mighty weapons while attempting to apply whatever "sensitivity training" they received in boot camp.

The reality in these areas has nothing to do with how Canadians vote or (hopefully) think.

Fifty year old military (and political) strategy can not be brought up to useful implementation by applying more armour, computers and fire power.

The time of the 'middle-power' is gone.

Connection to the tottering military powers will only cause more losses.

Canada stood-by, on the side lines, during the foolish Vietnam war(s); we can and should do the same now in Afghanistan.

The 'toothless tiger' of the UN has reached the far end of its run, similar to the League of Nations, that preceeded it. All that remains now is to see whom will 'walk away' from the diplomats table first.

Afghanistan is a lost cause, lost because of the American illegal action in Iraq. Bush and his 'chocos' haven'y a clue what they are doing and seem that they got their war plans from playin 'Risk'!

Harper and his band of 'zombies' are nothing more than Quisslings, who will sell out Canadians at a drop of a dime to appease his American masters.

In war you do it to win and our troops are not allowed that option, just meaningless forays into Taliban territory, where the local 'freedom fighters' pick them off at will.

Bush screwed up and Harper doesn't have the gonands to tell him so. The result: a weekly toll of dead Canadian Soldiers, who dies to theat Bush and the GOP can remain in power. F***** good work Harper!

A note to Mr. Harper: Canadians are getting tired of this adventure and are getting tired of you!

So right on this one ED. Just google for: new coca cola plant opened in Kabul, and you'll find several articles on the new 25 million plant recently opened there.

Impressive and clear sighted analysis, Mr. Dobbin. The truth you describe is so obvious, yet so blind to the people sending our young people to die.

Perhaps the Tyee can poll Mr. Harper and his ministers and see how many are sending their sons and daughters to Afganistan. A true litimis test if there ever was one.

Well, Korea ranked up there pretty good too, as a betrayal of both our soldiers and the Korean citizenry-, the latter who should have been left, as they will eventually anyway, to resolve their own problems. And if that means a civil war, well, it's not the first one in history and unlikely to be the last. (Seems to me if I recall, them thar "anti-terruh" Amurikans, in fact, fought both a revolutionary war against British Imperialism AND a goddamn bloody civil war amongst themselves. Or did I only imagine that?)

And then we have our naval role in the Gulf, doing interdiction duty for the US Empire in Iraq, our duplicitous role running Ceasefire Commission interference for the US in Vietnam, post the defeat of the French Foreign Legion, assisting the US Military in breaking Haitian democracy, and no less our day to day betraying of the Canadian nation through our submission to US Empire military and security policy through NATO and NORAD, and the newer even "continental" military command structures and control of the US high command, AND the general lapdog behaviours we exhibit and have with regard US imperial policy going back at least to my time in the military.

This betrayal of the Canadian nation has been coming on for a long time.

We are a betrayed people, in a betrayed nation, with a failed colonial state, ruling class, and professional political leadership in ALL parties and corporate elite strata, backed up by a colonial mindset and operational policy military-, which is no less a betrayal of our warriors, whether they know it themselves or not yet.

And they live in such a thought control environment that most of them likely do not.

This betrayal of the average Canadian warrior and ourselves has been going on for a long, long time. Unless, of course, we are looking at the matter through the prism of our head stuck up our own or Yankee butts.

This didn't all just suddenly get started in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is, in fact, the on again and off again continuation of a longtime policy by this country, depending upon how insistant the US Empire has been from time to time over its post WW2 empire building period. There has even been times when it has served the US purpose that we serve them in these "diplomatic interference" roles from the sidelines, more than with armed boots on the ground. Again thinking Vietnam.

The only thing this time is that the US Empire has again jerked our chain and is insisting threateningly. To which we, a slightly lazy junk yard dog, of course, have dutifully 'roused ourselves to serve The Master's Voice.

Uncle Sam's in trouble again, down yonder in the Middle East, and he's calling for us to come and die there FOR him.

Goddamn fools! Look at 'em go! Ready to die for the rich man's US Empire cause.

Crack me a beer, Mabel! Maybe pop up some corn in a bowl! This could be a serious show before it's over.

Too bad some folks gotta die before they learn to keep their nose outta other folks business.

It helps if you're just gonna follow orders, you can make yourself even believe 'em.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899
This is a Gannet publication in spite of the title. Be sure to examine the maps linked on the right.

Interesting read Gerhardius!

Ahh Murray, me old wannabe a commie & lead the proletarain revolution . . . quoting CCPA & Senlis like they are impartial organizations.

Spoken like a true socialist.

Wear red on Fridays, support the troops while they help stabilize Afghanistan so that those long suffering citizens can claw their way back to some form of normal life.

Except if your a socialist then its OK to sacrifice the women, children & homosexuals of Afghanistan to the tender mercies of the invading Taliban armies from Pakistan.

I see you're still jammed up in Alberta, loggie. Nice to know some people never actually think for themselves. It gives the marketeers a job I suppose.

When you can't contend with a logical argument it's always a good idea to start calling people names. Makes your case so much more convincing.

Hey logjam got any proof that our troops are there to protect the people and not the poppies and pipeline? Let the truth speak here and not the rhetoric, when the taliban were in power the poppy production was almost wiped out, not any more...

I'm certainly convinced.

:-)

Lets reinstate the draft to 46 years old, and then lets have a debate on the Canadian involvement in Afghanistan!

I said 46 because I will bge 45 this Friday, and would not want to exclude myself from the horror of being conscripted to be a soldier pursuing some strategy to 'win' in Afganistan.

Maybe with a draft we would have a full bodied debate and meaningful engagement of citizens in the issue.

I know if I was drafted to go to Afganistan I would refuse.

What would you do?

How do we 'win'

Stephen Harper and his crew should all be brought up on war crimes against humanity! Hillier is turning prisoners over to the Americans which in turn are sent to one of the many secret prisons around the world to be tortured or just made to disappear?
If Canada and its people WE Are the People Who Elected These So-called Leaders Who Were Put There To Protect and Make Canada Stronger As a Nation Not Sellout to the Yankees!
Gordon Campbell in B.C. another Yankee corporate sellout of British Columbia Canada! I say let's start standing up for our country CANADA!
We bought two world wars plus Korea for democracy?
I joined the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry in the early '60s and I was proud to be up peacekeepers who was looked up to in the world unlike the American tourists who mostly seem to wear the Canadian flag at that time, Why?
Huge Corporate Bucks for the shareholders who drive their SUV's, Hummers, RR, Limo's flaunting their huge houses 6000+ sq ft etc. Who are these so-called shareholders?

"Hey logjam got any proof that our troops are there to protect the people and not the poppies and pipeline?'

that's a no brainer . . . just ask Kofi & the UN . . . it is a UN mission . . you know the security council etc.

If our troops were standing guard over pipelines & poppy fields, even the CBC would be able to dig up that story.

It's a NATO mission loggie. Check it out!

No brainer is an apt description

hey logjam I asked you for proof, you know the stuff you base your opinion and bias on.

Gerhardius,

Though I took a look at it and did a quick perusal, I haven't read it yet as I certainly will. Looks interesting.

One thought though did come immediately to mind: That it is likely, certainly of those known immediately to me, every Empire in history has attempted this armed rewrite of the worlds borders, as part of its own attempt to control particular regions and sea lanes etc. for its own Empire interests.

Certainly, for a most recent example, the British Empire did it in Iraq, and carving out Kuwait from the piece, which resulted in a Saddam to attempt to control the disparate element of the British cobbled creation, and to bring back in that Kuwait piece-, all of which forming part of the basis for the current US Imperial interest driven conflict going on there. Indeed, the US Empire is talking already of attempting to undo, for its own control purposes now, what the British had previously done as part of its retreat interest-, and creating separate Sunni, Shia and Kurdish independent federations now.

With which some here might even agree, but is really more a matter for folks in the effected region itself to fight out and settle, in my view.

Afghanistan, and the northern "wild areas" of so-called Pakistan, into which sea the Taliban fishes are so effectively able to swim and hide, and operate beyond the control even of Pakistan, to which it had been artificially attached as well, is a similar Empire created phenomena to which the tribal peoples of the area pay no attention at all. They having created their own "actual" borders in defiance of the outsider imposed ones.

The point being, upon a quich read impression I concede, that this latest attempt of Imperial Amerika to rewrite "colonial" borders, especially in the Middle East, is not a new phenomena. It is but the continuation of a long outside Empire interference and invasion policy history.

These are different times however, with different historical and political realities, mobility, economic ties, and not least lines of communication and dangers in the intended victim region. So it remains to be seen if the US Empire and its Bootlick Legions from the West can actually succeed at this latest attempt to carve up the world in their imperial interest. The current indicators in this say not, I think.

Logjam603 supports a government that would murder religious converts.
http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/22/afghan.christian/

Nice job idiot.

Here's a tip on taking your "thinkun" locally.
Next time you see someone who aint treating their kids the way you'd like, go on up to them and tell them how to raise them.
You'll be welcomed back to the Tyee a little wiser, a lot more fat lipped and short a few teeth. And rightfully so.
The real shame here Backwoods Boy is that you aren't courageous enough to practice your flagrant stupidity by enlisting. Go sign up big mouth. Please. Go sign up.

Same old same old from Dobbin. In order to blame Harper, we need to ignore the fact that Canada has participated in Afghanistan since 2002 at the request of the UN, a mission approved by the Liberal party with the support of the NDP, with Steven Harper arguing against. The mandate of the original mission won’t be over until Feb, 2007.
He ignores the fact that if we pull out now we consign tens of thousands of Afghani citizens to be murdered.
He ignores the fact that the last three groups of soldiers killed there have been murdered while handing out candy and food to school children, or during road construction. They were killed doing what peacekeeping and reconstruction are all about.

Stephen Harper and his caucus by all rights should be charged with treason For Willfully Breaking up Canada!
How does he get the power to do all this with just the minority government?
Bring back democracy Now!
Democracy has already been taken away from British Columbia's because Gordo has already given away or privatized most of our Public Utilities to American corporations, Kinder Morgan etc.

sez cabsavy
Could we have a little proof of this claim?

You didn’t actually read the article did you?

Handing out candy is reconstruction?

In a land with no dentists, questionable nutrition and non-existent health care I don't think so.

Try handing out candy on a street corner next to an elementary school in Vancouver and you'll get arrested.

Roads in a country where the only vehicles belong to the soldiers and the war lords = peacekeeping?

Does ‘scumbags’ Hillier write your stuff cabby?

Next point?

Coca-Cola has just opened at 25 million dollar bottling plant in Kabul Afghanistan.
KillerCoke.COM

To G West: I admit there is no proof of future Afghani murders, and am not sure how this could be accomplished for those of us living in the present,. We can only go on Taliban past behavior, and give a most likely case scenario for the future. I hope I am wrong.

Handing out candy to school children is a gesture of peace, not reconstruction. The road building is the reconstruction part. You seem to have all the answers, or at least the insults. What do you consider peacekeeping and reconstruction?

Still chuckling godschild. I know I would have felt uncomfortable being on the wrong side of your wrath there. :-) Good 'un.

And find it interesting to read your background history in the military BC Dude. And to see how you've developed politically since.

I wound up in the navy 'cause the chicks reacted better to the bell bottom uniform of the day, but had started out intending to join Lord Strathcona's Horse.

But eh, a guy had to have his priorities straight. :-)

It's also used as an attempt to buy children's affection, and is a method used by pedophiles as well.

Better for the kids AND their parents if you just put away your guns and fuk off back to your own home turf, and leave mommy and daddy to look after their children and the safety issues of their own country and community. So long as outsider Armies are there, regardless of their best intentions, they pose a risk of serious violence and harm, and stand in the way of these folks and their neighbours in the region getting on with their lives and resolving their own conflicts.

It's that road to Hell that is paved with good intentions thing again.

Read godschild immediately above, He/she gets it.

The Taliban will kill lots of Afghans when they're back in power. They killed lots when they were in power before, they're killing lots now when they're not in power so there's no reason to believe they'll suddenly stop when they're in power again.

Nor do the Taliban have a problem with telling people how to raise their kids, twhat to think or what crops to grow or anything else. They just shoot them if they disagree.

Nobody should be applauding them for it.

I always find it amusing when the brainwashed "true blue" immediate accuse anybody who opposes war, especially stupid war, like in Afgh, as a "commie".

Under Soviet rule those who opposed war were called "the running dogs of capitalist imperialism".

In other words, war is always very popular with the faithful, provided it is waged on behalf of their ideological rulers.

I had a friend in England who was a Young Communist before WW2 and registered as a conscientious objector when war with Germany broke out, on the urgings of the Party.

2 years later, when Germany attacked the Soviets, the same Comunist Party that opposed war, immediately started calling their members to join up for the sacred cause of beating the nazis.

That's when my friend realized how phoney
ideological hysteria really is, and quit . But some people are so far gone in their heads that they can't quit. As we can see and read them on this blog, repeating the same time worn, brainless memorized, propaganda cliches.

Ed Deak.

Implying that those soldiers were pedophiles is going way over the line. Those soldiers died there. You can disagree with the mission, but show a little respect.

The point was and is, giving candy to kids does not make you a "good guy." Which is the point you were attempting to make.

Suck it up.

And again, we're killing folks over there in likely no less numbers than the Taliban, etc. etc. ad infinitum. The Taliban were/are doing no better nor worse than we are. Now the poor Afghans are just getting it double.

I nor you know what the Taliban will do IF and when they do return to power, which they are now almost certainly going to. Likely indeed now, they will kill many who served the Empire puppet regime-, and who have not fled like the boat people after Vietnam. That's the war it is that winning sides treat traitors everywhere.

And it is the great US Empire and we who have now brought this down on them again, after bringing them the Taliban in the first place, arming and financing them-, until they wouldn't agree to let the US build an oil pipeline through their territory.

I'm not a Taliban supporter. I just think they are a problem for the Afghan people to deal with, in their own good time, and to their own agenda, the same way Americans in their time dealt with the British Empire, at the founding of their nation, for example.

What? You think you are on the side of the angels here, do ya Frank?

I think not.

The first part of this equation though, involves getting the US Empire and us out of their goddamn face, and adding deadly complication upon deadly complication to their lives. This current course doesn't lead to peace or progress anywhere in the scheme of things, only to endless conflict-, which oddly you actually come out on the side of here Frank.

It's basically the same position Jack Layton is stumping for now, in the irresolute manner typical of that viewpoint, in my opinion. And oddly, it effectively, net result leads to the same Endless War place the PNAC crowd have us go, perhaps only a little more nuanced and 'round about, and maybe even with better intentions on the road to Hell.

My view. And like I say, it looks like we are just going to have to disagree on this one, and keep fighting it out as we are. :-)

And I find no pleasure being on the opposite side of this issue from you, Frank. You know, or should, that I have great respect for you in most regards. But I think Jack is wrong on this one, and I think you are as well.

Peace.

Should read, "That's the way it is that winning sides treat traitors everywhere."

A pet peeve about media coverage of the middle east, including the Afghanistan mission , continues to be CanWest's blatant, unethical manipulation of opinion polling.

Ipsos Reid has been colluding with CanWest in designing phoney polls to generate predetermined results to bolster CanWest'd hawkish middle east agenda. These polls falsely claim the Canadian public supports CanWest's view of the world.

CanWest published a poll Oct. 6 claiming
that a majority of Canadians who have an opinion support Canada's Afstan mission.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=4fedce12-9a14-4a5c-aba6-e70002a38817&k=63439
But this finding is contradicted by other prior polls, including a CTV/Decima poll published Oct. 1 http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20061001/afghanistan_poll_061001/20061001?hub=TopStories
which showed Canadians opposed the mission.

Now, a new Star/EKOS poll out on the weekend, again refutes CanWest's rogue poll results! http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid=971358637177&c=Article&cid=1160776234184
It too finds that a majority of Candians with an opinion oppose the Afstan mission. I'm afraid CanWest's polling does not pass the smell test.

The most blatant example of CanWest cooked polls occurred during the Israeli-Lebanese war. CanWest put out a rogue poll misrepresenting Canadians' opinions, claiming Canadians supported Israel's massive attacks against Lebanon, contrary to all other published polls.

CanWest and Ipsos Reid continue to sully their own reputations, as they engage in such sleazy "reporting" and pseudo-polling.

I happened to receive a call from an Ipsos Reid phone interviewer last night. I explained I'd be happy to respond to surveys from any company except Ipsos Reid, with whom I now refuse to associate myself with!

Right on Bobb9s. The idea that we have a left wing media in this country is laughable and Canwest is the worst of the bad. Have you seen the Armed Forces new recruiting ads?

How low can the government of this country go to kiss the hem of their puppet masters in the White House?

All around the US the GOP is failing like a dying fish while our government and the media pretend this disaster in Afghanistan is something new and different to be proud of.

What garbage!

That is easy to say, Coyote, sitting in the safety of your living room. I wonder if your tune would change if you were one of the people the Taliban was going to sort out.

I really don't see the taliban coming all the way over here to attack us. Because as gung ho Hillier keeps saying we all killing those scumbags in big numbers.However if we keep being too chummy with the present US government, who knows. Did you hear that a lot of folks in Texas are still convinced some of the 9/11 aircraft hijackers came from Canada.WE sure do pick our friends with care.

"Have you seen the Armed Forces new recruiting ads?"

I have and I find them disturbing, as if they were filming past efforts with ads in mind. Also the 'jerky' filming style to make it seem like combat photgraphy (ducking shrapnel, etc). Was the footage realy captured 'in theatre'?

Also the FIGHT Fear; FIGHT Terror; FIGHT War; etc. VERY AMERICAN!

What about FIGHT Greed; FIGHT Stupidity; FIGHT Colonialism?

Was it real footage or created on a stage lot somewhere?

What about: Provide Hope; Provide Help, Provide Security?

Good and Evil!

If only it was as simple as that!

cabsavy:
Before you have a myocardial infarction sitting in your living room in deathly fear of being put through god knows what terrors at the hand of Muslim extremists and terrorists from the Middle East you might actually want to read something about the subject.

Here's a good start for your re-education:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060901facomment85501/john-mueller/is-there-still-a-terrorist-threat.html

From the Sept/October issue of Foreign Affairs.

Yeh - roadbuilding. Nothing like a nice, smooth road to ensure the "bad" guys can get in and out quickly.
Stupidity runs riot...
As far as handing out candy, I personally think whichever commander had them doing that should be court martialed. That's frankly asking for it - as history has shown only just recently. I wonder how the locals felt having their kids "shield" soldiers ...

You right wing nutbars seem to think liberation of a populace that is barely literate (what kind of democracy are you going to introduce when most of the country couldn't read a ballot to save their lives?), deeply corrupt (yes - when bureacratized!) , indigeneously tribal at its heart and culturally about as far from the 20th century as you can get is a great idea.
Could you be more stupid?
Who's next on your "we dont like yur guvment", morons? Where does your little "spreading democracy" 3 card monty end?
I can spot several billion dollars worth of "reconstruction" our society could undertake here at home.
Why not start here? I guess helping ourselves to a renewed and forward looking energy policy (for example) just aint sexy enough for ya. You'd rather watch the military haul home body bags than see a wind farm get built in Saskatchewan huh?

Jerks.

Afghanistan, like the "brain" of the "kill all the zealots" oxymoronic blockheads is a LOST CAUSE.
The "solution" - as unpalatable as it may be - is to deal with the strongmen who will inevitably force all the Westerners out.

Well, I was going to address cabsavy, but Alcibiades said it better.

8-D LOL.

Free Bear, Bob 999, DPL.

Only if you are of a mind to want to do so. :-) Good to read ya's.

:-) Okay, godschild. Which gets my attention. :-)

And there isn't anything wrong with us Canadians quarrelling it out in this way. We's going to have to..., if we are, at the end of the day, ever going to finally pull it together, and our country, and defeat this same threat source to our own nationhood as threatens Iraq, Afghanistan and all the other Middle to small powers in the world. (Which may be an "alliance" source direction in which we want to be looking, sooner rather than later.) The problem is, maybe, we've been just a tad too focused on hockey, and not enough on some of these other, certainly no less important issues, :-)like whether or not we are even going to be here as a country (of three integral nationas) in the not too distant future.

We just maybe have more in common with Iraq and Afghanistan, and maybe even Cuba and Venezuala, in a quite different context than we have heretofore considered, or popped up on the old pc screen. (Talking again about the comfort of one's living room. :-)

Sometimes, just sometimes, you really don't need to be a weatherman to know which way the wind blows. :-)

Ehhh, brothers and sisters? :-)

ROTFLMAO :
Senate regorm as Harpo's issue to get him re-elected. Too funny Graves .

Ottaw—The federal Conservatives are dogged by the public's lack of enthusiasm for Canada's Afghanistan mission and skepticism over their pledge to improve the environment, a Toronto Star poll reveals.

But Prime Minister Stephen Harper has a "winner" with his proposal for an elected Senate and should keep pitching that plan to a receptive public, pollster Frank Graves says.

"I found that result surprising," said Graves, president of EKOS Research. "Of the things they've been talking about lately, this is one that gets real clear enthusiasm from most Canadians."

Yet big issues remain a problem for the Tories. The poll reveals that the federal government has had little luck turning around public attitudes toward the Afghan mission. Despite recent efforts to highlight Canadian redevelopment efforts in the Kandahar region, public support continues to sag.

The poll showed that just 36 per cent of Canadians back the dangerous mission in southern Afghanistan, where 40 soldiers have been killed already. That's down 2 points from an EKOS poll done just a few weeks ago.

That only boosts pressure on the government to develop an environmental plan that can win over Quebec residents "since they're taking a lot of damage on the Afghanistan issue there," he said.

Until the Tories convince Canadians they have a credible environmental plan, they're not likely to win a majority government, said Graves. "Stephen Harper and the Conservatives are not seen as championing the environment or environmental problems," he said.

That's bad news for Harper, who this week launched the first stage of his government's green strategy at a news conference in Vancouver. Flanked by senior ministers, Harper revealed plans to introduce a Clean Air Act to regulate toxic chemicals and greenhouse gases.

But Harper's statement was met with a "universal raspberry" from stakeholders and experts, and so far has had little resonance with Canadians, Graves said.

That was reflected in the poll results, where almost half of respondents — 46 per cent — this week said they only had "low" confidence in the Conservatives' ability to tackle environmental concerns. Another 57 per cent said they had "moderate confidence." Just 7 per cent said they have high confidence.

"It's too early to judge but clearly skepticism outweighs enthusiasm by a significant margin," Graves said. "It shows that they have a tough challenge ahead of them."

On the other big international issue, the poll shows 45 per cent of Canadians favour diplomatic talks as an appropriate response to North Korea's announcement this week that it had conducted a nuclear test. Another 42 per cent favour either targeted economic sanctions or a total political and economic embargo. Only 6 per cent favour military intervention by the international community.

The one bright spot for the Conservatives in the poll numbers is Harper's plan for Senate reform, which is "surprisingly attractive" for many Canadians, despite the "almost insurmountable" constitutional hurdles, Graves said.

Sixty per cent said it is time for Ottawa to "get going" on reforming the unelected Senate, the poll found. Just 35 per cent thought it would be a waste of time and energy.

The government has already introduced legislation to limit Senate terms to eight years. Harper told a Senate committee last month that legislation is being drafted to allow Canadians to elect would-be senators, perhaps as soon as the next time the country goes to the polls.

The EKOS survey sampled 1,211 Canadians between Oct. 10 and Oct. 12 and is considered accurate within 2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

Yea, Graves I find the result surprisng as well 'casue it's BS .
Canadians are not clamoring for Senate reform especially if it is done by the Mighty Moron Ranger Harpo .
Nice try Graves .

Gerhardius,

Did a look at the 'map'.

I am reminded of the Sykes-Pekoe Treaty.

Then of the desire of Churchill to not have any re-drawing of frontiers or talk of 'dividing into spheres' in the conferences with Stalin (especially Tehran).

Once again the 'middle-east' is the zone of greatest conflict.

Madness to try and draw any borders at all...better to accept that the 'edges' will be fuzzy and leave it at that. Certainly the 'government' in Islamabad is accepting this (though working hard at making the 'fuzzy' part move north...).

Now, I am a cynical man. But gotta tell ya, I don't too quickly write of all this polling data shitt. I may not buy into it all, but I pay attention to it. And there's a number of ya out there who are obviously really good at it and into it.

I do not look down my nose at good and scientific polling, okay?

It's mostly just that separating the wheat from the propaganda chaff out there is a problem. And I, if no one else, appreciate those of ya who are attempting to do that for us out there.

Keep it up brothers and sisters. And keep up that "reader" function for us, that brings us so much useful and appropriate information.

Good on all of yas.

Frank posted:

Nor do the Taliban have a problem with telling people how to raise their kids, twhat to think or what crops to grow or anything else. They just shoot them if they disagree.

Nobody should be applauding them for it.

No applause planned.

What makes our troops 'giving out candy' at the point of a gun, any less malevolent than the Taliban?

You still do not get it Frank, by just 'being there' we, Canadian troops, are drawing the undesirables towards us. The 'ordinary' Afgahni (if such a person exists) would rather live in peace, grow their crops, share life with their neighbors in the same valley and not have to deal with any of this. But the reality of where they live has come out to haunt them yet again. With 15 generations (or more) of past in every family of fighting against some sort of aggressor do you really think anything we can do with a tiny little bit of military force is going to have the slightest effect of change there?

I'm certain you, Frank, have heard the saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

WE ARE DOING THE SAME THING AS THE SOVIETS DID, DO WE EXPECT A DIFFERENT RESULT?

If so we are mad.

Alcibiades: Thanks for the reeducation camp. The point you missed was that it is easy to be cavalier about letting the Taliban sort things out when there is so little threat from them here. My point is that you might not make the same bold statements if you had to live in Afghanistan after we pull out.
We should have never gone in there, but we did. Now that we are there, can we just abandon the place? There is blood on our hands now, and leaving may make things worse. Maybe not, but what we discuss as ideas are reality to many Afghani. The Afghani citizens don’t trust us, and one of the main reasons is that we are proven to be such unreliable allies. If the going gets tough, or we change our government, we pull out. What next, head to Darfur?

Whose flag will American tourists sew to their backpacks when they travel abroad now?

The maple leaf isn't what it used to be - the international symbol of peacekeepers. Now we are part of a "Coalition of the willing" that freed the U.S. to invade Iraq.

If the war in Iraq is about oil, the war in Afganistan is about opium. This year, we are told that the Afganis grew enough poppies to supply 130% of the world market. How do you make an honest farmer out of a poppy grower?

Jesus.
Finally.
Somebody gets it.
The word "border" and Afghanistan were never really meant to be used in the same sentence.

Nor do the Taliban have a problem with telling people how to raise their kids, twhat to think or what crops to grow or anything else. They just shoot them if they disagree.

Nobody should be applauding them for it.

Excellent post. I really think some of you are nuts.

when you think about the misery that country is exporting ya gotta wonder! How many families have been destroyed by the heroin being exported by these people.

With all these troops running around looking for bin laden and making the country a safer place and they haven't caught any heroin smugglers, at least I don't recall hearing anything.

Ed Deak, who posted early on, is quite right about the approximate number of boots (1,000,000) needed on the ground to Canadianize Afghanistan.

We should not kid ourselves, troops of all nations are in Afghanistan to war harden some troops. No other purpose is being served.

I have long maintained that the money being spent by Canada in Afghanistan would be better spent if we were building hockey and curling rinks there.

Really JIm?
You're so in love with Sharia that you're A-OK with the execution of people who want to convert to Christianity?
Then go sign up to keep Mr. Karzai in power. Why not get your kids or grandkids to sign up? Have you? Why not? If it means so very very much to you, why aren't you getting your kin to sign up for military service?

Is it because you're a gutless wanker using "the rights of the oppressed" as a tool for injecting corporatism into the frontiers?

Better question for you and your kind JIm - why weren't you bitching and whining abut this back when the Taliban came to power in the first place?
WHERE WERE YOU THEN JIm?
What suddenly caused you to gives a rats ass about a tribally based, largely illiterate population halfway around the world?
Why aren't you bitching and whining about Saudi Arabia's treatment of women, China's human rights record, or the Sudanese practice of Clitoridotomy?
Hint: It's not just because you're an idiot JIm... there's something deeper and darker isn't there?

Here's a practical heads up for those of you with your "heads up". People will take the ability to walk around safely over *any* uncertainty. People will take *any* form of government with rules and guidelines over chaos. Even those with tribal affiliations. Even those which might incur upon them the penalty of death for the most trumped up of charges. The majority will know the rules and attend to them as best they can.

How do I know?
Because someone close had the temerity to be a communist in a country that the United States "oversaw" and died after being tortured to death (for being a communist) - by the state.
Tears were shed by a few close friends; the majority of people in the country went on with their fruitful, productive lives, caring not a whit, judicious in their associations, fearful only when they drew too close to those spheres of influence the state took an interest in.

So take your "holier than thou" attitude and cram it.
The universe really doesn't care what you think is best.
People will live and think like animals (as you apparently do) and be none the wiser or sadder for it.

Now go get those grandkids signed up. Lets see you put something on the line instead of just running your mouth off.

Yea, let's teach the Taliban to play hockey.
That'll keep 'em out of trouble .

Nobody should be applauding them for it.

I don’t think anyone is, applauding.

And yet, without exaggerating one iota, what exactly is pee wee Harper and General Hillier's battle cry for Afghanistan but - kill those scumbags.

Have we really sunk to the same level?

cabsavy
It is, in most matters, necessary to actually make up your mind. You're the one who wrote just above that Coyote ought to support the mission because it 'threatened' him in his living room.

Now you tell us we have to continue the madness because once started the killing cannot stop. What do you really believe, if anything?

I don't care how or when anyone stops shedding the blood of others, it is always a good thing. We need to get out, NOW! There are places in the world where the sacrifice of human lives for a good cause is at least rational. Saving the displaced of Darfur might have been such a cause; laying down our lives to stop the slaughter in Rwanda would have been another - getting our sons and daughters blown to pieces, their blood soaking the sands of Afghanistan is not.

--out loud!
Free and easy here in my computer room.
Sillitoe had a take on building sports fascilities: "training for war".

This thread is breaking down
soma the contributors
obviously came from the same
small town in Canada
Where I grew up - but they never left it

Farming is a great endeavor
and needs to be done well

However, if you do not get your body out of the section
and produce your own opinion like:
"Them lazy (fill in------) don't even pave the roads let alone clean up the verges"
I have to assume you are working with information you have read or seen on TV.

I have been there. I do not claim to understand other cultures. I declare that I like them as they are: Garbage and flowers (and yes, smiles more smiles per capita in Phnom Penn than in Vancouver)
Get used to it

If so we are mad.

Okay Murdock. Keep pissing me off by making sense.

I trust you more when you don't. :-)

Reading the comments on this article confirms that Canadians (including me) have no idea what is going on in Afganistan, Iraq, or anywhere else in the rest of the world. That is why we should not interfere in the internal politics of other countries. We are not making Canada safer by fighting a war in an Islamic country. We have NO CHANCE of success there.

Coyote,

I think that although the Afghan gov't leaves a lot to be desired that the chance of progress within a corrupt democracy is far better than under a ruthless dictatorship. I don't expect anything from the Karzai gov't and I therefore won't be disappointed. But eventually Afghan gov'ts will improve as long as the people there have the ability to change them. I think its leaving the country to the Taliban that will produce endless conflict there.

Just and Noble Cause - Hah !

British Prime Minister Tony Blair applauded Canada's continued military efforts in Afghanistan on Monday, calling the mission a "just and noble cause."

"In Helmand and Kandahar (provinces), British and Canadian Forces are performing in conditions of considerable danger and difficulty with the utmost professionalism and courage," Blair told the Canada-United Kingdom Chamber of Commerce in London.

"I pay tribute to all those who have given their lives for this cause. For their sake, and the sake of the Afghan people, we can and we must -- and we will -- see this mission through."

Blair, 53, has come under criticism from his own military commanders for heavy British casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, where dozens of soldiers have been killed.

Senior British military officials have warned the army is overstretched, while commanders have been quoted as saying the military needs to provide greater support for troops in Afghanistan.

Britain has about 5,000 troops stationed in the volatile Helmand province, where they are struggling to subdue insurgents and create a peaceful environment for reconstruction efforts.

Blair acknowledged that Canada has also suffered high casualties, a development which has fueled criticism of the mission.

"I know you have found it difficult in Canada, and difficult for the families who have lost loved ones, because you have lost over 40 soldiers ... and the death of a diplomat," he said.

But he added that the fight against terrorism has affected both Britain and Canada, and it was important to fight violence extremists "in every arena in which it threatens us."

murdock,

At least our guys are soldiers and well armed. If we weren't there the undesirables would be killing regular people.

I agree. And that ordinary Afghani should have that ability to live in peace. The problem is a group of thugs doesn't want him to.

Nope. But our tiny military is a different issue.

We're not doing exactly the same thing. We won't try and leave a dictatorship behind.

fish-counter,

Well, the Taliban did it by shooting them. I don't think that's the answer. A combination of purchasing part of that crop (since we can use it) and encouraging food production by not swamping the country with food aid would help.

ursus,

The drug lords are our allies due to not having enough troops. Its a big problem with the situation in my opinion.

Frank:

Agreed.

Not so clear.

1. What proportion of the opposition to the current regime is actually Taliban? Most authorities put the percentage at far less than half.

2. Karzai seems to be in the middle of making concessions to the warlords and folks with whom he'll have to work once the western forces withdraw.

3. At best, most of the western forces in Afghanistan will be there another year or two. There are so many other pots coming to the boil just now, given NATO's apparent ambivalence and the Americans' frantic desire to get out that I cannot imagine anyone believes we're in for the long haul (at least a generation) required to make the kinds of cultural and infrastructure changes your kind of remedy requires, Frank. The British are already recognizing the soft cheese they're caught in, in Iraq - without them or the US Army Air Force we have no air support and our position becomes untenable.

4. As Gwynne Dyer has observed there are many signs pointing to the situation after the troops pulling out being far less bad than you imagine.

5. Why continue spending (what is it, $5 billion so far) dollars and lives on a cause all of us know is lost? We should make the best of a bad deal, pull back to Kabul and see if we can get talks started - in much the same way Kissinger got out of Vietnam.

6. There will be no moral victories here, only pyrrhic ones.

Scant media attention has been given to the Afghanistan Compact in London this year. This spells out what the government of Afghanistan has to accomplish by the year 2010, and more important for Canada, it commits NATO to security operations.
Much has been accomplished in Afghanistan since the Taliban's overthrow.
63000 former combatants have demobilized and disarmed, and 11,000 heavy weapons have been cantoned. An atmosphere of increasing security has seen more than three million refugees return-10 per cent of the population- without enticement or coercion.
1,830 kilometers of roads have been built or repaired, and 477 schools are going up. There are 2 million girls in school. Formerly there were none.
A democracy has been formed.. This is not a bad news story.
We have an obligation, having fought so hard in past wars to defend democracy, which has resulted in our riches, that we do the right thing by helping Afghanistan and others.
There is nobody on the Taliban side to negotiate with. I ask anyone to put forward a single name.
Many of you make me wary about the Canadian left. You are out to lunch.

The world is full of bad governments, bad groups, bad this and bad that. If we don't have any sense that we are the same species living on the same planet then really there's no point in having international organizations or even foreign news etc.

Because if what happens in Afghanistan or anywhere else means absolutely nothing to us then I see no point in the existence of the General Assembly, UNICEF, WHO, Kyoto or any other international organization.

We don't live in the bronze age anymore. What happens outside our borders can still affect us directly or indirectly. The supremacy of the nation-state within its own borders is slowly being eroded because global challenges require global politics. We wouldn't condone abuse going on across the street and in the 21st century we shouldn't condone it in central asia or anywhere else.

Power may come from the barrel of a gun but legitimacy doesn't. Without foreign troops being there the Taliban have the power to enforce their brutal ways on the Afghans but that doesn't give them the right to do it. Power without legitimacy makes them nothing but thugs and they should be treated accordingly.

Re: Coyote's comments about Layton and the NDP, the resolution passed at the federal convention calls for withdrawal of Canadian troops and then calls for financial support of a UN led peace keeping/reconstruction mission.

This makes sense to me. Canadians have lost any credibility we might have had as peace keepers, but I know that in 2002 many national and international aid agencies were doing good work in Afghanistan with the support of peace keeping troops - until Afghans and our military were betrayed first by Liberals and then by Regressive Conservatives. Perhaps things have been too badly damaged to go back to what was working, but it was working.

BTW apparently when pressed Jack said that we were going to have to negotiate with the Taliban at some point. And evidently Karzai actually is "negotiating" with at least some "Taliban" militants, so clearly this concept is not as far fetched as the pooh poohers (actual technical term)first suggested. Especially as the definition of "Taliban" comes to look more and more like code for "insurgent". Which means we are no longer only dealing with fundamentalist zealots, but with folks who are fighting for a whole range of reasons.

The problem with negotiating as I see it is no longer the absolute riduculousness of treating with zealots, but with the fracturing of cohesiveness in the insurgency. From what I understand this is the way it has always been in Afghanistan though; each tiny region has its own power structure and loyalties.

If we were there to make life better for the ordinary citizen then we would have to understand that we would be "winning hearts and minds" one tiny fiefdom at a time. Long term plodding work, that is not likely to result in any pipe line any time soon.

All this when we could be actually making a difference in Haiti!

Where did you crib that from Ron?

Be nice if you'd also added this:

It is true that that political success does mark the conclusion of the first stage of international efforts to rebuild the country, under the terms of the Bonn agreement that was signed soon after the fall of the Taleban in 2001.

But UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, who is attending this meeting, perhaps summed up the mood best.

“Afghanistan is now a nascent democracy,” he said. “Yet our optimism is necessarily tempered by the serious challenges the country is facing.”

He focused on security, the threat from terrorism, the still rampant drugs trade, which he said meant Afghanistan was still in a “fragile state”.

His words were notably more cautious than those of US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who said it was “remarkable” what had been achieved in the past few years.

The real problem is that so few Afghans have felt much benefit from the political changes of the past few years. Most live in abject poverty. They have a government, but it does not have much capacity to do anything for them.

Frank
I don't think your pessimism over what's going on in Afghanistan and the seeming reluctance of some commentators here to support continued bleeding for a project you freely acknowledge is compromised and has 'no' chance of succeeding on terms as currently defined is justified.

The world at large, and even some less blinkered supporters of the current US government, is gradually coming to a realization that the imperial project invented by the Bush White House is a complete failure.

Canada can and should do a lot more to help and support people around the world who need our assistance.

Furthermore, we possess, within our own borders, a third world nation that lives for the most part in appallingly backward conditions and is, as pointed out in Ottawa today, represented disproportionately in the populations of our federal and provincial prisons.

We are being 'ruled' by a questionably democratic government in Ottawa that seems to be more than sanguine about spending $5 billion on a failing project in Afghanistan while it is unwilling to stand by freely arrived at commitments to First Nations developments here in Canada for a similar amount of money.

Strange isn't it?

I know you have at least one daughter and I respect deeply your concern for the fate of the women and children of Afghanistan. I have sons. I don't want to ever have to think about them dying for such a compromised effort as our current 'leader' thinks is somehow noble.

It there were a real chance of these soldiers deaths being an appropriate price for real 'progress' for Afghani women and children I'd support you. I honestly don't think there is and so I can't.

As for solving the local problems of Canada's First Nations - I see no inclination from Mr Harper at all.

In addition, that's really something to be depressed about.

Is that so much different from the storekeeper who just want to do his business but is harrassed by some mafia thugs?

People are being intimidated constantly by thugs with guns, at times the police actually try to stop it, but it just moves on to the next set of victims!

What makes you think that starting a war because some peasant is being intimidated is sensible!

We are getting ourselves involved in an area where we have no chance in hell of making any difference!

Most developing countries go through civil war(s), they have one dictator after the next, and eventually with luck some sort of civilization happens!

To think we can drop in there with guns and candy and solve it is stupid!

alive
I don't think that's the kind of involvement that Frank, at least, is suggesting. I think the sad irony of this whole case is that it could well have been different and the west could have made a positive difference in Afghanistan if its actions immediately after the 'defeat' of the Taliban had been different.

Instead, the US - who was meant to provide the leadership here - reneged on all its promises and invested itself in a campaign to round up, imprison and torture (by proxy if not in actual fact), hundreds of ordinary Afghans. Their concern for women and children, for rebuilding the infrastructure, for developing a viable economy never got past the talking stages. Why would anyone be surprised that a people who had been abused, taken advantage of and ignored by their own leaders, Moscow, Washington and London, dozens of times during the past 30 years would now turn on the very government (led by an outsider like Karzai who doesn't even talk to the Prime Minister of Pakistan) that was supposed to be their savior?

The candy is the least of it. We have no credibility because of the company we keep.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions - and that's about all there is to Canada's current effort at nation building.

When the west had a chance to make a positive difference, it failed miserably. Moreover, that truly is sad.

Just saying I don't think the return to power of the Taliban will bring peace. Whether its insurrection or the Northern Alliance I think war will continue.

I don't know. But election turnout dropped where the Taliban were strong.

As he should. If he can somehow come to an agreement with the Taliban to stop killing people they disagree with then more power to him. After all he can't legislate the Northern Alliance and Taliban out of existence. However, there was an article on a British site, it may have been the BBC, I'll try to find the link, where in talking to the Taliban it was pretty clear they think wanting to negotiate simply means the gov't is weak (which it is).

Yup.

When I read Gwynne's argument though he didn't say what his reasons were for believing that.

I think that will only encourage the Taliban based on past history. And as the Taliban stock rises they'll recruit or coerce more fighters in the areas we give to them.

Frank
But, given the concessions you've made above, how can Canada's staying on any longer be anything but a sop to Harper's obvious genuflecting to George Bush?

As for Dyer's omission of evidence to support his thesis in that column I posted - it is glaring. I'll check back in my files to see what else he's written recently on the subject.

If that's the reality, and your responses above seem to indicate that it is, then staying on is madness and tantamount to an acknowledgment that every Canadian life lost from here on in is a waste.

No?

Surely, there's a point beyond which an intellectual debate cannot go.

Faced with the hard truths of the situation on the ground, Taliban or no, why not take the course I've suggested above and pull back to Kabul? At least from there it’s possible to evacuate when it really hits the fan.

The NDP advocated that Canada withdraw from NATO years ago. They haven't changed their position since. Although I have to give them credit for being consistent, I must disagree with their view that the world can be free of threats by us simply being nice and talking rather than fighting. While meanwhile, these so called friends are plotting behind our back, on how they are going to kill us.
We do have uninvited enemies. Enemies who we didn't even try to piss off. People want western society destroyed. I am willing to denounce them.

Ron, as I posted earlier for cabsavy, here's something you should read before you do yourself an injury:

Before you have a myocardial infarction sitting in your living room in deathly fear of being put through god knows what terrors at the hand of Muslim extremists and terrorists from the Middle East you might actually want to read something about the subject.

Here's a good start for your re-education:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060...ist-threat.html

From the Sept/October issue of Foreign Affairs.

Its not madness because as murdock pointed out, the Taliban will be attacking our armed soldiers and not the Afghan civilians. That's worth something and I know you're not claiming Afghan civilians are worthless compared to the cost of our soldiers.

Should Canada be willing to lose 40 soldiers to get 2 million girls in school if that's the actual numbers? I think that's not bad. Losing 40 soldiers to buy time for the Afghans to have another election at the end of Karzai's term? Hopefully a change in gov't which happens peacefully because that display is also worth something. Time also allows for war weariness to set in on the insurgent side as well as ours. Thousands of dead might make them a little more compromising with perhaps a newly elected Afghan gov't. Can't forget Bush is about to become a lame-duck president too.

No one can predict the future but I think the longer NATO holds on there are a number of things that could increase the chances of the Afghans having a more peaceful and prosperous future. Even the Brits want to pull out of Iraq and concentrate on Afghanistan because they think there's a better chance there.

Frank: I don't think those are believable numbers - that article Ron was quoting from was:
a. prospective, and
b. out of date.

Further, as was pointed out up post here we are talking about a fundamentalist Islamic Sharia law administration here - at the very least. DO you really think the prospects for Afghan women will actually change that much in 2 years or less? I don’t.

As for the Taliban as mass murderers, I recall a column by john burns in the Times from 1998 or so that didn't tend to support the claim that they were as bloodthirsty as American and Harper propaganda imply. However, nevertheless, if you really want to help Afghan women I'd say we'd better start preparing to bring them to Canada where they at least have an even chance of getting a fair break. Under the misogynistic government that Karzai heads I don't think they'll do very well there. In fact, in 2 years time that society will still be a male-dominated hierarchical society where women hide in burkas and flit from shadow to shadow while the mullahs tell them what to do – more’s the pity but that too is reality. Changing Afghanistan the way you and I would like to se it change is a generation’s work – at minimum.

I'm all for that by the way - let those who want to live in a democracy where human rights actually means something come to Canada. But, while we’re waiting for them to arrive, let’s send those Canadian forces in the ads on TV into the Indian reservations of this country and do a little rebuilding and helping of the Canadian women and children there.

Let's 'fight' a little first nations poverty here at home! And get rid of the third world poverty here that Harper thinks it’s okay to just ignore.

Alc; Why send me a nonexistent link?
I couldn't hook up with it. Are you proclaiming that we have no reason to fear anything? No way that there is nobody more dangerous than the Americans?
Going back to the writer of this thread, I say that he is misguided and delusional about the real current affairs.

I actually suggested that on the other thread as you know, its fine with me. I don't know how you couldn't qualify as a refugee when running from the Taliban.

Not really but there's a chance of incremental progress. Just a chance.

Our governments have been free to help for generations. For some reason Liberals and Conservatives (and provincial NDP gov'ts) claim to be unable to do so. They're not, what they're really saying is they can't fix the problem with the usual collection of policies based on corruption, patronage, greed, information-hiding etc.

And Frank, that's what's so unholy and hypocritical about Harper's stand. On the one hand he throws out the Kelowna accord and cuts the legs from under those agreements meant to actually make a difference for our own poorest and least wealthy and healthy Canadians and at the same time pretends he's on a humanitarian mission in Afghanistan. All the while promoting a ‘justice’ initiative that will shove even more young first nations men and women behind bars for years - in some cases throwing away the keys – again as a sop to guys like Ron and cabsavy who think somebody’s coming in the night to ( in the words of Humphrey Bogart paranoid character in the Treasure of the Sierra Madre) ‘steal their goods’.

Let's bring those Afghan women to Canada, now - put 'em on the same planes we'll use to ferry our troops home before any more of them die.

I'll post those John Burns articles in the other place tomorrow. I'm burnt out!

It's time Canadian people stopped believing in the pap that's served them daily by the media and started asking tough questions and calling our various governments - federal, provincial and municipal to task for their incompetence and inhumanity, greed and unfettered self-interest. In a country where John Reynolds has become an éminence grise it isn’t too much to say that the Yahoos have taken over completely.

I notice none of the TV ads for the armed forces show the army's rescue efforts in Toronto from that snow storm a few winters ago!!

Try this Ron:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20060901facomment85501/john-mueller/is-there-still-a-terrorist-threat.html

Hope that works better for you dude.

Very respected source. Not at all (L)iberal or left wing.

I hate to think you're having trouble sleeping at night - all that Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh can do that to a fella, eh?

West said so well:

...Right on G. This hypocrisy highlights the insanity of Harper. It is like this imo, if these people were living in our country, as in the FN's, history has shown he wouldn’t lift a finger to help them, in fact, he makes things even more exigent for them… But, when the eyes that are witnessing the "humanitarian efforts" in Afghanistan, are that of Bush Minor's, Harper is all about “protecting “destitute humans. What a dispassionate showman…

…Amen to that G.
Peace G,

-Bear

Sorry, it should say "G West" at the top of previous post. -Bear

Fiat wrote...

Hiding true losses is not exclusive to a dictatorship. It's more difficult to do with a small force such as the Canadians have, but in Iraq it's standard procedure and in Vietnam it was just another day of press releases.

Frank posted:

Quote:
You still do not get it Frank, by just 'being there' we, Canadian troops, are drawing the undesirables towards us.

At least our guys are soldiers and well armed. If we weren't there the undesirables would be killing regular people.

If we were not there, neither would the 'undesirables'!

I agree. And that ordinary Afghani should have that ability to live in peace. The problem is a group of thugs doesn't want him to.

Yes, that group of thugs is armed to the teeth and wearing NATO uniforms! They are fighting another group of thugs also well armed, but at least that group has some local roots. If I were a local I may not fight the NATO ones, but I would likely offer a tea to the local boys, maybe a bed if they needed it also. This is where the 70% local support for the Taliban comes from. The longer we are there, the higher that support level will go.

Nope. But our tiny military is a different issue.

WHAT!?!?!
Re-read what you just posted!
The only 'different-issue' I see is that our troops were born, mostly, on a different continent.

We're not doing exactly the same thing. We won't try and leave a dictatorship behind.

From the perspective of the 'ordinary Afghani' (if any such a person exists - which I argue it does not) lets test this little theory of yours : The military mission that the Canadian Troops are doing is not the same as the Soviets.
1) Walking around with guns -> yup the same.
2) Killing indescriminately whenever 'Taliban' is thought to be around -> check there, so far all the same.
3) Using mine-fields to protect their armed and armored hard-point camps -> hell yes! We are even using the old Soviet ones!
4) Handing out candy (from the perspective of the local Afghani mother they do not know what their child may or may not have eaten!) -> in the first two years of the Soviet experiment in Khabul they also handed out free stuff. SO yes exactly the same actions.
5) When 'resistance fighters' Talban now, Mujehedin a generation ago, start to fight against these aggressors; the response is to add more heavy equipment and 'blast away' at supposed hardpoints - essentially de-housing more people -> EXACTLY WHAT THE SOVIETS DID.

So for your precious regular Afghani person they do not care a fig that there will be no dictatorship installed (exactly what is Karzei running in Khabul other than a baby dictatorship anyway?).

WE ARE THE FOREIGNERS THERE - WE WILL CONTINUE TO BE THE TARGET.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20061017&articleId=3509
US and Britain to negotiate a "Peace Deal" with the Taliban

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=NAZ20061017&articleId=3516
The War in Afghanistan: Drugs, Money Laundering and the Banking System

Alcibiades, Harper's (and Campbell's, Klein's, Calvert's etc) policies in Canada are certainly not helping the situation with FNs but all those guys are democratically elected and so they have the legitimacy to ignore poverty among the FNs. I may not not like it but my problem is with Canadians, not their leaders. We have the ability to get better results if that's what we really wanted.

murdock,

Based on what? Because if past history is your guide they would be.

I think the Afghans are quite capable of believing that foreign troops supporting an elected, domestic gov't is better than supporting thugs (even those that are local) with a history of repression and violence. In Canada, RCMP aren't posted to towns they come from either but I don't see Canadians supporting the criminals just because they're more local.

The turn out for the election was high in most of the country in spite of threats from the Taliban. If in the next election Karzai is defeated and there's a peaceful transfer of power nothing could be better in my opinion.

Frank, continuing his self-delusion:

Try a visit to Zeballos, wear a very fancy 'power-suit' and drive in a white Crown Victorian. Do not talk to anyone, go into stores, do not buy anything. Stand near the post office and watch everyone.

I guarantee, that unless you very quickly identify who you are and what you want and why you are there, your car will be started for you, the gas tank will be filled and it will be parked facing the way out of town and YOU will be put in the drivers' seat with a map showing the way out.

There are many other places in Canada that are very much like this and I know that they also exist in Afghanistan.

You seem to think that the Taliban is a problem, if the locals think this way they too will be dealt with - in their way, there is nothing we can do for them that will not also be seen as something being done TO them.

But Frank, that's exactly the problem. If we as Canadians were a little more clearheaded ourselves we wouldn't abide the 3rd world within our own country. Harper, for example, certainly didn't tell the truth about what he planned for First Nations relative to the Kelowna Accord did he? Although there were some among us who looked at the philosophical underpinnings of the man and the ideas of the people from whom he draws his inspiration and were not, therefore, surprised at what he's done (or not done) relative to out native brothers and sisters.

But, let's put that aside for the moment. You're advancing the theory that we ought to be promoting democracy as a solution to development and status issues half-way round the world at the same moment that you're illustrating (above) how democratic institutions have consistently failed to address the inequalities within our own culture.

I'm sure you're aware of the disconnect in this logic so I won't take it any futher at the moment. Suffice to say that if Harper really cared about applying the theory of force to solving these problems in Canada that the Army would not be deployed in Afghanistan. Both you and I know of hundreds of native settlements where the good works of these idealistic young women and men could be put to use right here in Canada.

If we as a people don't care enough to pressure our elected representatives to address the very real development and governance difficulties of our own citizens then your hope for the commitment to a 20 year program of re-education in Afghanistan is naive.

I don't know if murdock's analysis of the situation on the ground is accurate but it certainly looks to me as if the hope for the Afghan people is not very likely to be the muzzles of Canuck guns or the tracks of a few Leopard tanks.

Let's create an equitable, humane and equal society here in Canada. Then, and only then will be a nation that, like Norway and Denmark, will be willing to spend a similar portion of our GNP on good works.

lol good point about Zeballos Murdock, I know lots of small towns like that in this province.

Any truth to the rumour that the dea has been trying to set up an office on one of the Islands but the locals are running a little interferance?

They are a foreign police agency and should not be here, period, we are paying r.c.m.p. our tax dollars to serve and protect we do not need anyone else, if anything we should be giving the mounties the resources they require!

Finnaly for Frank:

ACCORDING TO WHOM?

More than 80% of the population CANNOT READ! My source was a soldier that was in Khabul during that 'election' every polling station had to have a 'translator' to explain what was going on. The only, and I STRESS ONLY, observers were US or UK ones, German, French and Italian volunteers were rejected and NOT PERMITTED to observe anything.

My source also indicated that there WERE NO POLLING STATION AT ALL outside of 50 km from Khabul.

You keep quoting a %age of voter turnout, then compare that to the nominal population of Afghanistan. The VAST HINTERLAND of Afghanistan was not involved in the 'election' that you keep using as a crutch to support why our young men need to be there dying.

I say that your crutch is made of wet newspaper and will soon collapse!

Murdoch wrote...

Totally agree with Murdoch's comments and to the above sentence, I would only add the adjective 'invading' before the word foreigners.
The Afghans don't much care about democracy - in fact, it's doubtful that our form of democracy would work there.
If I were an Afghan, I would prefer peace much more than fearing a potential dictatorship. In fact, when the Taliban were in charge in the 1990s, it didn't do such a bad job of stabilizing. It greatly reduced warlord feuds and even curtained opium export.
Then Geo. W. entered the picture.

Clearly we need to send Murray Dobbin to clean out the rats nest in Afghanistan, I am sure you will leave your comfy armchair to help the Afghan people. I love your solution, leave and let the UN re-debate the mission, a certainly effective tactic that they have used to avoid any responsibility in Dafur. I guess the current UNSC resolution is not good enough for you?

While your article contains a couple of good points, you pollute them with your typical anti-anything Harper/Bush hype. Your articles show you are a one trick pony and they detract for what could be a useful discussion on the issue. There are many valid criticisms of the operation, many of them by soldiers serving there, I don’t suppose you have actually tried to talk to anyone who has served there so as to get both sides of the issue, that of course will be a new concept for your articles.

I don't think Frank bothered to read the excerpts from the Global Research articles I posted. When the whole operation is about drugs and pipelines, and Canadians are fighting to subdue the place where the pipeline is supposed to go through...hello?

hey colin are you not doing what you accuse him of doing? You do seem to have a pretty heavy tilt yourself from what I remember of your posts having been away working most of this year.

Not to left the left either I might add but I do respect your opinion so heres mine!

What bothers me most about our troops being over there besides the obvious like they are getting killed and my daughters god mother is one them, is that this is about drugs and oil!

Not liberating people for if that was our only motive why are we not in so many other countries or like so many have already said here, taking care of our own who are living in despair!

Drugs alcholism young girls being forced to sell their bodies, young girls being brought in as slaves to work in brothels etc etc etc!

Single mothers struggling to survive and their children going to school hungry in hand me down clothes, they are in my kids classes so I know for a bloody fact it is happening.

So again if our cause over there is so noble why are we not this way in our own backyard? Setting an example at home!

How many children could be fed here at home with the money we are spending to keep our people in the line of fire!

For poppies and oil?

Alcibiades,

Wouldn't have mattered. People don't vote based on what the gov't will do for FNs. Politicians don't say what they're not going to do. Canadians vote based on party loyalty for the most part which is often based on what their parents voted for. That and what they think is best for themselves. Then we blame our leaders instead of each other when things don't go as we would have liked.

And we would have been talking to a deaf ear. People just don't care.

Yes

Again, Harper is a sympton, he's not the problem. Canadians are the problem. I could write a long list of things wrong in BC, Canada and the world very few of which have anything to do with Harper at all.

I didn't meet a lot of idealistic young men in the infantry actually. Besides, Canada is wealthy enough that sending a few thousand soldiers to central asia does not mean we can't do anything domestically. Our economy is doing okay, we have plenty of money for hockey tickets and billions in surpluses at federal and provincial levels. If we wanted to help anyone with that money we could. The deployment to Afghanistan is not stopping us.

Yes it is naive. Guilty as charged. And idealistic, and "delusional" (as murdock called me) and "head in the clouds" and so on. But I'm more comfortable in that role than I would be saying I don't give a rats ass about "precious" Afghans (like murdock). Or that "human rights" for anyone outside our borders is naive. Similar to the old english line about how "the wogs start at Calais". I'd rather try and fail than say we're wasting our time.

Its all well and good to believe, like Murray Dobbin, that the United Nations will fix everything. Which will never happen so in the end who's really being delusional?

Again Alci, how is this less naive?

Frank,
Well, first of all, it's more practical.

At least our fellow citizens, for the most part, speak the same language and share the same culture and customs as we do. I think there's at least a snowball's chance that we can and will make slow progress here at home. Not if we knuckle under to murdock's sovereign individual mantra and pretend we are not, in some fundamental sense, our brother's and sister's keeper. Not if we decide to support cappy's logic and pretend that everyone's location on the totem pole is a result of their own action/inaction etc. Not if we don’t find ways to tell the truth to each other and begin to operate effectively in the cooperative fashion that our friend anarcho proselytizes for. Not if we continue to buy the lies that we see every day in the papers and on Television.

But if, as feminist social theory teaches, there is a natural tendency for people to care about and care for the welfare of those 'close' to us then there is a chance that we can - through the imperfect democratic institutions we have now - actually change the way we behave toward each other. And we have those signal examples of places like Sweden, Denmark and Norway where not only is a more egalitarian society working but it is working well enough that those economies can meet the development and aid targets we so miserably miss year after year and decade after decade.

I'd suggest that's pretty idealistic too but it's at a closer remove than your idealism. I agree that most soldiers are not idealists but I haven't taken up that aspect of the argument because I felt it wasn't necessary. In the end, the people the army sends don't matter - it's their willingness to die that makes them useful. It's consoling to us here at home to believe in the ideals that the government wants us to believe they support, but, as Jim Beam once put it on these pages last spring, when enough body bags start coming home they'll be disabused of that illusion soon enough.

SO, that's how I think it is less naive.

My naiveté has a tiny chance of working; sadly my friend, I think yours has none. I wish I were wrong. Truly. That’s it for me – enough of this depressing subject for today.

Back to work.

Frank, proving he is totally deluded:

WHAT?!?!

If this were true the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois, the Alliance Party etc SHOULD NEVER EVER HAVE HAD ANY SINGLE VOTE CAST IN THEIR FAVOR!

The Green Party should never have gotten any votes at all -> let alone enough to get federal funding!

Keep up the deluded state of the world Frank, your blindness is clear to me now.

Cheers

I say we send Jack Layton to negotiate with the taliban. If he is successful, even I would vote for him!

"If the war in Iraq is about oil, the war in Afganistan is about opium. This year, we are told that the Afganis grew enough poppies to supply 130% of the world market. How do you make an honest farmer out of a poppy grower"

So legalize the crop and make cheap pain killer for undeveloped and developed countries! Wait, how would the coporate pharmaceutical companies sell their pain killers?

I do believe oil is playing a role, perhaps in terms of pipleine right of ways.

"We do have uninvited enemies. Enemies who we didn't even try to piss off. People want western society destroyed. I am willing to denounce them." Stated by IAMClueless.

Don't worry, it appears we will destro western society ourselves gorging on fossil fools!

Don't discard the drug theory. Many of the GNN staff, or Out of the woilderness warned years ago of the Drug/CIA/Wall Street connections. From Oliver North to the back roads of Governor Clinton's Arkansas Democrats and republicans don'r argure over spending for the war on drugs. We already know this is another sham and diversion of money, that over the decades makes Iraq security contracts look like nickle & dime play. Think of the trillions spent on the war on drugs. The war on terror is just the newest twist to the oldest con game... Suckers born every minute, all glued to the TV. Eating cheese doodles and making sure diabetes flourishes... You can draw a lot of circles with the stories on the Tyee. They're all related in someway. Hi Frank!

Quote:
Canadians vote based on party loyalty for the most part which is often based on what their parents voted for.

WHAT?!?!

If this were true the Reform Party, the Bloc Quebecois, the Alliance Party etc SHOULD NEVER EVER HAVE HAD ANY SINGLE VOTE CAST IN THEIR FAVOR!

Sorry to break this to you murdock old buddy but its true. I wasn't the first one to ever say this by the way. Its why in Canada the same two parties since Confederation are the only ones that have ever formed gov't.

And why in the US its been the same two since the Civil War.

Oh sure big new issues can come along and create new opportunities, if it wasn't for the Depression the CCF never would have got off the ground for example.

Not everyone votes based on their parents. Just most of us.

Hi clubofrome! Not out sailing lately? I'm still all for your Dolphin Party, running on a platform of "it couldn't be any worse" or "new species, new ideas. Really new ideas" :-)

Alcibiades,

Actually I think its harder in a place like Canada to make real change. We're entrenched in our positions, hate or at best, distrust, the other side of every argument. We've heard it all before, there are no new visions of anything, we can't agree on the simplest things such as what constitutes torture or poverty or just cause.

As I said, nope. I believe in the natural tendency you speak of but I also think our system warps any such impulses we have. Even penalizes us for them. Our system isn't going away, perhaps when environmental factors push it past the breaking point, but we're not there yet.

We're done at the end of November, but there is winter racing to come. It's fun freezing your face, fingers and toes in Howe Sound! Wind and blowing snow or is it sleesh? Whatever that part liquid, part solid precipitation substance is when it's minus 5 in January. Afterwards I like to enjoy a nice cup of Hot Chocolate and Baileys. Just pour it right into the boots and gloves.

I have you down for Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in the new regime! This is about as high up as you can get in the Dolphin Party. It would be like combining our existing Foriegn Affairs, Education, Environment, Housing and Finance into one portfolio! I would like a small roll in Sport and Transportation. Goods and services would go back to moving by train and schooner. Next day service? What's that?

Often I remember Mad Max and the wonderful world he tooled about in and wonder if that's what it will come to.

Frank:

Of course you were not, but then since you believe it is true you are continuing the perpetuation of this lie.

two-parties? they are kept in place by the new version of the 'family-compact', that's all.

Get something going like the Single Transferrable Vote and you might just get closer to a representative democracy. What we have now is just an oligarcy in disguise where old families in Quebec and 'upper Canada' call the shots about whom gets to be a candidate in the 'supported' parties.

Keep on dreaming that Candian men are dying in Afghanistan for that 'duly elected' government; I'm certain you are part of the reason why Canada is the place of peace, order and 'good government' where peace is maintained by keeping the population totally stupid, order is brought about by owning a corporate court system and 'good government' stays that way because it is paid to do so by their corporate masters.

What is the definition of a good politician?

"One who STAYS bought."

Thanks clubofrome, I was hoping language wouldn't be an issue with the Dolphin Party like it is with the Libs and Ken Dryden :-)

Hard for me too to equate sailing in Howe Sound with a bad time :-)

Frank
O God, you've got him going now! The 'Sovereign Individual' I mean.

Did anyone notice the Ontario court decision about federal funding for small parties? (Thx to a hat tip from BC Mary and the Communist Party for bringing the case.)

KIRK MAKIN
JUSTICE REPORTER
An Ontario judge has struck down an electoral law that permitted large federal political parties to fill their coffers with public money at the expense of smaller parties.

Superior Court Judge Ted Matlow ruled yesterday that the law is undemocratic, unequal and stunts the growth of small parties for no valid reason.

The money will be awarded retroactively to 2003 and, including interest charges, brings the total the parties will share to approximately $500,000.

"We're thrilled," said Tracy Parsons, leader of the Progressive Canadian Party. "Another piece of democracy has been served. I can't say that I'm 100-per-cent in favour of tax dollars being used to fund political parties, but I'm certainly not in favour of them funding only select parties."

The judgment was a major victory for a coalition of seven small political parties that argued that the law -- which took effect in 2004 -- violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms by unfairly giving $1.75 for each vote cast only to federal parties with more than 2 per cent of the national popular vote.

"I consider that the existence of the threshold diminishes public confidence in the electoral process and encourages a public perception that the threshold exists only to benefit the major political parties, who alternate, from time to time, in forming the government and are in a position to maintain it," Judge Matlow said yesterday.

He said that having an eligibility threshold "perverts" democracy by forcing small parties to make a tactical decision whether to target certain ridings in order to reach the percentage of the total vote they need to trigger the payments.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061013.PARTIES13/TPStory/?query=electoral-law+edict

That's a pretty damning indictment considering my party has never been in power federally.

And yes, I vote the same way as both my parents who voted the same way as my grandparents. It was my grandparents who switched allegiance.

As for STV, I was one of the biggest backers of it on here (because it would break the stranglehold of two party politics) so I'm not certain I'm as much of an impediment to change as you think.

Now you've done it, G.

The trolls will be thinking that BC Mary is the leader of the Communist Party of Canada (the real CPC, I might add). Or at very least a member, a fellow-traveler.

Actually, the Leader of the actual, original CPC is a really handsome young guy who is well educated, articulate, and downright convincing, those few times when the splinter groups are alloted air time during an election campaign.

Well worth a troll's time, I'd say.

I should say, its not like I think you guys are all Taliban supporters, sending money to them in Pakistan or something :-)

But for the world to not end up in the collapse of civilization it means we have to someday, somewhere make a postive difference. We aren't going to succeed in Afghanistan because our commitment in terms of both troops and actual aid is way below what's required. As I said on another thread, we need to turn on our warlord allies and really make Afghans lives better. All we're doing is showing the flag to make ourselves feel better.

But I know the West doesn't have the stomach nor the idealism to do what it takes. Which of course leads to greater pessimism among those who do.

I realize it leaves me on a tightrope, supporting a mission I believe in but which is doomed to fail. But if we don't have hope we have nothing at all. Nor do I think my idealism or delusion is any worse than those of you who hope that humanity itself will one day wake up and be better, more caring, fix global warming in a weekend etc if we can just get rid of a particular leader.

Don't pee on my delusion and I won't pee on yours :-)

Frank said:

Do you think Canada even HAS the resources in troops or aid. Considering the experience of actual empires in the region like the Brits and the Soviets.

By your posting above I'm figuring your grandfolks on down been CCF/NDP for quite a spell, or else some really strange fringe party. By the way, Stephen's party is not the old Conservatives, they just stole part of the name and the only honest thing I've seen them do is drop the Progressive part. They've only maintained old Tories who could stomach being in a Reform party that lost my respect when Doris became leader. Then when Petey "Gumboots and Tears" betrayed David Orchard any chance I would respect them was lost.

Getting old is hell when you look back fondly on folks like W.A.C, Richard Nixon and the ever Impressing Preston!
Of course compared to much of what we have to put up with today, I'd probably vote for Vlad the Impaler, given a chance.

It was ridiculous for the world to stand by while the USA invaded Afghanistan in the first place. It was twice as ridiculous for us to join in with their occupying army. We should get out now entirely because we should never have gone there in the first place. Casualties are horrible anywhere, but if they're for a good cause then Canadians can take them with understanding. Some people might disagree, but I don't think Canadians are pussies, casualties in war are to be expected. If our people are dying for nothing then everyone has a perfect right to be enraged. Not to be scared, that's an insult. Enraged.

Every day that foreign troops are in Afghanistan the situation gets worse. Yes it will be bad if all of the occupying forces teleported out of the country tomorrow, but it will be worse if they leave a year from now. The situation is not improving. I will be happily surprised if it does improve, but I don't think that's possible.

The Taliban eliminated the opium business. Women couldn't go to school and had to wear burkas, but they weren't being raped and murdered in the streets. With the stability the Taliban provided the situation would have improved, maybe slowly, maybe too slowly, but I don't believe that if the Taliban lasted for 1000 years that no female would ever get an education.

Yay so there's a new corn syrop factory now. There are also new brothels filled with sex slaves brought in from China. Way to go capitalism.

Somebody mentioned that because of how we snuggle up politically with the USA, that our troops become bigger targets. Do you really think that an insurgent sitting in Afghanistan is watching the CBC and getting choked up about whatever ridiculous nonsense is coming out of Hillier's mouth? That's hilarious. There are occupying forces in Afghanistan. What country a particular soldier comes from probably couldn't matter less. Same thing when our boys are laying waste to an Afghan village - do you think they go hey that jihadist looks like he's from Turkey, our NATO ally, how about just a wounding shot to the leg? It's war, we are their enemy, they are our enemy, some stupid speech by whoever can't possibly make much difference. My gawd that Hillier guy sure is a jackhole, but if he was really nice and sweet do you think it would make any difference?

Before 2001 the only thing I remember hearing about the Taliban was when they blew up those huge statues of Bhudda. A rotten crime against culture sure, but not worth invading for. There are a few statues in Canada that could probably use some demolition, I don't think we'd appreciate any foreign criticism for it.

If Osama was in Afghanistan, and if Osama was responsible for 9/11, then someone should have gone in and gotten Osama, reasonably to bring him to trial, understandably to assasinate him. The Taliban not handing him over could understandably have been cause to ignore their sovereignty and go in and get him anyway, but it never seemed to me like just cause to obliterate them. That's the crime here. Nevermind humanitarian aid, there should be reparations. That would probably be put to better use and get better results than the way we're pissing away our treasure now.

We shouldn't have gone there in the first place. The longer we stay there the worse it will be when we leave. Seems simple enough to me. The stuff about CIA and heroin and pipeline routes makes it all more sickening, but shouldn't really be required for someone to see why we should leave as soon as possible.

Mikev has it right.
In addition, the Taliban DID offer to hand Osama over IF there were some proof of his guilt provided -- nothing was provided, or even discussed.

Back when the Taliban were on our side their American backers paved the way for their hash to be exported to world markets to raise money for arms and training centres. The hash was exported with the gold seal of the Afghan Rebels. That worked out pretty fucking good for the Militarist West. The Killers got their war anyway.

I'll bet the smack and hash being run on the same protected highway is being used to kill the New Soviet Union: it is called NATO now. The New Soviets are us.

We're not the new Soviets, we're the new Gaul.

Historical analogies are not my quibble however. What I want to say is that it is not important to win the war in Afghanistan. It's more important that we prosecute the war against the Taliban diligently. By the Taliban, I mean the products of madrassa schools who are obeying the call to jihad.

It's difficult to imagine a worse form of government than that imposed by these brainless subhumans. They are everything that civilized people hold in contempt. It would be one thing if they were a tiny band of losers like the KKK. But they are not small, not dwindling, and do not keep to "their" lands and borders. Afghanistan is a case in point. The Taliban came from Pakistan and used Saudi (and, to its eternal regret, American) money to colonize Afghanistan, sweeping aside all opposition.

I think it is incumbent upon the western nations to keep up the heat on this movement. For the good of us all, it needs to be fought.

Sounds yammer, pretty much what US propaganda said about the Japanese during the second world war. I think you ought to reconsider that little rant.

It's way different Alchi. During WW2 we interned all Japanese in N.America. So far we haven't done the same to Muslims. In fact we have gone way the other way. We are appeasing the so called enemy. I don't suggest we intern all Muslims in N.America, that is the lesson we learned from WW2. We can't profile anymore.
We need to keep a sharp eye on extremists, that want us dead, no matter who they are.
Churchill under standed the threat of Muslim extremism when he fought in the very valley that probably hides Osama now, when as a young soldier fought Muslim extremists along the Afghan border in 1897, that was 109 years ago. In the 1920's he took a lead in warning against the fanaticism of the Wahhabis in Saudi Arabia. He was also upset during a visit to Gaza in 1921, by the cries 0f "Death to the Jews" that greeted him there.
I would compare Churchill to George Bush in the way that he understood the danger.

Can't you read Ron? Did you read what yammer called them - sub-human. I can find you all kinds of contemporary references from WWII that said the same thing of all Japanese.

It was stupid and wrong to say such a vile hateful thing then and it's a stupid and vile and hateful thing to say such a thing today. If you don't understand that you're not worth a plugged nickel as a human being.

G West, why can't we hate the Taliban? You hate people. I see lots of hatred on this site, extreme hatred. What are you saying my friend?
I am not promoting hatred, but I am do recognise it. Don't take me there. There is plenty of hatred to go around. And it is easily recognised.

I don't hate you Ron. I pity you and your narrow-minded attitude that reduces people to categories, objects and something that isn't worth living. That's what's implied buy calling someone sub human.

If you don't understand something as simple and fundamental as this simple fact then you're as bad as your right-wing heroes Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter.

I recognize exactly what you are and the poison you spout.

G West; I didn't say that you hate me. And I am sure that you reduce people to categories. The implied message of your response is condescending at least.
Hatred cannot be ignored. George Bush knows this. Stephen Harper knows this. Ralph Klein knows this. Gordon Campbell knows this. They all know what hatred means.

well, i gotta admit i've been sold on the principles of self actualization and democratic government and the relationship of one to the other ever since I first really and truly learned about them.

I hear the people shout about the trampling of human rights in Afghanistan and that, well goddamnit, something's gotta be done and what's gotta be done is blow those muthafuka's who trample those rights right outta the stratosphere.

I hear the people shout that the trampling of rights in Afghanistan and that, well goddamnit, if it aint the western greed mongering capitalists that aren't responsible and if we just had a revolution and get our noses out of all that shiite that involves power and interests and control over capital then all is well in the hen house.

Or U.S. and Bushie=love and democracy and freedom;

or its opposite.

Funking hogwash, the lot.

Canada should withdraw as a warring force. Not because war is inhumane or because Canada is hypocritical for its complicity or tacit acceptance of what passed for western policy before. Not because we should be isolationist and simply let come what may. But because it has always been a losing cause and losing position right from go. Because cdn. soldiers are dying steadily for a lost cause that never had a shot.

Do I think we should merely allow gays, women and assorted "others" be left to the whims of crazed bigots?

I choose to shift the onus while accepting the necessity of the moral imperative in the question: To what measurable extent does our own violent intervention change the minds of those crazed bigots? Does our violent intrusion make things worse or better?

While we maintain a constant presence and threaten violence on the region, we might witness a resemblance of compliance with our lofty ideals. How long must we stay with our power and threats of violence? in order to maintain this illusion?

This is not our place and our mission has far outpaced the original anti-terrorism mission (insofar as that was legit, and i'm willing to accept it was, somewhat).

cut and run?
funkin A., if that what we're calling it

sorry, my intro paragraph should have explicitly mentioned the "Enlightenment" and all its bastards.

Good point, ursus...

Politics thrives on campaigns about the object of money - but once the election is over, money is no object - and we must feed the industrial military complex.
Harper has aligned Canada so closely with the Americans, the Afghans can't tell the difference - in fact, there is no difference.

While we're talking about Muslim extremists, let's not forget, or ignore, the Christian fundamentalist nuts, called the "religious right", led by people like Pat Robertson and fried brain Dubya.

If you want to know what these people are planning for North America and ultimately the world, go to google and type in "Dominionism" and "Pat Robertson".

Dubya Bush and his regime are part of this conspiracy and there's a good reason to believe that Harper is either a supporter, or also part of it. He was right hand man to Manning, which suggests that he's one of them.

This is what the theory of "perpetual war" and "globalized economic competition" are about: a religious ruling class, empowered by scriptural nonsense taking over and killing at will.

There was a time, before the Oklahoma City bombing, when they were organizing militias in this area, openly boasting that "When Preston takes over, we'll knock off all Indians, fruits and socialists". One of them told me "We'll solve the Indian land claims with a machinegun platoon". They went underground after the bombing, but the idea is alive and well.

So now we have the nuts on one side fighting the nuts on the other, all in the name of the same God and killing millions, destroying Earth, as the "Will of God", based on Genesis 1-26.

Ed Deak. Big Lake.

An excellent analysis of the plans of Dominionism can be found at:

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingofAmerica.htm

It also includes details on how prominent people, influenced and brainwashed with the fascist, "superman" theories of Leo Strauss have been and are taking over the US government.

Harper is also a Straussian addict, still covering his true colours with the cloak of "democracy", waiting for a majority, when he can go wild.

Ed Deak.

Mr. Ed;

That link dint work. Is this the one ?

http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/DirectoryRiseOfDominionismInAmerica.html

James

Harper is dismantling Canada and should be brought up on treason charges against all 30 million plus Canadians!
Gordon Campbell also should be brought up on treason charges as he is giving away all OUR Public Utilities Bought and Paid for by OUR Hard Earned Tax Dollars!
I think/know there's a conspiracy of very great proportions to quite possibly take OUR Democratic Rights away.
I am an x 2ND PPCLI and am 100 percent behind our troops in Afghanistan!
But the hell with the reason they're over there, big bucks for the greedy corporations, blood money.
I hope they enjoy it when they are in hell.

jwstewart, what you quote is the correct one.

The mysteries of computerize, I typed in the one at the top of the article and it came out differently on this blog .

Worth reading what these crazies are planning, including mass murder, sanctified by "God", because the born again can't do wrong. John Calvin said so. They can lie, cheat and do anything to get power over others.

So, what's the difference between one bunch of nuts and the other?

Ed Deak.

The shape of the marker over their tomb.

Big article on the CBC TV this evening. The retired generals remind us that Canada was going to Afghanistan with a few hundred people. One general resigned, the senior general told the government they couldn't sustain themselves in the toughest area of that country. Did any one listen? You got to be kidding. Of course the right of center folks will say thy generals should all have quit the moment the government ignored them. But the reality in the military is, it's a
servant of the elected government, so they try to shift policy. Doesn't always work so eventually they fade away, and end up working in think tanks.

So chretien, Martin and Harper all have ignored the ones who arn't on the rah rah team like the present Newfie Chief of the armed forces

murdock, you're the military expert, what are you thoughts on this?

Hillier defends tactics in Afghanistan

TENILLE BONOGUORE

Globe and Mail Update

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — The Canadian Army knows where the Taliban commanders are in southern Kandahar and have a clear delineation of the group's boundaries, the Chief of the Defence Staff told the Commons defence committee Wednesday.

Adding that he never said Canadians were negotiating with the Taliban, General Rick Hillier said defectors from the Taliban were being encouraged to “use words in parliament instead of bullets in Kandahar to achieve their ends”.

“We are in their country. It is their political process. They built the process based on the constitutions they developed and are working through it,” Gen. Hillier said told the committee.

The Afghan army also is being developed at a very rapid pace, he said, and is picking up an increasing percentage of security duties by working with the Afghan national police.

When asked how the Canadians are ensuring their actions don't drive more people into the ranks of insurgents, Gen. Hillier said support for the Afghans was the key.

“We are always extremely careful during combat operations. First of all, we don't conduct operations unless there is a need to. And secondly, we don't conduct unless there is a real threat to life and limb for Afghans, us or members of the international community,” he said.

“We also do it with a precise targeting in conjunction with the Afghan forces to make sure the effects that drive people away from their homes or destroy homes, are reduced to the minimum.”

Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor said combat operations were not the only focus of troops stationed in Afghanistan.

“The Canadian forces are there to create an atmosphere of stability and trust where frankly it'll be impossible for the Taliban to again take hold,” Mr. O'Connor said.

Sounds like someone blowing smoke to me!

Thanks for the 'plug' G West, I shall comment...hoping you will not take some personal offence and ask you to please keep counter-commentary to the arena, and not this commentator.

If the military commander is having to answer questions of this 'nit-picky' nature, I am most certain that their 'candor' with that media person will evaporate quickly. It is like some reporter coming to your office door and asking how you compose your memo's or how you decide which golf clubs you are going to take to the links today. It is the ultimate 'slap in the face' of a leader to question their methods...

Thank you for including the entire source, this reporter may not be in the region. Where she is located is unclear, her works are AP based all over the globe as far as I have been able to determine. They are not military, nor government only based stories, so I do not know if she would be able to 'read' the generals' face were she actually present asking questions. I also suspect that this story is not based on an actual interview nor even an 'in-person' Q&A after a breifing sort of thing. I more suspect that the materials are taken from AV materials that may not be in any particular sequence, this can make for a confusing picture of what the generals' comments may actually have connected to. I say this not to obfuscate, but only to point out the reporters perspective, the editorial board of the news service and a host of others may have had input into the material of this 'story'

continued next post...

continued commentary...

Please understand I consider the 'groan and wail' to be a fishwrapper fit only for lining bird cages.

Yes and the FBI knows where Jimmy Hoffa is too!

If anyone believed this sort of 'fairy tale' statement then they deserve the bridge that they buy...

I note that it is not 'in quotes' so I suspect that this is a tag-line meant to draw the reader in...try not to get sucked into these stories as such a grandiose statement by a military command would never happen. The statement is about an 'area' much like saying I know where all the 'Soviets' are, I can then point to that big red area on the map called the USSR (in 1967) and carefully draw a line around it saying they are mostly contained in there.

No there are no 'negotiations' going on with Taliban -> would someone like to show me what one looks like that is not the same as any other ordinary Afghani person? They cannot tell except what they get from their local interpreters, if the UK general is right and 70% support is appearing for the Taliban, then local Canadian troops on the ground cannot tell whom is whom except when the Afghan army guys tell them...since most of them are connected to the former 'northern alliance', meaning Drug lords or mercenaries supported formerly by the Soviet Union, this means we - CANADA - are supporting the drug trade by enabling its supporters. This much I have from a reliable source, that Canadian troops faught back Taliban 'insurgents' to re-open a drug trade route thru the mountains towards China. This was done because the locals have no other source of income, if we cannot bring them sustenence then we should not deny them the ability to get it for themselves, this was a 'tension' releasing operation that did much to lower the general level of anger towards the Canadian presence in Kandehar, remember it was the US that was in that area before and they were blitzing all over the place torching poppy fields. Stealing the only hope for livelyhood for many families.

continued....

continued commentary ...

Hillier is in a very tiny box here, he must 'support' the 'duly' selected ahummm... I mean elected President of Afghanistan and the 'process' that they are making up along the way ummm I mean working through it.

Karzei (sp?) is an american puppet, we - Canada, are marching to the tune that this puppet is beating out on his tambourine (no way could a drum be afforded by this government). So if Hillier says or does anything that in any way compromises Kahbul's government, the jig is up and we get killed by opposition from all sides.

...provided they don't get poisoned in the barracks again. The trouble is we are 'training' these men to operate our way, yes they will incorporate some techniques from their own lands into these methods, but essentially we are 'setting them up for a fall'. The fall will come about 6 months after we leave, when these Afghan police and army have no air support nor means to transport themselves quickly anywhere. They will get surrounded in Khabul, rule there for some time (maybe a couple of years) then get squished in the next civil war.

continued below...

commentary continued...

Hmm, somehow I think General Westmoreland said something like this during Vietnam. The results of arming the South Vietnamese army and trying to run things along those lines are well documented and I do not think that re-hashing them here will do much good. Google Westmoreland and I am certain such a quote can be found.

The key part of this statement is international community, I think with some creative writing I could define anybody or anything as part of the international community, essentially this allows what war always allows, anyone to do anything to anyone else - since there is no society to keep them in order...

Since it is the Afghans whom are deciding what is dangerous, et al. then are we, Canadian Forces, just behaving like a mercenary force, operating at the beck and call of Khabul (thus the US since the Karezi government is US hand-picked)?

Continued...

Again, in conjunction with the Afghan forces, this means that we are doing the dirty work for those Afghani's. Before it was the Soviets who were blasting away homes, then it was the 'civil war', but both sides had support pouring in from the outside. This is totally normal for a march region.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marches

Recently it was the USofA that was blasting away, with Norther Alliance Forces support (the old Soviet supported forces), now it is Canada. It is no wonder to me at all that we are coming under increased fire...

“The Canadian forces are there to create an atmosphere of stability and trust where frankly it'll be impossible for the Taliban to again take hold,” Mr. O'Connor said.

This is a laudable goal, it did actually take place for a time, principally in the north along the Uzbekistan border region, after 10 years of Soviet Occupation. 100,000 men on the ground for a decade, needing 200,000 more to get them out once the retreat was inevitable.

For sure, but could it not be the reporter? Selecting quotes out of context?

Could it not be the editor? Shuffling out materials that the writer may have put in to clearly define what the speakers were saying?

Could it be the publisher? Again taking creative licence and only putting out materials that counter the government of the day?

I suspect, in the end, it is a bit of all...including the top military brass sitting in their command bunkers seeing only what their sycophantic subordinates know they want to 'see'.

Final summary next...

Thanks murdock. Very interesting. I don't know if you watched the CBC National news tonight but there was a long Brian Stewart feature on Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan.

Two retired Generals, Jeffries and, I think, Cameron, both said that:
1) The army was ill-prepared for service in Afghanistan as of 2002; and
2) The recommended troop levels were in the hundreds when the secondary Nato commitment was in the talking stages; further
3) The brass was taken unawares by the commitment of a battle group and a total of at least 2000 men ( I think one of these characters actually resigned over the issue of numbers) and;
4) The general consensus was that Martin was finessed by Bush into taking over in the south and then;
5) Further finessed by other Nato members who took the better (safer) postings while our staff members dithered and were left with Kandahar.

I was just checking some files of mine from the same era to confirm that when the US started to renege on its promises for Afghan reconstruction it eventually ended up as an aid package which amounted to $10 US for each Afghan citizen.

Not much wonder we're in the soup today.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time. I appreciate it, truly.

G West:

I was chatting with a freind recently about all of this, when a thought experiment was made and I had an revelation in my thinking about the situation on the ground in Afghanistan.

First the Taliban was nominally supported in power, once they had secured Khabul in the civil war. Alright they did not have all the country, but enough under control to 'be' the accepted 'power'.

From the time of the end of the Soviet occupation to the end of Civil war is about 12 years. This would mean that a Mujehedin figher that was active against the soviets and have skills well suited to mountain warfare would now be in his late 40's. In a 3rd century country he has not long to live left. Fast forward another 8-10 years (depends on when you call the civil war over) and now that Mountain fighter pro is in his 50's. Keep this man in mind as I continue...

Secondly when the US demanded Osama they gave an ultimatum to the Taliban that was next to impossible to meet...of course they delayed, they needed to FIND Osama. Then when the delays were obvious the US just shortened the deadline and invaded. There was no time to prepare any defences, so the best bet was to lay out a carpet of flowers and hope for the best...

When the worst came about, then the old mountain experts could come back into vogue...

Follow this logic: the old mountain men are not really able to 'fight' the new war, but they know how to. The Taliban use their contacts in the communities to find the local and young recruits whom wish to drive away these new infidels. Now it will take 2-3 years to train enough young men in the ways of mountain warfare, and to show them all the hidden arsenals and the underground tunnels and make them 'known' by sight with enough of the other operations cells spread all over the region. After this first cadre go out to fight a bit, a wave of new recruits will come in...from their families being made homless or murdered or what-have-you. Then the training cycle begins anew with the new recruits...

Thirdly we are now 5 years into the action from the first bombing raids by the US, now there has been enough time to train the next generation of mountain fighters. This winter will be the last pleasant one for the boys over there...next spring the movement will commence, I suspect that Kandehar will be reduced to ashes by the end of the next campaign season. Unless the US is willing to committ massive, and I mean massive air-ground support; but then they will likely all be busy blowing sand out of their carburettors at that time.

mark my words:

100% casualties.

Makes sense to me. Get the hell out now - this is not going to be fun for anyone. With serious debate in the US (see Sally Quinn in the Washington Post tomorrow) about who's going to wear the goat's ears for the military failure in Iraq (she suggests Rummy may resign and play the scapegoat) Afghanistan is going to be a forgotten theatre after November.

Jeez! What a mess.

Parting shots, must off to other things:

I do not have cable and am considering removing the TV for the sake of my children.

I do like to use this quote:
Theatre is life,
Film is art and,
Television is furniture.

I try not to take too much advice from the couch or the footstool so why the TV?

Gen (ret) Lewis MacKenzie said in 1999 that we should recall all deployed troops for 6 months rest and re-tooling. Because we were 'over-extended' as of then.

That was when 'dubya' the Commander in Chimp was still ready to committ his military reserves.

Whoops, 'dubya' the Commander in Chimp , took away those reserves to go play in the sand!

Well likely Mr. Dithers was 'finessed' by his own ADM's from the Military, looking to actually DO something that was military in nature.

Yes well NATO member countries, France and especially Germany already had mercenary nationals (not nation-based troops, but mercenaries that held their passports of convenience) in Afghanistan. They were leaving (where else do you think we Canadians got such cool armored trucks etc? --> and so fast!) as they returned 'home' they reported the conditions quickly to those whom mattered. Then the 'brass' in Brussels got the news and adjusted their Rules of Engagement so that their national troops could never be employed in any of the 'hot zones' or roles that the US needed them to take on.

The UK did not at first do this, now they have. Making Canada the only one standing when the music stopped and everyone else was sitting down.

Thanks for volunteering.

mark my words;

100% casualties

If it weren't so pathetically sad I'd laugh.

TV is not all bad murdock - not suggesting you should run out and buy cable - your kids will be fine either with or without it I expect. Surprised though that you can't at least get CBC. Newsworld is actually pretty decent and informative much of the time - as long as you know what and when to watch.

Anyway, as I said above, I appreciate your insights.

Thanks.

Wow!

Missed the last couple of days and this explosion of writing and viewpoints. Long, but goddamn interesting read, Murdock. (I'm going to have to win you to the "left libertarian" cause. :-D LOL) And Fait Lux, I always enjoy and find extremely interesting and cogent. But many others as well.

Good stuff.

"So, what's the difference between one bunch of nuts and the other? Ed Deak."

Whether they are salted or not!

It's a good thing that the preamble to this article includes the word "cursory", as it is evident that this is the extent of the research that went into it.

What exactly qualifies Dobbin to make such grandious supposition, in such a glaringly inaccurate way? Or for that matter your so called "expert" Murdoch? Oh, let me guess... You once drove past an American base, and then watched a Hollywood movie.

As a serving member of the CF, I can assure you that this article, and the commentary that follows it is complete supposition, if one actually read some of the articles coming out of Afghanistan, one would get a much more accurate picture then this tripe which is based on nothing more then opinion.

History 1

Murdock and I don't exactly see eye to eye on much. However, he is a former CF member and not a retired general like the two who were interviewed on the National last night either. I notice you didn't say anything about “their” criticism of the decision to send an ill-prepared battle group into southern Afghanistan.

Why not?

You guys put on a pretty decent Christmas dinner for the retired folks in town every year too - I frequently drive some of the veterans in my neighbourhood and occasionally I get invited to stay although I'm not a retired septuagenarian either.

Like I said, nice boys and girls - but, pretty much as the non-information in your post above here illustrates - I wouldn't go to any of you for real analysis of anything much. I notice you suggest Dobbin and murdock are dealing in supposition and opinion.

What exactly do you have on offer?

Why not post some of the supposed information you actually have?

Why not? Read your own last last line above... Better still, here it is below:

"Why not post some of the supposed information you actually have?"

I do have real information, however, people like you always dismiss people like me. So excuse me as I bow out, and leave you "fine" folks to your little love in.

And I do not "suggest", I state that Dobbin and Murdock are dealing in supposition and opinion. They offer very little in their articles that can be referenced or verified for fact. The few facts that they do offer, are removed completely from context, and coloured in such a way so as to introduce an influencing slant (in this case, the ideological left).

Sorry, won't wash.

All you've done is plumped yourself down here and told anybody who'll listen that you are a member of the Canadian Forces and you have the real goods on what's going on in Afghanistan.

I'm not dismissing your information. I'm laughing at the fact that you think you've actually presented any.

Slap it out on the table and lets have a look. Otherwise, go off in a corner somewhere and whine about the fact that no one takes you seriously.

Grow up!

If you're old enough to handle a gun you ought to be able to find your way around the truth too and not just complain that you've been taken out of context. Nothing left wing about that.

It's called honesty.

By the way, if you think murdock is a lefty, you really are wet behind the ears. He'll be very surprised to hear your assessment.

Honesty? Ya, Honestly, what did you mean by the word "SUPPOSEDLY"? Fruedian slip? You dismissed me already.

sorry to butt in, but you are dismissing yourself, by claiming knowledge, and then witholding it!
the old saying still holds: "put up or shut up!"

History 1,

Welcome to the bloggosphere.

Your credentials carry as much weight as the pixels on the screen, an if you can measure them you win the gold plated cupe doll!

Everyone here will come back with a different answer to the question of etiquette. You own take on this subject will no doubt be different again, but then here are some thoughts...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netiquette
http://blogs.setonhill.edu/ChristopherUlicne/005090.html
http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/eai/leadership/archives/thoughts-on-blogging-etiquette-4575

The below zero one I like as it is straight forward.

Alright in keeping with the basic principles, I shall accept that you are currently serving. If that is true then you are also aware of the caveat against speaking publicly about political matters...

So that means you cannot speak freely about any of this, therefore I understand your desire to refute comments made here- and I understand your reasons for not doing so - as this is a public forum.

You are imploring us to actually read some articles coming out of Afghanistan, please elaborate about these articles, provide links if they are online.

Then we can discuss this rationally, otherwise you are participating in 'ad hominem' just because you think that we are woefully misinformed of matters military since we are not known to you and your military unit, cell, squad, platoon, squadron, ship etc...

What is 'ad hominem'?:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Oh yes and all you need do is type in Murdock in the Tyee search engine and you will have loads to read about...including great rows between G West and I.

Cheers

History1,

Now I shall commence to deconstruct your argument:

OK here goes:

Fact: 40,000 trops. Easily verified.
Fact: Soviet invasion lasted 10 years -> try and refute it!
Fact: 15,000 dead from 100,000 regulars on the ground. Probably more but the Soviets admit to these dead numbers -> provide your source for a different answer? What history are you reading? What cool-aid are you drinking to allow you to understand a different view of history?
Fact: All of these Soviet actions also took place while they were busy setting up a 'governance' friendly to them in Khabul, EXACTLY LIKE WE ARE DOING NOW.

Stick all that in your pipe and smoke it.

Prove any of these wrong or false, as they are the core of the entire argument that the 'mission, is and will be a failure and that our continued participation is MADNESS.

This is only a opening salvo History1, if you cannot take this heat, then definately stay out of this kitchen.

Coyote:

thanks, I think?

Niether left nor right, as both are abhorrent to me...

murdock you magnificent son of bitch - I owe you a beer.

;-)

Oh, and in case there's someone out there - Ron, you maybe - who still thinks things are getting better in Iraq, here's a little tidbit to warm your heart and light up your xmas lights. Unless they're electic lights!

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/10/18/iraq-electricity/

Looks like the "opionated" are outnumbered by the "informed" in Canada. If not, maybe we would not be involved in the miasma in Afghanistan.

So this here "Information" stuff seems to be a large part of the problem: Maybe it's just my attitude but when Stephen Harper or George Bush start yattering on radio or TV I do not regard what I hear as "Information".

Quite the opposite.

doggone posted:

umm, I think not, as you say:

If the 'informed' vote really had a say in anything then we would not be in Afghanistan. Our parliamentary democracy is a rubber stamp, when it comes to foreign affairs as it is the Privy Council and the PM that get to make the call about going to 'war' or not. Darth Cretinous did his part to stick us to this tar baby, then took his personal profits from it after leaving the PMO (with a stinking pile of sh*t for Mr Dithers to sit in).

The push to move the mission out from the basic parameters of Operation Enduring Freedom and extend into the NATO mission was done under Dithers' watch. But then he was likely too busy watching his polling numbers flush down the toilet to really care what was going on in a military that the LIEberals have always misused (like a battered wife they keep coming back though).

Now, to keep the back-bench in line, and corner the leaderless main opponent Herr Harpo and company lay out the 'confidence' motion debate and vote. So that traps the majority of the LIEberals, since they cannot back away from their earlier positions, the Bloc was split in their voting (not all voted against the extension) not that they or the NDP votes mattered as the CONformers and most of the LIEberals gave a comfortable majority to the proposal.

This was a virtual guarantee to any of the MP's that understand the position we are in.
If we try to march out = all dead.
Can we fly out?
Whom will do that job?
US = nope, they WANT US THERE.
Russia = only after they catch their breath after laughing themselves purple, then they will charge us, both arms and legs to get out; even then we might still end up all dead.

The only vote was to stay in country, as to show weakness from the home-front would be like sending up a flare to the Taliban etal. that we are the main-course and that the dinner bell had been rung.

As evidence, the pathetic plea of Peter the Prostrate, reported here:

Canada asks NATO for help
Oct. 19, 2006. 08:34 PM
CANADIAN PRESS

OTTAWA — The Conservative government has bluntly told the secretary general of NATO that the country cannot shoulder the entire burden of fighting the Taliban in southern Afghanistan, Canada’s foreign affairs minister said Thursday.

Peter MacKay said he has asked that other members of the alliance send troops to the volatile region, which has claimed the lives of 42 Canadian soldiers and one diplomat.

“My point to him was, we cannot continue to do this without further support,” MacKay said in a speech, referring to NATO’s Jaap de Hoop Scheffer.

“No one country, or even a handful of countries can do all that is necessary to provide the kind of security environment needed.”

As Canadian casualties mounted through a summer of heavy fighting, mostly west of Kandahar in the Panjwaii district, the Conservative government quietly arm-twisted its allies to send more troops to Afghanistan.

With little response, the disagreement among NATO members became public.

MacKay, Defence Minister Gordon O’Connor and Gen. Rick Hillier, chief of defence staff, have also tried to persuade those countries with forces already on the ground to lift some of the restrictions placed on them, such prohibitions on combat.

O’Connor told the Commons defence committee Wednesday that he hopes to make progress on the issue at a coming meeting in Riga, Latvia.

Last spring, the Conservatives committed to keeping the army on the ground in Kandahar until at least February 2009.

MacKay said later he did not present de Hoop Scheffer with an ultimatum.

In his speech, MacKay accused New Democrats, who are opposed to the war, of frustrating and demoralizing Canadian troops in Afghanistan with talk of withdrawing them from combat.

“We would do a lot better by our soldiers in the field and on the front lines by gauging this situation with realism, not wishful thinking,” he said.

Calling for peace talks with the Taliban — a suggestion made by NDP Leader Jack Layton — only makes insurgents bolder.

Although he didn’t refer to Layton by name, MacKay said there are some who believe they can wave a magic wand and make the insurgency disappear.

“They want to use that magic wand to make the world stop, but the insurgents will not disappear — or voluntarily return to peaceful democratic activity overnight.”

The Conservative government has been grappling with declining public support for the mission.

Opposition to the war has galvanized around Layton’s call for the troops to be withdrawn from combat operations, allowing them to become peacekeepers instead.

The NDP’s defence critic accused MacKay of being undemocratic.

By questioning the value of the mission, Dawn Black said New Democrats are doing what soldiers and citizens expect of an opposition party.

“I think asking the tough questions about the mission are part of my responsibility as a Member of Parliament and a member of the (Commons) defence committee,” she said in an interview from her B.C. riding.

“Questions about the mission certainly don’t undermine the troops. It’s what I believe they expect us to do.”

We've gone, in two short weeks, from having the insurgents on the run all the way to running out of excuses.

Anytime you want that beer murdock!

G. West: Sheeeeeez

Maybe Petey's pleadings would be more effective delivered from a mudhole dressed in.......yep....GumBoots! (He could whine about Condi baby running around with all them Asian guys too!)

Why don't Condi and Petey go to Asia together, kinda like the Turrible Tag-Team of International Dip(sheet)loonacy.

I'm getting tired of hearing about the guys getting blown up "handing out candy to children." Didn't anybody else have parents that suggested that if a stranger offered you any candy - RUN AWAY! Our parents were just worried about razor blades in taffy and/or perverts. Afghani moms can add Abu Graib types and suicide bombers to the list of reasons not to accept the candy. Standing next to targets can be about as good for your health as waking up in Hiroshima in August 1945.

If the Taliban dudes were offering candy to Afghani children our ledurz would probably accuse them of using the children as "human shields."

G West posted:

...

We've gone, in two short weeks, from having the insurgents on the run all the way to running out of excuses.

In four or five more months it will be 'on the run'.

The winter proper is about to set in, the actions right now are the last 'probing' or 'testing' of perimeter areas. Conducted by both sides.

In another 2-3 weeks the upper mountain passes will be closed, any 'agriculture' will be finished and a general 'hibernation' will begin. 2-3 weeks later winter proper sets in and both sides will 'observe', with the mountain fighters doing more of the observing than the bundled troops.

2 months later the winter will break, watch for this first 'breaking' of winter to signal a rapid return to action. This will be doubly-so if NATO is still sitting on its hands. Multiply the difficulty by 10 if the US is really strapped in Iraq.

Given these two stories:
http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002870.html
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/15/opinion/15carter.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

I think the US is going to try and 'bunker-in' and reduce overall US troop losses to the bare minimum while the primaries are building up. IF the Republicans can weather the primaries then they may stand a better chance at keeping the white house. This is the maddening thinking that may very well sign the death certificate of any non-indiginous troops in Afghanistan.

Guaranteed that the Taliban fighters are very aware of the US overall battle wearyness, and if they continue to display a total lack of willingness to fight on the ground in Iraq and maintain only 'high-guard' air operations there, then they, the Taliban, will know that air-ground support is not going to come very fast for any troops in Afganistan.

If the first major 'probe' in the spring is not met with air-ground assault support (whomever delivers it as the French, Germans and UK could all muster the firepower) then count on a sustained offensive, possibly coming from all sides of Kandehar at once...

It will make May 7, 1954 - Dien Bien Phu look like a picnic. The only warning the Canadians might get is if the nearby town is suddenly populated by only old men...

mark my words:

100% casualties

Murdock: I find your analysis of the Afghan occupation/vandalization or whatever quite enlightening and frankly scary. I sincerely hope your oft repeated 100% casualties, are on the overly pessimistic side. However considering the options you've described regarding even getting out of the hellhole called Afghanistan, especially in the position of having to rely on Bu$hCo for transportation, an organization whose word and honor is worth approximately a teaspoon of warm spit, if you bring your own saliva and body temperature, your horrifying scenario seems quite within the realm of possible outcomes. I repeat, I do hope your suggestions are overly pessimistic, for the sake of those fine young Canadians whose sense of honoring their oath is so much higher than that of the political leaders who would send them to make perhaps the ultimate sacrifice on a fool's errand.

I would like to advise you to perhaps learn a bit more about the American electoral system before you try to explain linkages between it and actions on the ground in Afghanistan and/or Iraq.

To wit:

The primaries are over, all parties weather the primaries though they can certainly be embarrassing for individual candidates like Joe Lieberman - the new RePugnant Candidate for the Senate in Connecticut in all but name. What goes down on this Nov. 7 is the midterms when all members of the House and one third of the Senate plus some governors etc. have to stand for election. This can change the balance between the White House (executive branch) and the Congress, or not. As a result of Nov. 7, the criminal cabal in the White House could be subject to some oversight for the next two years, or not.

There will be another whole set of Primaries between Nov 7, 2006 and election day (for Preznit and part of Congress etc. again) in November of 2008. This is assuming of course that they actually have an election this fall or in the fall of 2008. Chimperor Dictorus Bush II may have assumed permanent imperial rule under his rapidly deploying Urinary Ecrementive policies before one or both of those elections occur, or the votes are allowed to be counted.

Ursus

The pipeline and drug stuff is for those with tinfoil hats, yes a US group did try to negotiate a pipeline approx 8 years ago with the Taliban, but it was a pretty shaky project then, now there are other pipelines built that eat into those supplies. If a pipeline was to be built there, it would not be for at 10-15 years from now and would benefit India and China, not the US. As for the poppies, well we have done such a wonderful job controlling pot here that everyone should follow our example, right?

I have not met, listened to or seen a soldier that served over there complain that the war is about the above. They do have complaints though.

About the ANP being corrupt and inefficient, if the Afghan Government would actually ensure that the police received their pay and on time, it would help a lot.

About the aid agencies promising lots and not delivering.

About NATO countries that prevent their troops from being effective for home based political reasons.

The soldiers there want to see more realistic aid projects, most seem to fail because the people planning them do not account for the total lack of infrastructure or capacity to meet their requirements. The soldiers would like to see simpler more labour intensive projects that produce visible results and employ local rural people. These are roads, small irrigation projects and schools.

As for your comments about whether we should spend our time and resources over there or here, it is a valid concern. I will say in answer, that even here at home, the individual is expected to donate, volunteer, etc to help others in need, would you want everybody to fix their own house before helping others? Most of us try to do both, look after ourselves and help others. Canada is not alone in the world and we try to help ourselves and others. For most of the 20th century that has been the way we have built our reputation.

Frank
I would say the habit of voting for our parents party is more ingrained in Central and Eastern Canada than here. I hear lots of Eastern complain about this, but not so much from westerners who have traditional being a more mobile population.

Clubfrome
The Dolphin party does not stand a chance against the Porpoise party, combined with the Bloc de Orca party (as long as the transient and residents don’t start infighting) Meanwhile the lone independent Pilot party just wants to be loved.

Mikev

No the Taliban would either beat the woman if they found them on the streets or blow their brains out in a soccer stadium. That is of course if they weren’t beating small kids for trying to fly kits. They did provide security, but they did it by intense brutality and no compassion whatsoever.

Murdock
A interesting post(s) although the Taliban have shown a definite grasp of tactics and are tough fighters, I think it is highly unlikely they will be able to pull off their own Dien Bien Phu. They have neither the resources or the protection of the foliage to achieve such a task. The Taliban made much of their spring offensive this year and the result for them have been less them inspiring. They sustained heavy causalities without much to show for it and have lost their grip on areas which even the soviets could not get hold of. The Soviets did have lots of men to fight with, but most of them were not interested in fighting and only did the minimal required to survive. NATO working under a UN mandate (funny how that never gets mentioned) has achieved a lot with a little. The biggest problem facing the NATO troops is there is not enough to fight all the fires. The ANA is getting better, but the real problem is the ANP and to quote one soldier who just came back: “We win or lose on the ANP” The locals don’t mind the NATO troops or the ANA, but have no trust in the ANP. Part of the problem is training, but another is that most of the ANP goes without pay or equipment, forcing them to extort money.
One thing I am hoping is that the NATO troops will keep the tempo of fighting up throughout the winter, this is the time the Taliban forces in Afghanistan are most vulnerable and are unable to be resupplied. I also think the suicide bomb tactic will undermine support for them as it is considered cowardly in a society that holds warriors with esteem. Another issue that is an unknown and you alluded to is their ability to replace mid-level commanders and experienced fighters. If they can maintain a supply of quality fighters and commanders, then they stand a serious chance of wearing down the international community and eventually winning. However if they can not maintain the level of trained fighters and commanders, the insurgency will unravel. One of the key elements will be getting better control of the border to prevent the import of munitions and fighters. Stopping the people will be difficult, but reducing the influx of new weapons and ammunition is quite possible.

Just what do you mean by 100% causalities? That every Canadian in Afghanistan is going to be killed? So far the ratio of Canadians vs Taliban is somewhere around 71 to 1, so that means that roughly 178,000 Taliban fighters will be killed doing so at the present rate of attrition. Actually the ratio would be better than what the Vietnamese did, they lost 400,000 to 58,000 US troops.

thank you rkewen, for the details about the US system.

I miswrote regarding the 'primaries' - it is the fallout from the mid-terms that I was writing about - because if the white house is under pressure count on a 'pull-back' on military expenditures / operations.

There are times I feel like William Tecumseh Sherman, with his oft repeated claim that the US Civil war of the 1860's was going to take millions of lives and treasure and years to complete, while conventional wisdom of "Old Fuss and Feathers" maintained that only one or two battles were needed. Sherman left the army for a year or so because of the mass stupidity and lack of acceptance of the facts as he saw them. He to hoped that he was wrong...so do I.

Jeepers I was wondering where all the smart people were hiding out and then mercifully, Colin came to save the day and incidentally prove that the games governments and the military play with body counts works on people up to a certain I.Q. level.

Point by point, and it's okay if you read slowly:

murdock means that in certain situations, without available air support or resupply (i.e. US busy because of a nagging little nuclear war going on around Iran/Israel etc and northeast Asia and wondering where their 140,000 troops went when the Shia in the South and all around (1,000,000 man Iranian Army close by) decided to quit shooting Sunni and start gangbanging intruders only) so it is a possible scenario, not probable, definitely not desirable, but also not impossible. Can you go pick up any Canadian Forces if they need a ride out in a hurry?

Your whole 71-1 crap and 178,000 comes from where. Is that the Taliban death toll for this winter, this year, to date all ready, supply some parameters with you imaginary numbers if you want them to make even imaginary sense.

Who is counting the bodies, Taliban bodies that is. Not the Pentagon, ever since Vietnam they decided "We don't do body counts." I think it had something to do with the fact that people were starting to wonder why there was anyone left in Vietnam other than Americans back then. Of course if your performance is rated on production of units (dead Taliban in this case) I case it is understandable to round up when you submit your report to your boss.

Don't forget either that a dead Afghani that isn't carrying NATO supplied ID must be Taliban (ie enemy) or we wouldn't have ever killed him. In Iraq they carry shovels to equip dead Iraqis with, altho it seems like a waste to me, dead men don't dig very well, can't even dig their own grave. Oh, it looks like they were setting a roadside IED, I get it. "What do you mean it was a seven year old girl? Those little girls have bombs in their bonnets don't you know?"

So since I heard Rick "Kick Afghani Butt even better than the Shrub" Hillier say there was only 1000 Taliban left, the Canadian Forces should be home for Christmas - "Mission Accomplished!"

Just to rub it in I would like to point out that whatever the Vietnamese casualties were, and I believe they were inexcusable, one or two were killed from 30,000 feet overhead.

and,

Until recently, the Americans were keeping up with the Taliban (or leading) when it came to killing Canadians in Afghanistan.

Hey murdock, no prob, we help each other out understanding the insanity.

It's interesting that you bring up the War Between the States. It is still the war in which America had the most fatalities, well over 1/2 million fatalities from battle and other war related causes. Since it was a brutal war lasting five years with the dead on both sides being Americans, I guess that shouldn't be surprising. And for Colin's benefit if you want to judge that war by body count, guess what, the Confederacy won. Union 365,000 - Confederates 135,000. And Colin, in this game, the high score is bad - that is fatalities on each side.

Mind you, if the First Fool isn't dragged away and locked up soon, the nukes might start flying from everybody that has any. Then numbers like the above will seem quaint, sorta like bushels and pecks and the Geneva Conventions.

Colin posted:

Yes, and since I am a student of mountain warfare I can tell you that the terrain around Kandehar makes evacuation by any means other than boots next to impossible. This means no med-evac this means that 'wounds-recieved' becomes more critical.

As you point out, no foliage, this works both ways. I am assuming (bad thing to do I know) you have heard of snipers? The Mujehedin had some of the best in the world, ask any Soviet middle level non-com, they were truly feared. If you have read my earlier post about the 'mountain-men', then you understand that the next generation of snipers is now out of diapers. Walking out in the open - to go to the latrine for instance - could suddenly become lethal.

Oh and your helicopter med-evac? Not unless it has fighter-bomber escourt (about 5:1 ratio). The Stingers will come out in season...

So what? Consider that they, the Taliban, are willing and have the manpower to do this? If they have the will to do that...

Yes the 'average' conscript was more concerned with self-preservation - and once going for a dump becomes a life-altering process so will our troops start to become more interested in coming home alive...

continued...

continued...

the UN mandate crap is new! They only applied the 'resolution' at the 'request' of the USofA. Stop treating this as a UN planned operation from the start. It was not. So skip the 'revisionist history' approach.

If NATO pushes more troops in, how are they any different from the Soviets? Why would they expect any different results?

Please provide your answer...?

If the Canadians go out in the 2 -3 'columns' like they did last time to 'seek and destroy' Taliban, then it will be the Canadians that will be vulnerable and unable to be resupplied. They are stuck in their radioactive base until either NATO or the US decide to committ the air support needed. So far neither seems interested...

WHAT? please re-read your statement above. Mid-level leaders are trained by top level ones. The top level ones number in the 1,000's since the 'training camps' were closed by the US bombings all that has happened is those sergeant to captain level leaders have gone into the wilderness and are busy training in groups of 5-12. No satellite will ever spy this activity, they do not use radios or fancy communications, the do not need to.

continued...

continued...

bovine scatology

If one man can walk in from Pakistan carrying 300 rounds of .50 cal sniper ammo, then why not 3,000? Then if they can carry 300 rounds of ammo, then why not 20 RPG's? or 5 Stingers?

No way can that border be 'closed' to anything...to many copperhead roads

The 'classical sense' of dead, wounded or missing...

oh and get your numbers right, the North Vietnamese and NLF dead: 1,100,000; North Vietnamese and NLF wounded: 600,000.

and the US had 1,000,000, South Korea 300,000, Australia 48,000, New Zealand 3,900 troops in the region over the period you mention. This means that NATO had better be prepared to accept over 1100 casualties, given that Canada is the only nation (other than the US) that has troops in any hot zone with Rules of Engagment that permit 'war fighting' activity. This means the entire enemy fighting posture will be pointed at Canadian forces in the region -> until they are reduced, then perhaps either the blood of Canada will be seen and the NATO partners will fight, or flee. Either way I do not think that the decision to fight will come in time to save any of the Canadian contingent. Like Dieppe we will be hammered into paste to serve as an example to the others in the alliance...

mark my words:

100% Casualties

Well, predicatble patterns. SO tell me... Why would I engage other then to say what you all (with few exceptions) are saying is total crap?

I came in here swining because the article at the top here, and the follow on commentary attacked me personally. How is that? Many have choosen to slander the CDS. The first Gen in a long time that I can remember that soldiers can actually remember the name of, and actually respect. Frankly, all the soldiers I speak to, hang out with, and consider my peer group view the man with a very high degree of respect and care, and many of us view political attacks on him (as many here have choosen to indulge in) as personal attacks on us. Would you think o mock or slander a Catholic Arch Bishop in front of a devout Catholic and expect nothing in return?

Colin comes in with reasoned, calm opinions as to what he has taken from MSM and possibly other sources, and village idiots pop right out, condescend, and call what he has to say "crap"

Murdoch, nice history lesson. You made an errounous assumption though, which is very common on the part of those that do not understand what is going on. You made the assumption that the enemy in Afghanistan is Afghan. You only make partial points on that. The insurgents do have some Afghans with them, however, there are Arabs (not indeginous to Afghanistan), Chechnans (not indeginous to Afghanistan), and some Eastern European mercenaries (not indeginous to Afghanistan), and a hockey sock full of others. For this reason, we will not see the mass uprising which the Russians faced (note, we have already been there for 5 full years... How long were the Russians there before the spanking started?).

I am going to guess that it has been at least 10 yrs past since you were in uniform, and I am of the opinion that your expereince with combat arms is limited (this is not to disperage, as frankly, I, an infanteer, can not do my job without the support trades, and tend to make em my best friend where ever I go). This lack of expereince would explain the quick dismissal of our situational awareness in theatre. The CF has changed dramatically in just the past 3 yrs, let alone the past 15 yrs I have been in.

Anyways, since I will be summeriarly dismissed once again, shall spend no more time on this... Life is too short. I beleive very strongly in the mission, and nothing I have seen, heard, or done has changed my absolute conviction that the mission in Afghanistan is absolutly the right thing to do (oddly, I know a few Afghans who are of the same opinion). People can be opposed to war and violnce on that princible of violence is evil alone... One does not have to travel into the realm of unsupported supposition and lies to oppose it.

History 1
No one summarily dismissed you before. Go back and actually read what was written.

I still don't think you've posted any substantive data or information. I'm glad that you think the CF have changed and I hope you're right. However, just a quick question.

How is it possible that we have gone - according to O'Connor, Fraser and Hillier (all on record within the last month) to having the insurgents (I think you're right that they are more than the Taliban but, if you'd actually read what's been posted above here you'd realize that's been covered too - as well as a recognition of the extreme permeability of the border) on the run and more or less rounded up into a cul de sac for a turkey shoot until yesterday?

At which time Peter McKay makes a desperate plea to NATO for more help.

Somebody is not telling the truth. That is a pretty big disconnect.

I know you guys think you're doing God's work over there and in your eyes you probably are. In fact I really hope so. But, given the news from Iraq lately and the temperature of all the comments coming in about both Afghanistan and Iraq from all sources Canuck, American, British and from NATO, I just can't believe that you poor bastards are getting the whole story from your brass.

I'd hate to have to follow an idiot like Hillier or O'Conner to the corner store - let alone into battle.

Further, I think if you were so confident that you are correct and murdock's wrong you'd make your case a lot more strongly and leave off questioning his bona fides.

In the final analysis, this may be a public forum but we are all posting anonymously. Why bother lying?

Anyway, good luck to you if you're heading over there. I hope you come back alive.

I don't think that sounds much like you have been summarily dismissed at all.

Was this before or after he called Belinda a dog? Also why is Crying in the Rain in Gumboots in Halifax today? He is the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the last time I checked Nova Scotia wasn't a foreign country, though maybe like me, with the chubby chickenhawk in charge, they wish they were.

By the way it's a good thing he didn't call his new squeeze, Dominatrix Condi, a dog, dogs, dog lovers and the SPCA would all be rising up in protest over the insult to the entire canine species.

Colin:

Yeah I guess we could call them compassionate if they used depleted uranium and cluster bombs and bunker busters and land mines. Like we're using kid's gloves to provide security. Nice try.

Questioning 100% casualties - casualties include wounded do they not? In Iraq the USA has what somewhere under 150,000 personel? So far there's what almost 3,000 dead, over 20,000 wounded? What's that, over 15% casualties so far? No wonder they need to pull harder on the recruitment front. Or push softer - let me count the ways they've softened up the requirements.

Although in our case in Afghanistan in the case of a serious counter attack next year, I guess dead or wounded doesn't make much difference when you're retreating from an enemy that isn't interested in taking prisoners of war. I hope those predictions are overly pessimistic too, but I can at least see that they are possible.

I also don't pay any attention to the "1 coalition soldier wounded, 37 insurgents killed, reports coalition" fairy tales. Even if 37 people were actually killed, I doubt they can always pick out which ones were insurgents, probably not even most of the time.

Keep up the great conversation people.

History1:

because by making such a broad statement you are proving that your argument is the same "total crap". as another has said put up or shut up.

Look, the way to view this place is like a mess bar stool collection. If you cannot substantiate your argument in any way or form you will be ignored, it may take some time and if you continue to 'slag' other posters it will come back on you like a plastic bag of sh*t flung at a running fan...

please point out where, in any of my arguments I have slandered anyone, other than the political masters, Harpo, Mr. Dithers, Darth Cretinous. I have neither attacked you (for you did not do more than come in here and spit at me) nor the CDS, as you need to carefully read what I have written, not others in my name or about what I have written, but only what I have written.

I did carefully point out that I understand why you cannot speak with any freedom about all of these issues.

Since I have 9+ years behind be away from the 'indoctrination' I am more than free to comment, and I still have friends and other sources still in uniforms, on three continents. So I have no problem standing by what I have written, like you I cannot reveal the sources directly, as to do so would imperil them for no more than my personal smugness in refuting you, a pixie of the etheral plane at this point and of little overall importance to me personally or to my friends in any way at all.

Regarding my credentials, retired Captain, 9 years reg-force. Served from Africa to the north pole. Watched the cold war end with MIG's buzzing us and a few times 'painting' us with target locking radars. And learned of the new brushfire wars first hand, having parts of a herc shot out around me.

Before donning a blue uniform I was a grunt, recce officer and did a tour in Cyprus from a reserve regiment that were mountain warfare specialists, from those associations I have kept connections with many different trades and officers in all three different uniforms.

After leaving I have met new others, some of whom are Vietnam vets (they were really green when they were in at that time) thru them I have connected to still more others -> including some americans and a CMH winner. That CMH winner is one of my current primary sources about 'goings-on' in Afghanistan, and he will never go into Kandehar, it was 'captured' using A-10 warthogs, which use depleted uranium rounds. His rad counter was going nuts every time they came close to the area, so he happily 'slept elsewhere'.

There are my credentials, probably too much to release, but there you have em.

History1:

I am assuming that from your moniker, you are something of a 'history buff'?

If so, please read into the goings on of the Aulic Council and how they 'mucked about' with military affairs from the 1780's to the 1808 time frame. The entire Canadian military structure, from the CDS on down has been completely 'politicized', just like the Aulic Council. As far as I'm concerned MacKenzie was the last, and I mean last military General in the CF. There are intense pressures to 'line-up' a certain way especially once you reach LtCol. to get any further REQUIRES a certain sycophantic approach, I was witness to it all for my time in Winnipeg and seeing how Air Command actually worked (not in the text books but the reality) it was sad.

http://www.allwords.com/word-sycophant.html

To my knowledge this entire oversight group, centered in the ADM's is not any different than it was 40 years ago when the LIEberals invented it to take command control from the military thru the purse strings of Treasury Board.

As far as your own slavish devotion to Hillier, was it the same as the last CDS? The one before him? Will it be so for the next one? They are all interchangeable, the process has gone too far with the LIEberals at the helm...

The solution?

Bring em all home for 6 months, fire every officer from Colonel up. Pay them out whatever. Pay out 60% of the MWO's and up - keeping only the youngest and fittest behind.

Promote 4 Lt Cols to Brigadier, then re-form all units into three action brigades, the 4th is to be later promoted Lt. Gen (and the highest rank).

Promote 24 Lt Cols to Col and re-form the new units and bases/stations.

Move up whomever else is needed to re-set the correct numbers for the active units.

Spend the remaining 4 months intensively training for the war-fighting modes that these units are expected to take on.

Take out the rest whom do not think they can play like this and properly re-form the reserve units, with potentials for the reserve officers and NCO's (not the crap that is there now).

Not to follow some sort of real re-tooling is a three-card monty. So what part are you? The dealer? The mark?

no, you are the Shill...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shill

Finnaly for History1:

no summary dismissal, this is a crucible of argument, some may follow it some may not-> I am certain that some see my name at the top of a post and just scroll down.

your responding back may mean that you have some doubts, or that you wish to create some with us. This is fine, take your shots, but please include something more than your 'personal convictions' since no one here has ever, or likely will ever meet you, we will never understand what those convictions are.

Teach us, with more than an imperious 'I know more than you do 'cuz I carry a gun', or a childish 'nyahh-nyahh - I get information that you can't have and if I told you I'd have to kill you'.

So far your posts have had a ring of thoughtfullnes to them and I relish the debate, sadly you have had not points to debate.

Cheers

Murdoch A friend sent me this with the comment

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-2274936.php

Yes Nana, others have been doing some 'bombarding' of us here about this also...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15321167

This commentary by Keith Olbermann
Anchor, 'Countdown' is rather prophetic...

I had thought of Bush Jr. as trying to worm his way towards Imperium, now I am certain of it. I can only hope that since he is still early in the action and the first one to really set-up a use of military force within the US, he and his family and his party will go down like Sulla did.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ja&u=http://55.bce.tl.infofx.info/&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=5&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dsulla%2Bfalls%2B78%2Bbce%26hl%3Den%26hs%3DiYo%26lr%3D%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dopera%26rls%3Den

Sadly we may have to 'weather more storms' before the solution will be at hand.

Colin,

It is more ingrained in the Maritimes.

But you don't find it kind of strange that every riding in the fraser valley votes for the most right-wing major party in every election federally and provincially since ww2?

That Liberals federally stay strong in the same seats, that the NDP is strong in the same seats etc?

Pundits can easily figure out what seats will vote for whom based on past history. They know the vote spread so they know a 4% rise in popularity will sudenly put certain seats into play. Its because we do tend to vote the same as our parents.

We aren't quite as bad as the Maritimers but out here, except for the Green party, there's been no change either.

History1, good to read you!

Definitely good to read you History1.
When are you going to come back and share some real insights into what's going on with our Canadian brothers and sisters in Afghansitan?

I'd always heard that the price of a vote in parts of the maritimes was a mickey of Rye. I suppose that's a bit out of date though.

I wonder what the going rate is on Howe Street these days?

Murdock, I think your figure of 100% slaughter of the Canadian forces might sadly be pretty close.

You can extrapoloate this by judging the amount of fantasy spewed out by McKay and Hillier about the makeup and nature of the "insurgents."

Did Hillier really say there's only a thousand Taliban?

The truth is that there's probably 5 or so million Afghans who are willing to join the insurgency as soon as the Americans are defeated in Iraq.

If the Canadians are still doing most of the fighting in the South when the Americans pull out of the entire middle east, the insurgents will turn on the Canadians with a vengeance as every Arab or fundamentalist Moslem in the region will rush to get his share of the prize for defeating the enemies of Islam and protecting their homeland from the foreign invaders, which is how the Canadians will eventually be perceived.

That's why it's so important for people to understand that McKay and Hillier are living in a total Peter Pan dreamworld thinking that a warrior nation of 30 million can be defeated by a few thousand Nato and Canadian troops.

I hope common sense will prevail and our guys can get out before it's too late.

I know this isn't about Afghanistan or the Canadian Forces, but it's all related and shows the true place in the military holds in the hearts of the Bush Crime Family.

Two stories in the US Press.
the Appropriated Press...oops Associated
has a story that starts -

Meanwhile the San Diego Union Tribune has:

As Mike Rivero of WhatReallyHappened suggests maybe grunts should just Max out their credit cards and then the Rich would have to go fight for the Rich Folks!

Thanks for posting that, rkewen, I think it's very relevant - I picked up the first story the other day and then forgot to post it.

check your email - BCMary has been having an interesting time just now

And now, back to the subject at hand:
The first article in a two-part series in the New York Times magazine tomorrow by Elizabeth Rubin- entitled "In the Land of the Taliban" will probably be required reading.

Suffice it to say, for any here who still think there were only 1,000 Taliban fighters ranged against our Canadians, you need to read the article.

You can find it here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/22/magazine/22afghanistan.html?hp&ex=1161489600&en=288cf9a523054bc2&ei=5094&partner=homepage

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/October2006/211006Taleban.htm
Who are the Taleban? The question that is snaring Nato in Tribal wars

Anthony Loyd / London Times | October 21 2006

Western Forces are failing to recognise important local differences

LYING in hospital in Kandahar, with shrapnel wounds in both legs and his left arm, Abdul Qarim has had two days to ponder why his wife, two sons and two daughters were killed in a Nato attack on his village.
“If you call our mothers and children ‘Taleban’ then that could be one reason,” the 60-year-old farmer said yesterday. His family were not Taleban they were Tajiks. “More probably though, some people gave the wrong information to the foreigners — told them we were al-Qaeda or Taleban."

His experience illustrates the big question that dogs soldiers not just in Kandahar and Helmand but in the whole of Nato’s Afghanistan operation: Who exactly are the Taleban?

continues at above link

Perhaps the most important recent publication is The Next War by Daniel Ellsberg - known by most for his release (and subsequent prosecution over) of the Pentagon Papers in 1971. He now feels that he should have released them in 1964. Indeed Senator Wayne Morse one of two senators to vote against the Tonkin Gulf Resolution (the Vietnam equivalent to the authority Congress gave GWB just before the invasion of Iraq - and just as phoney as Saddam's WMDs and Al Queada connections), told him if he had seen that information at the time the resolution wouldn't have gotten out of committee. He also regrets the Richard Clarke didn't come forward in 2002 when it was obvious the Bush cabal had an agenda that had nothing to do with 9/11 or Osama. This bood was published October 19, 2006 and an excerpt can be found at Harpers at:

http://harpers.org/TheNextWar.html

a taste:

.......many high-level officers and government officials are convinced that our president will attempt to bring about regime change in Iran by air attack; that he and his vice president have long been no less committed, secretly, to doing so than they were to attacking Iraq; and that his secretary of defense is as madly optimistic about the prospects for fast, cheap military success there as he was in Iraq.

these sources regard the planned massive air attack—with or without nuclear weapons—as almost sure to be catastrophic for the Middle East, the position of the United States in the world, our troops in Iraq, the world economy, and U.S. domestic security.

Armageddon anyone?

Our Stephen will be right in there rooting for his buddies and their plan. It might be tough on the Canadian's in Afghanistan, but then again, that's kinda what Murdock has been pointing out, full monty version.

Our Stephen sure knows who to model his foreign policy after!

Thanks rkewen, for the Harper's reference - I knew Ellsberg had a book in the works.

I especially liked this bit from the Harper's excerpt:

It took me that long to recognize that the secrecy agreements we had signed frequently conflicted with our oath to uphold the Constitution. That conflict arose almost daily, unnoticed by me or other officials, whenever we were secretly aware that the president or other executive officers were lying to or misleading Congress. In giving priority, in effect, to my promise of secrecy—ignoring my constitutional obligation—I was no worse or better than any of my Vietnam-era colleagues, or those who later saw the Iraq war approaching and failed to warn anyone outside the executive branch.

Emphasis mine. I hope somebody in the Canadian Defence Department will find the balls to realize how misplaced their loyalties are as well.

rkewen, thank you for posting that link to Daniel Ellsberg's fantastic Harpers article. Ellsberg's always been one of my favourites, but I wasn't aware of that article.

I've been thinking exactly the same things about Richard Clarke over the last few months and have alluded to it several times on this forum. Clarke is the most enigmatic figure in America, in my opinion, and I do not believe any of his self-flagellations or mea culpas for incompetence--either his or the CIA's--regarding either 9/11 or the Iraq war.

Soldiers are offerring their lives for a neocon fantasy and Iraq is being destroyed as a nation, but Clarke couldn't even risk his job. And although Ellsberg writes that it might have meant prison for Clarke to disclose what he knew, I doubt even that would have happened because he could have easily leaked only the secret critiques of administration plans for Iraq, and not the actual classified documents.

And of course, Ellsberg is dead on about Lynden Johnson's Gulf of Tonkin lies, and his pretense that he had no intention of broadening the war in Vietnam.

But he needn't punish himself for not disclosing in l964. Johnson's lies were so transparent that anyone with half a brain should have understood what he was up to, and noone in the Congress should have fallen for it.

And, as one of the weirdest developements in world history, it might be Mark Foley who has saved the world from the first aggressive nuclear explosions since Hiroshima--which is what President Cheney and his co-conspirators have been planning for Iran--all, of course, at the secret bidding of the state of Israel.

The American people have become so disastrously stupid that they can see regime-change-quality corruption in some skanky gay flirtation between a congressman and some teenage pages, but they hardly react to mass murder in Iraq, and a totally Abramoff'd Republican Party and neocon administration.

Wayne Madsen says

A number of past and present GOP members of the House Page Board have been implicated in the growing scandal. It has been reported that current Page Board member Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico covered up her husband's own brush with the law over "inappropriate contact with a minor" in 1996. Rep. Wilson, while Secretary of the New Mexico Children, Youth and Families Department, managed to cover up the incident involving the16-year old boy and her husband. And in what amounts to further chutzpah on the part of the House GOP, Wilson served on the Caucus for Missing and Exploited Children under its one-time chairman, Mark Foley.

However, caucuses and boards devoted to exploited children, as well as other seemingly "youth development and protection" organizations, have been used by the GOP and Religious Right to mask a pedophile and pederasty agenda.

There is more at http://www.waynemadsenreport.com/

I think beside Foley, we also need to thank Kim Il Jong. It would be hard to call for an attack on Iran after the Korean bomb, although Israel tried to get Russia on side. I guess we should also thank Putin.

Interesting thought today, from Adler:

In the Vietnam era, Walter Kronkite went to 'the 'Nam', put on a helmet and said on camera, we should not be here, nothing other than killing our young men is being accomplished.

LBJ had to step-down, the end had finally come.

Now Andy Rooney asks: Mr. President, what are we doing in Iraq? What is being accomplished other than the continued murder of our young men?

Perhaps this pointed question will bring down the white house after all...

In the end it may be good for the overall peace of the world, but if the US is more interested in exit strategy from Iraq, there again will be no excess airlift capacity to save those poor Canadian boys...

100% Casualties

The sweeping generalizations of history and the authors pretense at being a persons of military and historical knowledge comes up short - the rhetoric of 'George Bush's War' is certainly out of the defeatist left spectrum and betrays any pretense of objective analysis.

The reality is that the Canadian's have brought the war home to the Taliban; the mistakes of the Russians of hiding in the safe compounds while the countryside armed has not been lost upon the Canadians - the Taliban are now faced with the loss of their bases, and the current Canadian attempt to push a road through (Canadian losses to date are from defending the road building crew) into the Pashmal Valley will further erode the ability of the Taliban to be anything other than a terrorist group.

There is a fundemental difference between Iraq and Afghanistan; the most noticable of which is that Afghanistan is a UN International Mission - the second is that the success to date within Afghanistan. In 2000 it was a failed state with an exceedingly weak brutal government that openly supported Islamic Terrorist groups dedicated to the destruction of most of the Islamic Republics, the West and the former Soviet Union - the role of women within Afghanistan was just somewhat short of slavery, this was a nation where widows actually starved to death in their houses because they could not go out in public alone. For whatever we may say about Afghanistan today, there are roads, schools, basic human rights, the rule of (Islamic) law, and the dreaded 'religious police' are off the streets - a quote from an Islamic blog stated a week ago that 'as an Afghan, I would rather have the Soviets back than the Taliban'

In 1924 the British fought a counter-insurgency war in Iraq - which they won in 4 years - the basic lesson of counter-insurgency is to treat every captive very well, win all of your battles, and never fail to go right back into an area that is about to turn over to your side (villagers about to change sides need the protection of soldiers); this is well understood in Afghanistan by both the Brits and the Canadians.

I am always disappointed that the liberal left is not willing to support their own ideals in other countries - when the Minister for Woman's affairs was assassinated in Afghanistan (in front of her house) in September - the liberal West reacted largely in silence. Where were, I wonder, the advocates for the rights of women at this time - often, too willing to find fault with everything that the west stands for, the liberal west fails to advocate and defend it's own values.

The overall message in the articles is one of gloom; so important is it to find fault with the Bush Administration, NATO, the Canadian Military, that they have missed a central point : The Canadian policies in Afghanistan are working. Even the President of Pakistan believes this.

Be optimistic - after all, the British won the Seven Years War; an absolutely improbable and seemingly impossible outcome to most of the smart and educated European Autocrats in 1759.

Ockham

Time will tell. The long piece from the New York Times - if you've taken the time to read it - tells a somewhat different story.

Clearly some progress has been made; whether or not it is enough remains to be seen.

I would not put much stock in the opinion of the President of Pakistan. His own authority having arisen as the result of a military coup. As a matter of fact, observing the recent 'performances' of Karzai and Mushareff at the White House, I got the distinct feeling that the two 'gentlemen' were not even on civil terms with each other.

Optimism in the face of inconvenient circumstances and disadvantageous odds is foolishness. And Kabul is not Afghanistan.

I wish our troops were home. I think we will not solve these problems on the battlefield. Despite all the hollow cheerleading. Of what possible purpose is our noise or silence in these matters? We live in a representative democracy and, when last I checked, the general opinion of the majority of the Canadian public could not, in any sense, be seen as supportive of the current uses to which our forces have been put.

Mr. Harper, until he loses the confidence of the House, will have his way with those who take the Queen’s shilling.

While I support and pity the soldiers, nothing you've posted convinces me that your understanding of the situation on the ground is any more accurate than those presented heretofore.

In fact, quite the contrary.

Time will tell. I certainly hope no more Canadians die for Mr. Harper's vainglorious ambition.

I'd only add that, on second thoughts, your own post contains quite a few sweeping generalizations of its own. My view.

And besides, Ockham, your boosterism sounds an awful lot like this:
(from tomorrow's New York Times; it's quite long so it will be in two parts - and worth a chuckle - it's behind subscription so I can't just post the link)

Running Against Themselves
By MAUREEN DOWD

Things have become so dire for the Republicans that now even Bush is distancing himself from Bush.

The president is cutting and running from the president.

In a momentous event at the White House on Monday, Tony Snow made a major announcement about an important new strategy for Iraq. The president will no longer stay the course on the rallying cry “stay the course.”

A presidency built on message discipline (Message: “Stay the course”) is trying to salvage itself with some last-minute un-messaging (Message: “No more stay the course”).

Of course, the administration has never really said what “the course” is, so it was never really apparent what “staying” it meant, anyhow.

It was a wacky moment for Tony Snow, who renounced the slogan while sticking to the policy. “It left the wrong impression about what was going on,” the press secretary said, “and it allowed critics to say, ‘Well, here’s an administration that’s just embarked upon a policy and not looking at what the situation is,’ when, in fact, it’s just the opposite.”

The important thing was that the cliché sounded good to Republicans, strong and virile, for a while. But pollsters for the White House seemed to be the last to learn that even many of the party faithful had soured on the phrase, deeming it inflexible and stupid. Has Karl Rove, who urged G.O.P. candidates to keep the Democrats on the defensive on national security, lost his magic?

In a White House with a Fox News all-spin sensibility, officials don’t think they need to change the strategy as much as they need to change their slogan.

The overworked Bush phrase suggested “burying your head in the sand,” Steve Hinkson, political director at Luntz Research Companies, a G.O.P. public opinion firm, told The Washington Post’s Peter Baker. “The problem is that as the number of people who agree with remaining resolute dwindles, that sort of language doesn’t strike a chord as much as it once did.”

Here's the rest of it, enjoy!

Unwilling to admit mistakes or face the urgent need to go past semantic changes in a protectorate that has fallen into a vicious civil war, in which Americans are merely referees and targets, the White House is falling back on marketing. Just as Andy Card rolled out the war as a marketing event, the Bush team now thinks that all it needs to do is come up with a catchy and chesty new advertising pitch.

Bay Buchanan assured Wolf Blitzer that the president still intended to stay the course and seek victory, he just wouldn’t use that phrase, because it gave people the impression that W. was unwilling to change tactics.

After all, Dick Cheney told Rush Limbaugh last week that the inept Iraqi government was doing “remarkably well.”

But given the Republican meltdown, it’s obvious that Democrats are having better luck mocking the Republicans for staying the course than Republicans are having mocking the Democrats for cutting and running. But Democrats have no ingenious ideas about how to extricate ourselves from this nasty war either.

Yet W. once more accused the Democrats of wanting to cut and run in Iraq at a campaign stop in Sarasota, Fla., yesterday.

Many frantic Republican lawmakers are also running against themselves, either reneging on their support for the war they started, or railing against Washington, the town they absolutely control, claiming that the capital has forgotten their values, or making ads denouncing the Democrats’ “homosexual agenda,” even though Republicans are now the party of gay scandal.

It’s a hilarious spectacle of a whole party re-enacting the classic scene in Mel Brooks’s “Blazing Saddles,” in which the sheriff holds the gun to his own head to take himself hostage.

The Bushes don’t connect words with action. Action is something that’s secretly plotted with the inner circle behind closed doors. The public should stay out of it. The Bushes just connect words with salesmanship. Poppy Bush never meant it when he said “Read my lips: no new taxes” at the 1988 convention. It was just a Clint Eastwood-sounding line in a Peggy Noonan speech, meant to pump up his flighty image.

Just so, his son never paid any mind to his campaign promise not to nation-build, and he didn’t come through on his bullhorn pledge to catch the perpetrators of 9/11 or his tough-guy vow to bring in Osama dead or alive.

To W., the words he says to Americans don’t matter as much as the words Dick Cheney says to him. He just has to hope that daddy’s friend, James Baker, the smooth fixer who is co-chairman of the Iraq Study Group and who has already suggested moving past the meaningless partisan jargon of “cut and run” and “stay the course,” comes up with a plan to rescue Junior from a fine mess one more time.

Surely you see the parallels with our own government's pathetic attempts to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear?

Ockham, taking his turn, once again showing the errors of his own, "generalizations":

Yes and this forum is not the place for a masters dissertation of history, which you would dispute anyway!

Alright, I shall accept that you are right in that the desire to push a road into the Pashmal valley will have some sort of positive effect. How is this different than the immense, and I mean immense road building that the Soviets did at the start of thier campaign? They had to build a road from Uzbekistan to Khabul. Then the connecting roads in the northern areas. ALL THE ROADS THAT CANADIAN TROOPS WERE DRIVING ON WERE BUILT BY SOVIETS. Don't try and weasel around with some sort of statement that we are doing better since we are going into areas that the Soviets did not go into. The only reason the USSR did not go there is they were worn out by then, their commanders tired of 15%-25% losses per tour. The men deserted, BY THE 100's DURING the final weeks before the 'pull-out' orders got issued. Even if they tried to do operations outside of the main roads they were getting whacked over and over again.

JUST LIKE THE CANADIANS WILL START TO SEE DONE TO THEM ONCE THIER 'PRECIOUS ROAD' IS BUILT.

Sure, for the northern alliance, not so for many of the southern mountain peoples along the Pakistan and Chinese/India Border. The godless Soviets are madmen in their eyes, as are we seen. With any 'sweeping generalization' like this the other side is easy to see. Just more tit-for-tat, something that will just increase the misunderstanding that will bring out everyone with a grudge to seek vengance, since Canada is the only 'foreigner' Canadian troops will be the favored target. 100% Casualties

Bovine-scatology!

How well are the Canadian Troops treating prisoners turned over to US authority!

continued...

Ockham continued...

Guess what? I am not now nor will I ever be in the 'liberal left'. I cannot speak for the other two Canadian Generals who said we were unready to go into Afghanistan, BEFORE WE LEFT. I know that General (ret) Lewis MacKenzie is not a LIEberal, since he ran for the PC's a few years back -> he said in 1999 that ALL CF missions should be cancelled and troops brought home for rest and re-tooling. Since this has not been done, he has repeated the call for doing just such a thing. I am not alone in the call for us to prepare for these sort of 'roles' before we take on any more new ones.

Of course they are working, for the small area that the CF is located in. The problem is we are like an elephant attacking a host of ants...we may kill 1000's even 10's of thousands, but in the end we will be eaten to the bone. Why else would the Defence Minister and CDS start making more and more calls for support troops? Watch the panic start to appear in their eyes next spring, doubly so for the CDS if the LIEberals are in office and 'putting-off' his requests for anything...

WHAT?!?!?!

Prussia is the recognized 'winner' from that war. If you are referring to Canada in 1758-9, then even France, the 'enemy' knew it was a lost cause. Get your own facts straight, not opinion, facts.

Regarding Canadian troops in Afghanistan, mark my words:

100% casualties

Are we really in Afghanistan to bring democracy or a testing battleground for the (stupid)superpowers?
To me this is just to cover up for what is really going on in our own backyard, like losing "OUR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS"
Canada is being broken up WE are being bullied out of OUR SOVERNTYas a SOVERN NATION WE ARE STRONGER, FREER against "those trecherous lil people"
Did you know that Harper Yes Stephen Harper was under the tutelage for 30 years the so-called Fraser Institute! I smell a rat. Googal
S Harper's, G Campbell's, etal for the NWO lead by a psychopathic, psychotic liar!

What about Bill C-16? Googal search.
Why haven't the court dates been made public in mainstream media about the Verk, Basi, Verk?
The giveaway of our Terasen?
http://www.bcfiberals.com/
http://www.commonground.ca/iss/0610183/stolen_rivers.pdf
http://thetyee.ca/News/2004/12/03/BCContractorMaximus/
We the public have no choice in media coverage of all aspects of our life, Why?
Corporate Influence "We Are Being Dumbed Down" Shame on Us for Allowing This Terrible Injustice to Continue Our Future and Our Children's Future Depends on the Truth!

I personally think the first thing we have to do is make CanWest accountable to the people of B.C. and also to the Canadian People!
Is to start boycotting their advertisers if we all started this the Corporations behind these advertisers would start feeling the pinch and corporations do not like to lose money and especially their shareholders who don't like losing their God=money.
"Free Speech Is the Basic Foundation of True Democracy" Are you listening CanWest?
A Vancouver Province headlines front page picture last week, woman shows butt where bear bit her, why is this news, especially FrontPage?
The Vancouver Sun, Global TV

Best way to make these turkeys sit up and take notice is:
a. contact their big advertisers and boycott their products;
b. stop buying their stupid papers and when they offer to bring the things to your door for free - say no;
c. write letters to the editor telling them what and why you're doing it;
d. don't watch Global TV.

Sales go down precipitously - things will start to change. The incident in Victoria shows they can be reached.

Good one gwest, No Great idea!
Now just notch that up a bit and start with a big advertiser in the daily rag, as I'm starting humm I guess I'll have to buy one.
No, wait I'll look at one while having a java tomorrow, as I haven't bought one for over a year.
Whew I don't want to contribute to their non-news conspiracy!

interesting rant BC Dude.

Truth, according to whom?

You mention children, so another 'pet-peeve' comes out:

Our form of schooling has turned us into dependent, emotionally needy, excessively childish people who wait for a teacher to tell them what to do. Our national dilemma is that too many of us are now homeless and mindless in the deepest sense—at the mercy of strangers.

Quoted from The Underground History of American Education. Before you dismiss it, try reading it:
http://johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm

Critical thinking is what is missing...along with a healthy dose of debate.

for G West

perhaps, but sadly most of the population would need to do this all at once, considering the likelyhood of that taking place is near 0 - sort of like the 'gas' boycotts that float around the net every so often - this approach could be personally satisfying, or not if you need the products or services that those advertisers sell.

did that more than 10 years ago, still get the crappy local ones...gotta start the woodstove with something.

waste of time, paper, conscious thought, considering it will not ever likely be published...besides editors do not care.

I have quit cable TV seven years ago, just as my first son turned 1 and have never looked back.

Once again, Theatre is life, Film is art and television is furniture.

You forgot that one murdock. Change can happen. It will, eventually. What's happening to the south of the border proves that.

On all the other points, more or less, I agree with you. Sadly enough.

As to TV, as I mentioned earlier, CBC Newsworld is sometimes worth a moment's notice (ref. the testimony concerning CF military preparedness for Afghanistan) although, on balance, probably more bad than good - outside of CBC. Moreover, even that has to taken in small doses.

I think I said earlier that I expect your kids will be fine without it.

My parents refused to buy TV too.

Surprised?

Neither History 1 nor Ockham has risen to your challenge.

This thread is fast disappearing so I guess that'll be the end of it for now.

I’m sure we’ll come together on the same (or opposite) sides of another question sometime soon.

Cheers.

Nice to see the National Post is just now catching up to news here amongst the Tyee posters.
From the OCT 26 National Post (it'll have to be in two bits - a trifle over the 4100 character limit):

Don Martin
National Post

Thursday, October 26, 2006

With 28 months to go in Canada's approved mission to Afghanistan, the sell is getting harder.

Backed by Chief of Defence Staff Rick Hillier, Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor was at it again yesterday, giving his best chin-up overview of the 2,300-strong deployment to a parliamentary committee for the second time in as many weeks.

O'Connor boasted of "significant progress" and "successes" and "vital milestones," refusing to concede there could be any outcome except for a free and independent Afghanistan which, for the most part, he claims is already "stable and starting to improve."

He was challenged by MPs who suggested Canada was losing ground and engaged in "war without end" while children starved near the base camp, but O'Connor refused to budge off his script.

This was a briefing of hope and gaining ground with no sign of faltering resolve.

Yet red flags are flapping all around this mission. They're not white, but as warnings they flag the possibility this deployment won't have the predicted satisfactory ending.

The most difficult questions are being raised at home. A handful of military families suffering the ultimate loss of a member are now openly questioning the mission, wondering if their son or daughter's sacrifice has been for a lost cause. It's a fundamental shift of important opinion and could become contagious if, as expected and dreaded, the body count continues to rise at the three-per-month pace of 2006.

Most worrying of all is Canada's increasing isolation as other countries retreat from the dangerous southern provinces surrounding Kandahar. The Brits have pulled back, the French have signalled their intention to remove special forces at year-end and the Germans, Italians and Spanish are huddled in the north, refusing to move inside Taliban-challenged territory.

Foreign Affairs Minister Peter MacKay and O'Connor have gone to NATO partners seeking more help in the war, only to be met so far with stoney faces and no sign that volunteer hands will appear in the air.

Meanwhile, confusion reigns on the reconstruction effort. When the minister responsible, Jose Verner, visited Afghanistan last weekend, it was a public relations disaster. She couldn't visit projects because of Ramadan-ending celebrations and left amid claims Canada is building 350 schools and 93 other reconstruction works, projects her officials could not verify or detail.

But the most depressing read of the situation comes courtesy of the Senlis Council, an international think-tank with offices in Kabul, which hosted a symposium on Canada's deployment in Ottawa this week.

And here's the rest, feeling vindicated yet murdock?

The agency's opinion survey suggests this is because the average Afghan has seen the enemy. And it is us. "The international military is perceived as essentially a force of invasion rather than one of stabilization," the report concludes.

Officials on the ground released an almost unanimous chorus of condemnation of the military effort, most of them from the Kandahar province under Canadian control. Its survey found that half of the general population actually thinks Osama bin Laden would act in their best interests on the world scene.

There are disquieting reports of child starvation not far from the gates of a Canadian base camp that costs $267,000 per soldier per year to operate. Outside the wire, the size of the poppy crop has increased by 60%. When the nation's largest cash crop is destroyed before it can be converted to opium, animosity toward foreign troops soars.

Now, lest too much weight be given to the Senlis analysis, an excellent account by New York Times writer Elizabeth Rubin seconds their observations. Disguised as a boy, she mixed with Taliban insurgents enjoying picnics and barbeques and watching their kids fly kites while talking on cellphones to their comrades.

"As I travelled through Pakistan and particularly the Pashtun lands bordering Afghanistan, I felt as if I were moving through a Taliban spa for rehabilitation and inspiration," she wrote in last weekend's edition. "For the first time since the fall of 2001, when the Taliban were overthrown, they were beginning to taste the possibility of victory."

It's a depressing picture of an Afghan government that's lost the confidence of its people, who are increasingly aiding Taliban insurgents and rejecting the global offer of rescue and reconstruction.

This war zone, where life is as cheap as the grenade you can buy for three bucks, is not the hopeful Afghanistan Gordon O'Connor described to MPs yesterday.

Which side is ultimately telling the truth will decide whether Canada's mission to Afghanistan ends without public support in 2009 or is allowed to reach a victorious conclusion.

Thanks Alcibiades,

I am only sadder now...since the worst seems more than likely.

I have to contact some friends and ensure that they are not 'assigned' over there at all over the next 6-8 months.

Truly. No pleasure in this at all. Only sadness.

Be well.

Harper and his band of groupies will go down in History as the treasonous Party along with Jean Creatchin, Paul Martin (CEO of Canadian Steamship Lines) that took Canada to an Illegal aggresive war in Afghanistan for Uncle Sam!
Harper has stolen the majority of our social network by cutting 1 billion dollars!
As far as women are concerned Harper's Conservatives have taken away almost all of their equal opportunity rights! "WHO'S NEXT"?
Our biggest fight next is to force CanWest to start being a paper with real facts, real truths about our elected officials and what is really going on in this world.
So let's start boycotting their advertisers that's big dollars for them they don't seem to get the idea that the people who buy and subscribed are the real meat bones of all corporations!
"The People United Will Never Be Defeated"
A Third World is the best example.
But we have to do that en masse they have become a non News rag!

Murdock

Sorry it’s taken me this long to respond, work and life are busy.

Terrain = Most of the fighting is taking place in the lower valleys. With the minimal number of troops the coalition and government forces can deploy, there is not much reason for hiding in the mountains for now and the Taliban are trying to make use of Toyota 4x4 and motorcycles to enhance their mobility.

Snipers= Seems that most of the snipers encountered are older men and fighters from Chechnya. With the advent of the AK-47, marksmanship seem to be a lost skill with the younger Taliban, although a few “Timmies” as the Canadian call them have been found with lee-Enfield’s and Martini-Henry’s.

MANPAD’s These seem to be in short supply and have not yet been a major factor, most Helicopter damages seems to be caused by RPG’s

UN= Whether you like it or not, this is a UN blessed mission, so ignoring the existence UNSC resolution is being revisionist. Surely you are not saying that the UN resolutions are swayed by petty politics, why if this one is false, that must mean that almost all of the ones attacking Israel are invalid also?

NATO Forces= Western militaries invest more into their troops and get more out of them. Most of the Soviet forces did little to fight the Afghans, most of the fighting fell onto a smaller portion of the Soviet force that were better trained and motivated.

Number of forces = More forces mean that more PRT can continue their task of reconstructing infrastructure, while allowing a percentage of the forces to hunt the Taliban and keep them off guard. There is a reason the Taliban attack the PRT’s and their work, any successful infrastructure and successful governance is a blow to them, hence the focus of their attacks. The Taliban create insecurity and then promise to fix it, quite the trick!

Communications, command and control and effective training are key to any insurgent success. NATO is aware of this and they know they need to kill the fighters to ensure they don’t get to go back and train new ones. The fighting is changing on a daily basis, both sides are adapting. The Taliban took losses because they were using anti-soviet Tactics that are out of date, some have changed and some have not. Canadian soldiers report a wide variety of skill levels and found many of the younger opponents were unable to respond effectively against them. The CDN troops are also finding large quantities of Black Tar heroin amongst the gear on dead Taliban and abandoned gear.

Since you are ex-military you will know how far someone can go carrying 300 rds of .50cal ammo, it’s bloody heavy. If you read my remarks, I realize you can’t stop everybody and everything. But better border controls forces the Taliban to devote more resources to moving supplies and less to fighting and attacking innocent Afghans. Cut off their ability to obtain vehicles and heavy weapons and you hurt them badly.

My number came from “History of Vietnam” where the author interviewed North Vietnamese Generals, who gave that figure. So take it for what’s it worth, it may be the number of NVA lost against the US.

Since you were in and still have contacts, you will know that most of the problems existing now are the result of last decade of liberal indifference and yes also the cuts by the PC. Perhaps in 2009 they will bring the army home and reorganize. You will also know that it was neither the Army or the CPC that sent the military there, but the Liberals, so save your anger for them.

Arrgh, had 44 words over the limit!

I disagree with you assessment. I think it can be a moderately successful mission, it will only fail if the West fails to live up to it’s words and fails to help rebuild. A Taliban win in Afghanistan will be a victory for Islamic fundamentalist and it would empower them to attack elsewhere. If we can push Afghanistan back on it’s feet and get them functioning on their own, it will be a huge blow for fundamentalism and a win for human rights around the world.

As you say: Mark my words, if we lose here, millions of people will suffer around the world for generations.

Colin:
Sounds a lot like domino theory to me. I wish the powers that be cared a little more about human rights here at home.

Did you read Rubin's piece?

When 'we' (and the Afghans don't discriminate) bomb and kill civilians indiscriminately (which is what air power does) it's not hard to see why Trevor Greene took an axe to the head - we aren't winning hearts and minds. Despite the liars in Ottawa.

It may be an nominal UN mission but it is American leavings and you know it. They wanted to concentrate more of their efforts on screwing up in Iraq.

Not that we aren't trying. These guys and girls are too valuable to lose on this already compromised project. The Americans, as usual, filled their canteens, poisoned the wells and walked off into the sunset. Btw, a little heavy drugs in the fanny pack isn’t a bad idea when you’re a guerrilla fighter – Medivac for the Taliban just isn’t answering calls these days.

I ran into a Sea King pilot the other day. He’s got his fingers crossed that he’ll still be taking off from a pitching deck and not the sands of Afghanistan in 4 months time, believe me – can’t get those missing Stingers off his mind.

From the sounds of Hillier and O’Connor, I told him to say his prayers.

murdock and I don't see eye to eye on a lot of things but I fear he's right on the money this time. And that is too bad.

Murdoch, if you are going to pretend that you are an expert on the mission in Afghanistan, it would behove you to get your facts straight.

The CF does not turn over detainees to the US forces PERIOD FULL STOP. This is just one of many holes in your theories, and the many theories which the left purports.

G West, nice condescending tone on ya... Ya, I wonder where ever I got the idea that you are dismissive.

for Colin:

Yup life gets in the way of a good conversation.

The ones that they have 'caught', and a good sniper is not 'caught'.

See the item from the National Post above. Sigh, they -> the taliban, are starting to have a good time with all of this...that only means more recruits, not less.

like has nothing, I repeat nothing to do with this. The USA has refused to pay their current and back dues. The UN cannot do anything in Afghanistan without their support, since the other main nations in the UNSC are 'standing-off' until the back account is PAID IN FULL, expect them all to stand away until the US keeps old commitments, let alone any new ones. The 'international community' does not trust them, the US, any more. Therefore the UN is a peanut munching club, nothing more now.

2 parts here, yes NATO nations put more into their military, therefore they VALUE THEM MORE. Watch for France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and the UK to stand back, even as the Canadians are pounded into a wet pulp, and do nothing, since their 'rules of engagement' are set-up that way.

Secondly, you commented before (wayyy up there) about why the CF has not faced more opposition, like the soviets did. Well unlike the Soviets there are not 100,000 men out there pissing off the population, so the build-up of resistance will take longer, since each little valley is separate from the other and not being 'pissed-off'. So, not unlike the Soviets, there are only small amounts of forces engaged in any single conflict, with a base to 'fall back' on. Trust me on this, the quality of troops matters a lot less when you do not have the 'local' support and 'air cover' is GONE.

more for Colin:

So what? at last report the PRT's did not want to be anywhere near a CDN soldier since that only drew the fire!

The NGO's want the Canadian forces to STOP building ANYTHING in the countryside, since the locals cannot distinguish one from the other the NGO's with no military capability are taking a pounding, try and get anyone to come out to dig a well when they are likely to end up dead. NO AMOUNT OF PAY WILL MAKE UP FOR THIS.

I guess NATO is aware, and fully aware that there is not at 20:1 ratio, nor any way on earth that the needed 100,000 men will be mobilized for the 20+ years that it will take.

Yes, and the more that the canadians fire at villages or shoot at whatever moves, the easier it will be for the Taliban to recruit more and more...

Look you agree that there is no way to 'close' the border. Since that is true, only time is on the side of the Taliban, wait longer and they get stronger.

NATO is clearly showing that they cannot muster the force needed, nor will they support our presence there. That means that the Kandehar base is a sitting duck. I do not know that next spring will be the main attack, the Taliban, if they are truly well informed and led, should just keep up the harrasment into the next two years, then if the Democrats look like they will take on the White House then they will negotiate. If the Republicans keep it or look like they will keep it, the assaults will be merciless -> count on it.

History1, still drinking the cool aid, posted:

The CF does not turn over detainees to the US forces PERIOD FULL STOP. This is just one of many holes in your theories, and the many theories which the left purports.

stick this in your pipe and smoke it:

Last Updated: Thursday, January 17, 2002 | 9:56 PM ET

CBC News
Defence Minister Art Eggleton says Canadian troops serving in Afghanistan will turn over any prisoners they capture to the U.S., in spite of concerns the Americans may be violating prisoners' rights under the Geneva Conventions.

In recent days, pictures have emerged of Afghan prisoners, blindfolded and in shackles, being taken aboard U.S. planes and flown to a military prison camp in Guantanamo, Cuba.

Look you can try and revise history as you like it if you want, but the reality is that WE REMEMBER, write your own version of the truth, believe what others spoon feed you if you like; but in the end the TRUTH will WIN out.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2002/01/17/eggleton020117.html

Skip trying to fight here, since you cannot get even one FACT straight.

History 1:

This is what I wrote:

On the basis of the information I had at the time it was demonstrably true.

Since your post today it is STILL TRUE.

You have not risen to the challenge; Colin at least has tried, rather unsuccessfully I'd say.

No condescension on my part, no name calling, certainly no arrogance and no sense of lording it over you. I am heart sick at what my country has become and truly sorry that any of my countrymen will have had to die for such a mess of pottage.

But, if you lack the intestinal fortitude to defend your own position with something more positive than your most recent post I'd say your criticism of me is both ill-founded and pusillanimous. However, I will not hold it against you for you have been taught by narrow minded people who believe in the power of arms to solve the world’s problems. I don’t and mainly, neither does history.

But, be that as it may, anyone who actually cares about his position would, I'd suggest, defend it with at least a modicum of moxie rather than planting an ad hominem anti-personnel mine and scuttling off into the metaphoric shadows as you have done at least three times now.

DO you believe in the purpose and expect the success of the mission or not? If you do, then why can’t you reconcile the facts on the ground with the appearances and the evidence that is mounting and which, in the main, belie the ‘message’ you feel honour hound to repeat.

Rather than sniping from the sidelines, you might condescend to actually engage in a civil discussion – as others do.

In a way, I understand and empathize. I think I too would have a hard time defending what I knew in my heart was, in all probability, a lie.

Murdoch, what was accurate in 2002 is completely false now... Now stopping being intellectually lazy, and find out what we do with detainees currently.

(At least now I know why you never made it past Capt).

G West, I am not going to debate you, as everything I am seeing of your posts in response to anything counter to your skewed views indicates it would be a complete waste of time. Nothing you have said or Murdoch has said reflects reality to date. But please, don't let that stop you from flailing about uselessly in the wind.

ok, History1, you still think that the 'detainees' are being treated well...

now, they are handed over to the Karzei (US HAND PICKED) government. So instead of a one-way ticket to GITMO, they get either the local equivalent, shipped to Iraq and fun in the sun, or even better passed on to Syrian or Pakistani 'friends' for information extraction.

also likely though is the 'catch and release' program, where the militant 'detainees' are first handed over to Afghani authority, then - in exchange for a few bits of info, or a promise to not poison them again - they are released back out the other door of the jail.

Whether it is true that before (the detainees are handed over to go to GITMO and break the Geneva Convention) or not, as now, there is a 'clean' middle-man is totally moot.

The Geneva Convention prosrciption against torture has already been broken. Canada is culpable -> indeed actually gleefully participated in the act FROM THE DEFENCE MINISTER ON DOWN.

If you cannot accept this, too bad, the truth hurts don't it?

Keep your sand box comments to yourself, as you have not stated any of your 'credentials' any more than I have. I chose not to continue in their F*cking army by not completing the OPDP, on purpose. The force reduction programs in the 1990's did the rest of the job for me. I happily left on MY terms - at the end of a contract of service, as negotiated from the beginning.

Oh and its Murdock, History1; try getting your spelling of that at least right.

More of the same I see, History1.

I can understand why you'd decide not to reply - you clearly have nothing to say.

What have I said that's skewed?

C'mon fellow, let's have it. I think the fact you pop in here ever few days and drop a short ad hominem comment says a lot more about you than it does about me.

I have no horses in this race and Murdock, as he pointed out at the beginning, and I are not allies in anything other than our allegiance to what we see as the truth. If you came around here to scope out anything other than this subject you'd see that.

Consequently, and again no attempt to be condescending - I don't know what the truth is for our troops in Afghanistan, I only know what I read - and I read a lot.

On the basis of all this I get the distinct impression that Murdock has made a case for the possible, perhaps probable, outcome of this ill-stared adventure in manliness and you haven't hit the target once.

If the CF personnel currently fighting in country can't pull bulls eyes any more frequently than you have here they are really in trouble.

Do you have a point or just a lot of conflicted 'feelings'?

The best retort you've had to date is that Murdock left the military as a Captain.

Keep swinging, you may give him a cold.

Alcibiades

The Sea Kings would be poor performers over their, the power to weight ratios in the high altitude suck, and none of the people who know the details want them there.

Murdock
Your stuff about the UN is babbling

PRT’s and NGO’s are two different animals, PRT’s do have a protection element made up of ANA and Foreign troops. The story you are talking about is the NGO’s statement.

I never said you can close the border, but moving the amount of ammo required to fight the NATO forces takes a lot of logistics, sealing the main border crossing and preventing vehicles from crossing forces the Taliban to devote more resources to supplying their guys, they can intimidate the local population for food, but not heavy arms.

You do key in on the main Western weakness, which is a lack of a spine. There is no way that the Taliban can win in Afghanistan unless the West lets them. Some of your posts concern the lack of commitment by other countries and it is a valid concern. Lack of support may push us out, but I doubt very much that it will be a massacre as you predict. By 2009 the Army will be exhausted and ready for a rest, even with the influx of new recruits (the numbers are up by the way) But you need people to train them. By 2009 NATO is going to have to make some hard decisions, Canada will likely not be able to sustain the operation tempo and our troops will have to be replaced by others. The Dutch have been standing up more, Australia and France have pulled out their SF guys likely to give them a rest, but Australia also sent over engineers to replace them. I not sure if France is going to maintain, decrease or increase it’s troop levels. Poland is increasing theirs by 1,000.

Things will quiet down for the winter, hopefully NATO will keep up the tempo and force the Taliban to fight throughout the winter keeping them off-balance. Also blocking moves to prevent resupply would be good as the passes reopen.

Well, now you come closer to the truth Murdock... You are almost there. Now google ICRC and see what they have to say.

I know this is over your head, but... ICRC is THE authority on human rights, and the Conventions. They are the monitoring authority, not you.

Further, ICRC has monitored, before during and after ALL conduct with respect to detainees ad the CF's handling therein. Your gross supposition and ignorance will be lifted if you continue to dig deeper.

G West, you are a liar. Feel free and go up and re-read your responses. Where you drunk posting your responses to Colin and others? They are full of condescension, spite, and belittling.

History1:

Post chapter and verse please.

How am I a liar? Ask Colin about my bona fides - he's an honest man.

You're the one who's made those allegations - to which I've replied in kind.

If you're relying on Google as your main source of knowledge you don't know much about the military.

Colin:
As you well know, Sea king jockeys can, and do, pilot other birds. He's not sure where his next posting will be - maybe Halifax maybe????

As to what other services will be asked to do in country, I assume you heard O'Connor and Hillier yesterday.

Did you read the Rubin piece?

History1:
I've just looked back over everything I posted on this thread. From the start I've urged you to actually defend your point of view with something substantive. I think perhaps it’s you who may be twisting the truth. Someone who relies on Google to do his research is not exactly my idea of an expert witness.

This started a week ago and in the time since I've posted my own views - and as much evidence as space allows - including references to the disconnect between what the Canadian Government (and it's military servants) have said and done in the past two weeks. I've posted references to extensive writing about the conditions on the ground in Afghanistan from independent journalists; I've posted opinions from sources who were - but are no longer - supportive of allied effort in country.

I am not, and have never pretended to be, a military man. You say that you are. Fine - I'd suggest, if you don’t have something substantive to support your claims on this thread, that you'd be wise NOT to debate me. Because to this point you haven't even mussed my hair.

I ask you too: Did you read the Rubin piece? Did you read anything posted above here?

History1, still missing the point.

Who cares what is happening now?

WE STILL DID THE TRANSFER TO THE US OF DETAINEES, SO THAT THEY COULD BE TORTURED IN GITMO. WE STILL ARE CRIMINALS (in the eyes of the Geneva Conventions) BECAUSE OF IT!

and

stop obfuscating and refute the main argument of why we should not be there, in Afganistan:

You still have not responded to these items, so I repeat them

Fact: 40,000 trops. Easily verified.
Fact: Soviet invasion lasted 10 years -> try and refute it!
Fact: 15,000 dead from 100,000 regulars on the ground. Probably more but the Soviets admit to these dead numbers -> provide your source for a different answer? What history are you reading? What cool-aid are you drinking to allow you to understand a different view of history?
Fact: All of these Soviet actions also took place while they were busy setting up a 'governance' friendly to them in Khabul, EXACTLY LIKE WE ARE DOING NOW.

We are being set-up for a fall, possibly on purpose so that other NATO nations will 'pony-up' the needed troops to satisfy the Amercian Imperium.

mark my words:

100% Casualties

Oh, so now you insist that the facts I present are inconsquential, and yet you insist that I accept your projection of the Russian debacle.

First, we are not an army of conscripts that do not beleive in the mission. We are an army of volunteers that beleive totally in the mission. I have friends on the pointy end there now, and I will be there soon enough. Each of us a volunteer. The Russian conscripts were incompetant at best, so your equating us with Russian conscripts wins you zeros points.

Second, we have no intention of staying. The Russians had every intent of staying al la Ukraine, Khazikstan or any number of countries Russia ruined in their march for socialist paradise. We do however intend to set the conditions which will prevent the extremists from taking root in Afghanistan again... (remeber AQ and 9/11... Didn't think so).

We have been there 6 yrs now, and our dead amongst all the coalition is not anywhere near the numbers you predict. I suppose in the next 4 yrs the enemy could find a way to wipe out the coalition. CF casualities are 43 in 6 years... American are a couple of hundred over the past 6 years... Other nations have taken dozens at the most.

We are dedicated to the reconstruction effort, however due to the consistant targetting of NGOs and Afghan government reconstruction effort, we discovered that we must first secure the environment. Like it or not, we are there, sanctioned by the UN at the request of the Afghan government to help stabilise a country you would feed to the dogs. We beleive in the mission, at least at the pointy end, that would be the end that takes all the risks, and see all the effects (both long and short term).

You are, like all lefties, aflicted with the "need it now or it's not working" syndrom. What we are trying to do will take years, not days, not weeks... Years. We leave now, and Afghanistan will burn, and many thousands of innocents will die on your cross. Mark my words.

SO.

Murdock is a LEFTIE because he doesn't agree with YOU? I’ll let him field that groaner.

In country 6 years? I don't think so. Better put your other hand back in your pocket - you only need one to reckon the time CF personnel have been on the ground in Afghanistan.

Conscripts as opposed to volunteers. Big deal, the US army is a volunteer force too, which has not, to my knowledge made a damn bit of difference to how quickly and thoroughly they have been used to make the current situation in Iraq worse than it was before this nightmare started.

That you 'believe' in the mission is the operative key to analysis.

Surely not. DO you think the indoctrinated Nazis didn't 'believe' in their mission too?

Why would I have to lie?

You serve up nothing but the softest pitches.

Have you read the Rubin article yet?

Or does something that doesn't mesh with the propaganda you've been fed by your officers and teachers disagree with your digestion so profoundly that you can't actually confront it?

How many innocents did the recent US air strike on a 'Taliban' stronghold kill this past week?

Or doesn't that fit into your belief system either?

Do you think the Afghan people respect that maple leaf on your shoulder when they hear another village has been wiped out?

Pretty easy to slag the messenger History1, not so simple to actually deal with what has been said.

I'd say you're the one who's been reduced to calling names and I'd post your little diatribe above as exhibit 1.

When you actually say something worth responding too (and I am not holding my breath) I will... I have read the Rubin article, have you read any of the embedded stuff? Oh wait, you have, Rubin was embedded with the Taliban.

Argueing the American forces are not conscripts is silly... You are right, they are "volunteers". As much so as gang bangers in downt town Toronto "volunteer" to be in a street gang.

Difference between you and I? I get my information from the source, unfiltered, and there is very little there that gives cause for pause. You, choose to get your information filtered through left sources. Fill your boots. Take in one half of the equation, and then choosing to talk about it as someone who "knows" is not gonna make you more intelligent on the subject... In fact I find your drivel as nothing more then light fair, an appatizer... Though, I would argue it should go back to the kitchen and stay there.

Oh ya... If you haven't figured it out yet, I do not repsect you nor your opinions one wit... You are a vapid moron who chooses to speak to a subject you know nothing about, and then play word games.

If you do not like this country, or the way it is governed, please feel free to move away... Perhaps you can go live with your friends the Taliban. I am sure they will accept you with open arms (assuming you will convert, and you are not gay, and please make sure you do not accidently convert to the wrong discipline... If you get lucky, you might even run into a real Afghan when you go looking... More likely to run into an Arabian, Iranian, or Iraqi tho. Oh wait, I thought we were the dreaded foreigners in Afghanistan... Whoops, guess the enemy has their own stock of foreigners).

http://www.ogrish.com/archives/iraqi_woman_executed_by_public_stoning_Oct_24_2006.html

Don't worry, no pics in this one (thankfully). Witness the rightousness of those that you would negotiate with G.

And yes, this news article has been independently confirmed by several sources including other news agencies.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2006/10/28/2155882-cp.html

Destroy destroy destro... Oh wait, there are other better things that we prefer to do, don't have to do, and are extremely risky.

I know, to you it's just propaganda. For me it is the reality that matters.

History1
Of course, she was with the Talban. You are afraid to actually come to grips with the fact that these people don't necessarily share our values. You might want to look a little closer at some of the people the CF are thinking of accepting as recruits these days too since you have such a low opinion of your allies apparently.

You still haven't presented a single bit of evidence that things aren't going rapidly pear-shaped with our little effort to further the American cock-up in Afghanistan.

If you actually had the wit to read a little more about what I've had to say on the subject you wouldn't make such stupid statements as you have today.

Until you have read it all I'd say you're the major pusher of propaganda around here.

DO you really 'want' to be buried under a mountain of information about how compromised the 'west's' efforts to spread democracy in the region really are?

How old are you? Reality isn't just what you’d like to believe is true. Borders don't mean a hell of a lot in that area; maybe it's time you learned that too. Then you might realize that someone like me, who is trying to open your eyes, is a far better friend than those compromised officers like Hillier and the other idiots in Ottawa who would ask you sacrifice your lives for a purblind lie. The same guys who tried to use – when the bodies started coming home a little faster this spring – to employ every manipulative trick to ‘manage’ public opinion here at home.

Thank God some of our WWII veterans spoke out about that or we’d see no coffins on TV here either.

We aren't wanted there.

You can't make people into something they aren't or aren't yet prepared to be.

You can feed them, you can clothe them, you can offer them assistance - but if you're shooting them and their countrymen, or if you're perceived to be doing it because of generations of bad behavior on the part of others have taught them that that's what the west is all about then you are supporting a hopeless cause.

That's what history teaches History1 and apparently, it wasn't part of your curriculum.

And here, if anyone's still interested, is the link to part II of Rubin's article, from tomorrow's New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/magazine/29taliban.html?hp&ex=1162094400&en=26144ea57a33b715&ei=5094&partner=homepage

History1,

sigh...last time I think since this is getting tiring.

what facts? the only points that you have put forward I have repeatedly refuted.

Chapter and verse, what facts and what argument beyond your basic indoctrination and desire to lick the CDS's boots?

ok so 'faith manages'. It will not matter one little bit when you are outnumbered 20:1 in Kandehar, no air cover and the human waves start advancing on all sides. Keep this in mind about your 'faith' in the mission at that moment. I am certain that it will sustain you thru those cold dark nights ...

Ok, so I shall skip the 9/11 conspiracy elements, other than to ask you to consult the engineering reports of the construction of towers 1 and 2 and ask yourself 'what happened to that 100mm thick steel column up the center of the building?'

now on to your comment about not being there forever. What do you know about MARCH REGIONS? Did you do any reading about the region called Andorra and its 1000 year history as an independant? Surrounded by Christian, Muslem, Imperial France, Royal Spain, world wars etc it stayed INDEPENDANT. Afghanistan is a giant version of a MARCH region. Unless we STAY in there FOREVER, or essentially have the capacity to establish such an occupation (even if we do not do it) then the place will inevitably revert back to the hands of others, whether they are Taliban, Mujehedin, US Puppets like Karzei or some other warlord is immaterial. The land will not be governed in the way we desire unless we can stay there to make it that way.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marches

You are already looking to get out from the place, even before you go. I suspect that this is simply self-preservation, an understandable sentiment.

final shots next...

lastly for History1:

hmm, sounds like perfect mountain warfare strategy to me...

They, the Taliban, are the locals. They have connected to the peoples there, stop thinking in terms of some sort of stupid little line on a map as separating the people at all. Their laws and ways are mostly analagous to those of central Germany in the 4th century. Blood fueds and social slights are all met with the same nearly lethal response. Hence the young officer who got the axe in the head at a tribal 'meeting'. Many of the locals still see the military vehicles and think of you as SOVIETS, so whether the little red flag has a maple leaf on it or a hammer and sicle matters not a whit to them, if they lost many in the last Soviet aggression then count on them to shoot first and ask questions never. What response will that bring from your military friends? Firing back? Killing more of that family? So then another generation is pushed towards the side that you do not want them to be...

OPERATION BACKFIRE is the perfect title for this mission.

And the week after we leave, whether you do it feet first or not and Afghanistan will burn, and many thousands of innocents will die, it will not matter if we are there or not, the deaths will happen.

Read, please, really read up about MARCH regions. This may help you to restrict your fire at the very moment that might save your ass.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marches

If you have time before taking off to serve for your betters, try reading this book:

http://www.amazon.com/SOVEREIGN-INDIVIDUAL-MASTERING-TRANSITION-INFORMATION/dp/0684832720

I am certain G West will now go ballistic about me recommending that book to you -> proof that we, G West and I, are not in the same part of the political spectrum.

Finnally if you are in the reading mood try this:

http://www.amazon.com/Prosperity-Violence-Political-Economy-Development/dp/0393050386

I fervently believe that the use of military force in the way that it has been employed in Afghanistan and especially in Iraq will gain exactly nothing.

Only dead, only grief, only more blood stained sand....

Read Kipling, please, read:

The Young British Soldier

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.

http://www.zeitcom.com/majgen/09kipling.html

mark my words:

100% Casualties

murdock
recommend away, you've earned the right, tonight at least.

We may never be brothers in arms but you've earned my respect.

I pray we're wrong and History1 and his naive heroes win the day and change the world.

However, I won't be holding my breath.

You should read the last half of Rubin's article.

I may not think a society of sovereign individuals will ever happen, but I understand why it seems such a persuasive idea to you.

I'm no died in the wool leftist either, just a fellow who cares and believes in community.

Probably the kind of thing you started out believing before the CF got to you.

bonne chance.

For G West,

That's what history teaches History1 and apparently, it wasn't part of your curriculum.

You see 'history' is not a part of high-school curriculum any more. You diss me many times about my respect for Gatto, and his Underground History; please since you have recommended such good articles read the online copy of Underground:

http://johntaylorgatto.com/chapters/index.htm

I'm no died in the wool leftist either, just a fellow who cares and believes in community.

Again, we have clashed over sovereign individual, I think you need to actually read it before slagging my commentary again. You may find parts of it useful in interpreting current events.

Just a polite 'nudge' no 'winks'.

Cheers

Oh, and I am just now finishing the 2nd part. I had to 'log in' to NY Times and this was a resistance to me on my primary computer system, luckily I have another that I can turn to which has less sensitive material on it.

again, Cheers

Thanks murdock, I will read it.

No promises about what I'll say when I'm done - I already think he's a great teacher btw. Got that from reading the shorter articles you'd posted months ago.

You ever want to contact me, the email is

and, Cheers, no winks either.

Murdoch, I put forward (in a round about way, by shaking you out of your abject laziness and incompetance) the fact that the CF is not handing detainees over to the US. It is a fact you can not refute, and your little pout off and stomping of your feet saying, "... well you did it once...".

You are not providing any relavent facts that address current reality... But then, this kind of laziness is common within the chair force. I am ashamed to think you ever wore the uniform. I would suggest staying away from messes with out an invite, as your seditious thought pattern would get you in trouble real fast.

Last point. You never acknowledge ther FACT that there are forgeigners working with the Taliban and other enemy forces in Afghanistan. And that is the KEY DIFFERENCE between then and now.

Get stuffed. You were never fit to carry the Queen's Commision, and I spit on the memory of you ever serving in uniform.

Stay in the sand-box History1, you will not last 3 minutes in the 'real' world.

Your total lack of ability to formulate a cogent thought will guarantee you a lifetime of servitude to your betters.

If you mean service, and sacrifice... It is what defines a soldier. As for the real world, it is I that is in it, not you oh wonderful arm chair general.

As for "cogent thought" well, swing and a miss. I certainly hope that a parrot like you does not think you are my better, as all I see is a sad example of someone without a clue.

Post here if you ever decide you will discuss current realities... If you will continue to parrot non-relevant history, I am just going to ignore you.

Bereft of intellectual resources, confounded by the complexities of a situation you have neither the character, the experience nor the education to understand, History1, and you revert to type.

How utterly sad and pathetic. And you were the one who came here talking about people calling others names.

Colonel Blimp is alive and well and Canada's defence has been given over to self-serving incompetents.

If you had had the inclination to discuss current realities, you would have done sot before now.

You don’t, and you haven’t. I hope, should you have the misfortune to go to Afghanistan; you don’t come home in a box.

Please make no false and compromised sacrifices on my behalf – I don’t want your blood on my conscience. The military mindset never changes. Despite the throng of staff members currently citing chapter and verse about what is wrong with the efforts of the ‘west’ to democratize a region we have only exploited heretofore – stupid grunts still risk their lives for a lie.

Stephen Spender put it this way:

Ultima Ratio Regum

The Guns spell money’s ultimate reason
In letters of lead on the spring hillside.
But the boy lying dead under the olive trees
Was too young and too silly
To have been notable to their important eye.
He was a better target for a kiss.

When he lived, tall factory hooters never summoned him
Nor did restaurant plate-glass doors revolve to wave him in.
His name never appeared in the paper.
The world maintained its traditional wall
Round the dead with their gold sunk deep as a well,
Whilst his life, intangible as a Stock Exchange rumour, drifted outside.

O too lightly he threw down his cap
One day when the breeze threw petals from the tress.
The unflowering wall sprouted with guns,
Machine-gun anger quickly scythed the grasses;
Flags and leaves fell from hands and branches;
The tweed cap rotted in the nettles.

Consider his life which was valueless
In terms of employment, hotel ledgers, news files.
Consider. One bullet in ten thousand kills a man.
Ask. Was so much expenditure justified
On the death of one so young and so silly
Lying under the olive trees, O world, O death?

Again, it is you talking about stuff that you neither have the education nor experience. You do not gain points by telling me what the military is supposed to be like... Common, you can only cover the expectations from the view of your own opinion... Instead you waltz in like a subject matter expert and try to point out the short-comming of people you neither know nor met

I would love to dicuss current realities, counter to your claim, it is your side of the fence that is living in some fantasy world, and trying to tell me that the sky is actually poka-dot. Sorry buds, I can look out and witness reality first hand. I have seen it for myself on previous missions on the pointy end, and I will see it again. You constant attacks on the character of the CF speaks well enough for the type of coward you are.

History1:

I don't believe you. You've had days to think about and gather up your courage and data. Instead you post this kind of thing:

Post here if you ever decide you will discuss current realities... If you will continue to parrot non-relevant history, I am just going to ignore you.

DO I need to say anything more? What am I parroting – that’s what you’ve been doing. Other than saying that the CF doesn’t turn captives over for torturing any more – which you can’t be sure isn’t happening – what else have you said?

If you had a good argument for Canada's continued involvement in Afghanistan - other than the usual - service, sacrifice and esprit de corps - you'd have run it up the flagpole long ago. You don't have a case and you haven't presented it.

It's so much easier when you're in the mess with a bunch of other blowhards who think the world depends upon them too, isn't it? Tell people they are superior because they wear a uniform and salute on command. Baloney! I want people representing me who aren’t afraid to ask hard questions and whose lives aren’t just a question of passing orders from one compromised officer to another.

I've done nothing but try to point to the 'real' situation on the ground; as I understand it. And, I think I’ve tried to be patient and calm and non-judgmental, even friendly about it.

You came here with a chip on your shoulder and it’s still weighting you down, like a pack on a cross-country forced march.

If you had anything more relevant to say than the stuff that's pumped into you by officers who are no more well-informed than you are - just of a higher nominal rank - you'd have said it.

Your silence illustrates the penury of your worldview.

It might be possible to make a case for sending between 60 and a hundred thousand troops into Afghanistan for the next 20 years. In addition, spending at rate of between 3 and 4 billion dollars at year for that period. You haven't made it. You're willing, instead, to go there clutching your rifle and pretending that Victorian values are meaningful in a world dominated by selfishness, greed and profiteering.

Sorry fella, it won't wash. In an intellectual contest, you don't even make good cannon fodder.

-- This poem summons up my thoughts nicely.

Ole Jack Layton ~ Thoughts From A Soldier

Dear Jack Layton,

You sit there in your quiet home
No fear is in your heart,
You sleep soundly certain that
It won't be blown apart.

Your children they can go to school
And play out in the park,
They've never seen a bomb explode
Heard air raids in the dark.

They've never seen dead bodies
Piled up on the street,
Your wife, she won't be beaten
Treated like a piece of meat

You are free to form opinions
Read any news print you can see,
You enjoy your rights and privileges
In this country wide and free.

The reason you can live like that
Is because I fight your wars
I fight and push the enemy back
I keep them off our shores.

I am here and you are there
Pretending you know best.
Well Ole Jack now listen close
While I get this off my chest.

You have the right to criticize
You have the right to complain
You don't have the right to drag me down
In a stupid political game

The thing about your rights Ole Jack
The part you can't comprehend
Is you work in the very system
The democracy I defend

I stand on fences around the world
Protecting those that need it
It is not for you too determine Jack
Whether or not it's worth it.

Ask the people in Afghanistan
If they want me to stay,
Women and children depend on me
You say just walk away.

I don't need your changing policy
Trying hard to not lose face
What I need is you behind me
Helping protect this place.

You know its hard to do this
When I Think I'm all alone.
I hear stories of young punks
Pissing on memorial stones.

I read the papers over hear
And they tell me what is said.
Canadians are losing faith
I can't get it through my head.

You say that it is hopeless
It really brings me down
Don't tell my mother we're losing
Spread that rumour around.

I'm doing good, were winning here
But no-one will believe
Because we are way over here
Where no one there can see.

Women here can work you see
Children starting school.
We built a working government
We've broken Taliban rule.

We are so close to winning this
It's not too far away
History will show that we
Were in the right to stay.

When that brilliant day arrives
Victory you'll claim is ours
You'll forget you said to run away
Forget you are a coward

On that day just thank me
For my courage and my trouble
Find another place that needs help
And send me on the double.

Say what?! This is the sum of the problem I have with you and idiots like you. You are trying to tell me about the "real" situation on the ground? You have no "real information". You present opinion as fact, when even your opinion is based on suspect information from highly suspect sources. The information you are trying to displace is real time information from Afghanistan from official sources, and from my friends currently on the ground on the pointy end. There is nothing that you have said to date that even closely approximates the reality on the ground in Afghanistan, but then a pompous ******* sitting in the safety of his home half way around the world has a right to spout such complete garbage and try to represent it as fact.

The only arguement that matters for us staying there is Afghans. That is it. Afghans deserve a better life then the one vapid selfish morons like you would leave them. Where as you would cross the street and avert your eyes to avoid a mugging in real life, I can not. Such cowardice sickens me.

Oh, but I do ask the hard questions, everyday. I educate myself on the cultural aspects to the point I have befriended several local Afghan Canadians (it seems the Afghan community in Canada is very warm to the CF, based on my personal expereince). There are things I agree with and there are things I do not. To date, our actions in Afghanistan are legal, sanctioned, and most importantly, the only humane thing to do in the face of monsters. Your friends, the Taliban are not nice people.

You are completely out of your depth on the question of Afghanistan. Completely. And I have seen this end game of the "intellectual" left before. You are laughable at best.

More name calling; I think it's pretty obvious who's out of his depth.

Where have I ever said the Taliban were my friends or that I supported 'them'? I haven’t and you’re mentioning such a false claim reflects only on you.

History1 - as you point out by each post, you may be a big fellow with a rifle in your hands, but as someone who actually understands how we got into this mess you are hopeless.

I don't have any ill will toward you; but, you obviously do for anyone who doesn't buy your version of the truth.

Of course, Afghans deserve a better life and, with the help of a United States Government that kept its promises and paid its bills they might have gotten it. They still might, although if your lack of moral character is any indication, I doubt it will come from anything the Canadian Forces do – sadly.

It didn't happen – the US promises were all flushed down the toilet in Iraq - and if it happens now it will probably be because eventually the west will lose interest again and walk out. The people who really want to help (whom I've supported and posted positively about since this thread started) will continue to be there and willing to help. Agencies like those sponsored by the Aga Khan Charities and UNESCO.

The effectiveness of international efforts through the United Nations is so often hamstrung by the fact that your heroes, the Americans, never pay their bills.

You and your phony crusade will be long gone; surrendered to whatever clever dream your political masters have cooked up for you.

You might have an iota of credibility if you'd actually read what I've written here at length in response to my friend Frank, who actually is able to distinguish between debate and argument with a degree of subtlety that is apparently lost on you.

Far more interested in posting nonsense, you end up in sputtering incoherently about what I would do when confronted with: a mugger. Do you actually know what a non sequitur is?

However, I can't feel anything but sorry for someone who thinks that calling his interlocutor a ‘vapid selfish moron’ is an appropriate comeback. I seldom hear such taunts outside of the school yard – and never among people who actually think for a living.

I sincerely hope you aren't an officer because I'd hate to think an innocent NCO would ever find him or herself relying on your judgment for their lives and survival. Personally, I’d be more at ease with Don Cherry in command.

Again, your "expert" opinion smacks of idiocy. You haven't got even the smallest clues as to which you speak, and yet you continue to blather on like the idiot you are.

Stick to something you know, as on this subject, you have proven to be the witless wonder.

More names calling History1.

That hole you're in might serve as a foxhole, but it sure doesn't hide your ignorance and your inability to actually have a civil discussion. Did I ever say I was an expert?

I don't think so. I asked you to respond to some inconsistencies between the situation you and your superiors describe and what others have said about the reality in country: You’ve come back with ….nothing! Oh, sorry, not quite nothing. A lot of schoolboy names. When I was a boy I knew exactly how to deal with a bully like you. I’m a grownup now so I don’t have to use my fists – but dealing with someone like you is equally satisfying. It’s just a matter of letting you have your head – I know you won’t use it.

You're the one who pretended to be the expert, the fella who came in here ready to give us the real 'dope' if we weren't such lefties and so disrespectful.

It's all typed out in black and white between the article up top and where we are today.

Nice thing about these comment boards, you can't go back and erase them. When someone behaves like a child it comes back to bite them, often as not; unlike the military, you can’t just bury your mistakes or ship them back to Canada in a tin box and a body bag.

When murdock and the rest of the regulars stop in here to catch up on what's been going down I have a pretty good idea what they're going to conclude about you!

I asked you for the information you had about why we are in Afghanistan and how we
Re working to rebuild it and make it better and you've responded with absolutely nothing but personal abuse and attacks on me. You've done nothing but call me names and shower me with ad hominem remarks.

I guess that's all you've got.

Too bad, I suspect that's why you came in here the other day with the opening comments you did.

The only person blathering is you history1 so I'll leave you to it.

Have fun!

Um, you do not know, nor understand the realities in the country you choose to talk... And tho you never say you are an expert on military matters, your decision to judge military matters as you do through this thread speaks to were you think you stand.

Again, you know not of which you speak. Not surprising really.

Oh, and scrool up... I did post some of what we are doing, check out the links... Oh ya, I forgot. Idiots like you couldn;t be bothered with the MSM. The fair freaking godmother tells you what is going on, and that is the only source you ever need. Get bent.

I looked at them. I also read the extensive research and reporting in Elizabeth Rubin's articles. There is no comparison. Do you not realize where her work is published?

Or do you think the New York Times and the Times of London are not main stream?

Keep it up, you're looking stupider with every post.

And a few more insults too. Pile it on.

The audience knows who represents real inquiry and honest questions; who's looking for truth and who's acting like a drunken bully in the mess of a Friday night.

My father fought his way from Anzio all the way to Niemegen in the last war. You think you have anything to teach me about scarifice?

I don't.

You have nothing to teach at all, as proven time and again in the worthless tripe you post here.

You are not in a position to inform me on the ground situation in Afghanistan. You do not know what you are talking about in that regard, and your presumption that you do have better information then what I am getting real time is silly at best. But then, you are silly.

One article... You are basing your arguement on one article. Good for you.

Like I said history1, keep digging. Pretty soon you'll be out of sight.

And still more names and ad hominem references; you really are a piece of work. You still haven't read what's posted here and you haven't posted one single bit of actual evidence to counter it...and it is a lot more than one article. I just referred to the most recent and relevant article when you said I paid no attention to the mainstream media.

Remember?

Or do I have to post the words you wrote for you again?

Evidently you prefer the mindless boosterism of CanWest Global, or the Sun chain eh?

I hope to God we never have to rely upon that kind of 'intelligence' when we're really in a fight.

Pathetic childishness.

Look waaaaay up there to where I suggested you would be dismissive. Yup... You are true to form.

And further, I note that I am blunt in my name calling, you wrap your attacks in subtlties. Don't worry, counter to your claim, I am well enough educated to understand what you are trying to say.

History1, is a cracker box like you legally walking around? Because your comments are bordering on the insane!

How high would you like me to pile the evidence history1.
Here's something from a well known British concervative about our allies the AMericans.

Read it and weep:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=KURHCYVY3GFXRQFIQMFCFGGAVCBQYIV0?xml=/news/2006/10/29/wbush29.xml

Now you drag the Americans into this? Sure... Go for it, I am not American, I do not serve in the American forces. Fill your boots, don't mind me if I ignore your current rant then.

Ahhh BC Dude, have something to add?

History1
I didn't drag the Americans into it. They've been there from the start. They are a great huge part of the problem. If you want to ignore them you do it at your peril. Whose mess do you think we’re trying to clean up in country?

You'll be riding in their helicopters and calling in air support from their jets. Just make sure you've got your kevlar buckled. We don’t have our own air support. Or was that lost on you too?

As to your imaginings about the terrorist threat for the rest of western society, there's a good article in Foreign Affairs.
Is There Still a Terrorist Threat?: The Myth of the Omnipresent Enemy
By John Mueller

From Foreign Affairs, September/October 2006

Or is that not part of your reading material either?

You'll have to pick that one up at the library since I don't think it's available online. However, someone as anxious to learn as you are shouldn't find that a problem.

When have I ever been dismissive? I’m trying as best I can to open your eyes.

I've asked for some facts and some cogent argument. You just don't have any.

You're doing this on faith, faith that the senior officers who order you around know what they're talking about. They don't, it's as simple as that. If you think risking your life for a lie is a good idea, so be it. But don't say you weren't warned.

I’d be scared too if I were you. I think you keep coming back because you know you've been lied to.

You are laughable at best... Really G West... I am starting to enjoy this.

There you go again. So, what is the litmus test for an MSM to be acceptable to you? I will tell you something that I am sure you will find alarming. ALL media has a bias... Some media have multiple biases. You hold up the NY Times as an acceptable media... And I agree, they are, they also acknowledge their bias. But you shrug off CanWest and Sun Media... Why? The Sun newspapers actually do a better job of getting closer to the centre then any other news source... Of course on some subjects, you will find a more right bias, but then they do not hide that fact.

Ya canna take one, and dismiss the others lad. That is the crux of the problem I have with people like you.

Oh, and for the record, I keep coming back, because I have made it a hobby to expose pompous people like yourself... Not because I beleive I have been lied to.

Fact is, I know I have not been lied to, but then I enjoy the reality of my travels and expereince to back up that which I know to be true.

Something worth while now! lol
CanWest's advertisers like Future Shop's or BoConcept's full page ad and many others!
I'm sure that if "WE The People" show CanWest by boycotting his non news and I'm willing to carry, wear etc. something that would show my support for real news from CanWest. The truth lies in OUR media which CanWest has a monopoly on in British Columbia and Canada and that's just not right.
Where is ours CTC?
Doesn't our taxes paid for this so-called watchdog of ours?

And you call me pompous?

Read that back to yourself again:

Oh, and for the record, I keep coming back, because I have made it a hobby to expose pompous people like yourself... Not because I beleive I have been lied to.

Do you have any other interesting hobbies?

Anyone who is as certain of his own veracity as you are - especially in an area like history, where academics won't even be certain for at least a half a century what the 'truth' is - is in for a very rude awakening. Of course you don’t ‘believe’ you’ve been lied to. If you hadn’t been able to suspend disbelief you’d not have found yourself in your current predicament.

You may think I'm here to make fun of you, I assure you I'm not…nothing could be further from the truth.

No one has the truth, not all of it, often not even a little tiny corner of it.

I wish you luck and good fortune, you're going to need it. If just one tiny glimmer of doubt has penetrated the penumbra that surrounds your naïve self-assurance my afternoon won’t have been wasted.

Goodbye. And good luck, God go with you.

Your afternoon has most assuredly been wasted.

Hmmm, I was wondering why your above words bounced around in my head so much G.

http://www.canlii.org/ca/sta/c-46/sec62%2Ehtml

You wish to instill doubt in a legal, and UN mandated mission in members of the CF? I would suggest caution in your use of words, as this medium has a way of sticking around for a long long time.

Testimony from another of our allies, Britain this time:
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,1934382,00.html

Here's the first few paras.

Tony Blair's most trusted military commander yesterday branded as 'cuckoo' the way Britain's overstretched army was sent into Afghanistan.

The remarkable rebuke by General the Lord Guthrie came in an Observer interview, his first since quitting as Chief of the Defence Staff five years ago, in which he made an impassioned plea for more troops, new equipment and more funds for a 'very, very' over-committed army.

The decision by Guthrie, an experienced Whitehall insider and Blair confidant, to go public is likely to alarm Downing Street and the Ministry of Defence more than the recent public criticism by the current army chief Sir Richard Dannatt. 'Anyone who thought this was going to be a picnic in Afghanistan - anyone who had read any history, anyone who knew the Afghans, or had seen the terrain, anyone who had thought about the Taliban resurgence, anyone who understood what was going on across the border in Baluchistan and Waziristan [should have known] - to launch the British army in with the numbers there are, while we're still going on in Iraq is cuckoo,' Guthrie said.

In a unprecedented show of scepticism towards Blair, he said the Prime Minister's promise to give the army 'anything it wants' was unrealistic. 'I'm sure he meant what he said. He is not dishonest. But there is no way you can magic up trained Royal Air Force crews, or trained soldiers, quickly. You can't magic up helicopters, because there aren't any helicopters,' said Guthrie, promoted from chief of army staff to become overall head of the military for Blair's first term of office.

Guthrie said Britain was 'reaping the whirlwind' for assuming too great a 'peace dividend' after the Cold War and risks being ill-equipped for a whole new set of dangers.

Starting to feel a little uncomfortable yet?

Or this:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329607059-108920,00.html

Just a taste:
Britain 'risking defeat in Afghanistan'

Mark Townsend and Peter Beaumont
Sunday October 22, 2006

Observer
Field Marshal Sir Peter Inge, the former head of Britain's armed forces, has broken ranks to launch an attack on the current military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, warning that British forces risk defeat in Afghanistan.

In one of the strongest interventions in the conduct of the War on Terror, Inge also charged a lack of any 'clear strategy' guiding British operations in Afghanistan and Iraq.

His comments came as President George Bush met his military and political officials to consider fresh tactics over Iraq, amid a mood of crisis in Washington over the violence.

The remarks by the former chief of the defence staff, who also served on the Butler Commission into intelligence failures in Iraq, follow those by the present head of the British Army, General Sir Richard Dannatt, who warned that the presence of British troops in Iraq had 'exacerbated' security problems in the country.

Inge's intervention, coming amid growing speculation about Britain's exit strategy from Iraq, is the first criticism of operations by a former head of the British army. His comments, made at a meeting of European experts on Tuesday and published here for the first time, reflect the growing dismay among senior military officers and civil servants involved in defence and foreign affairs, that in the critical areas of Afghanistan and Iraq Britain lacked clear foreign and defence policies separate from the US.

'I don't believe we have a clear strategy in either Afghanistan or Iraq. I sense we've lost the ability to think strategically. Deep down inside me, I worry that the British army could risk operational failure if we're not careful in Afghanistan. We need to recognise the test that I think they could face there,' he told the debate held by Open Europe, an independent think tank campaigning for EU reform.

Inge added that Whitehall had surrendered its ability to think strategically and that despite the immense pressures on the army, defence received neither the research nor funding it required.

'I sense that Whitehall has lost the knack of putting together inter-departmental thinking about strategy. It talks about how we're going to do in Afghanistan, it doesn't really talk about strategy.'

I'm trying to instill some doubt in your head, history1. The UN is the least of it.

You're clutching at straws and I haven't even started.

That's definitely the kind of forces this country needs; ones who need a phony law to preserve their lack of judgment and indepent thought.

For all I know you may be a 12 year old kid.

Sorry, that should be 'independent' thought.

I can't type when I'm laughing.

But here's a little more:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1934264,00.html

And a few more lines to whet your appetite:

Taliban plan to fight through winter to throttle Kabul

Militia fighters are operating just an hour's drive from the capital's suburbs, confident of undermining Western support for the war

Jason Burke
Sunday October 29, 2006
The Observer

The Taliban are planning a major winter offensive combining their diverse factions in a push on the Afghan capital, Kabul, intelligence analysts and sources among the militia have revealed.

The thrust will involve a concerted attempt to take control of surrounding provinces, a bid to cut the key commercial highway linking the capital with the eastern city of Jalalabad, and operations designed to tie down British and other Nato troops in the south.

Since their resurgence earlier this year the Taliban have made steady progress towards Kabul from their heartland in the south-east around Kandahar, establishing a presence in Ghazni province an hour's drive from the suburbs. They do not expect to capture the capital but aim to continue destabilising the increasingly fragile Karzai government and influence Western public opinion to force a withdrawal of troops. 'The aim is clear,' said the source. 'Force the international representatives of the crusader Zionist alliance out, and finish with their puppet government.'

Remind you a little of what murdock was saying the other day?

Here's a little more from that article:

The Taliban remain a local phenomenon and are not believed to be in close liaison with the Saudi-born bin Laden or his Egyptian-born associate Ayman al-Zawahiri. 'It is more an ad hoc co-operation between the Arabs and some of the major figures in the broad Taliban movement, especially in the east,' said a French intelligence source. Those fighting British troops in Helmand province are thought to be linked to major clerics and traffickers in Pakistan.

In the south, the Taliban's strategy has been influenced by the doctrine of Pakistani spymasters who ran the insurgent war against the Russians in the 1980s. 'The idea then was to keep Afghanistan just below boiling point,' said one Pakistan-based veteran of the 'jihad' against Moscow's troops. 'The Taliban don't want an apocalyptic explosion of violence. They want a steady draining of the West's resources, will and patience.'

The Pakistani influence on the Taliban strategy does not surprise many observers. Senior Nato officials speak privately about 'major Taliban infrastructure' in the neighbouring country but Western military intelligence analysis has consistently underestimated the group's depth and breadth - it can almost be considered the army of an unofficial state lying across the Afghan-Pakistani frontier that has no formal borders but is bound together by ethnic, linguistic, ideological and political ties.

Centred on areas dominated by Pashtun tribes, 'Talibanistan' stretches from the Indus river to the mountainous core of Afghanistan and comprises tens of millions of people who, as well as language and traditions, increasingly share an ultra-conservative form of Islam.

A political party linked to the Taliban is in power in the two most western provinces of Pakistan. There are powerful commercial lobbies tied to smuggling of drugs and other commodities, while mainstream businesses such as timber and textiles provide vast amounts of cash which can be funnelled into military operations. 'The problem for the Nato planners is that the Taliban have a safe rear area, cash, arms supplies and the support of much of the population,' said a Western diplomat in Islamabad. 'That's all a successful guerrilla army needs.'

Western soldiers and political leaders insist on the need to win over hearts and minds, but many local observers believe that, at least in the south of Afghanistan, the opportunity offered by the defeat of the Taliban in 2002 to bring security and development to this strategically critical and opium-rich area has been missed. Now where have I heard that before?

Or this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,1932279,00.html

Officials in Afghanistan were today investigating the possible deaths of 60 civilians during a Nato and Afghan army offensive in the south of the country.

At least 48 insurgents were killed in a day of fighting in the Panjwai district of Kandahar province on Tuesday.

Major Luke Knitig, a spokesman for the international security assistance force, said 60 dead bodies had been discovered, but it was "very unclear" whether they were civilians or insurgents.

The possible civilian deaths, which a UN statement said were in the village of Nangawat, happened during Eid, the festival marking the end of Ramadan.

Bismallah Afghanmal, a Kandahar provincial council member, told the Associated Press that between 80 and 85 people had been killed. A villager, Karim Jan, said between 60 and 70 had died.

"It was late at night - that might be the reason they didn't know where to bomb," Agha Lalai, another member of the provincial council, told Reuters. "They have bombed residential houses."

Definitely the way to win over hearts and minds I'd say!

Remember this:

From 2002 - these are the promises we didn't keep:

Meanwhile in Kabul

The outside world must keep its promises
Leader
Monday June 10, 2002

Guardian
Slowly, but still far from surely, the country which was the primary focus of the US reaction to the September attacks is getting back to its feet. In Afghanistan the Loya Jirga or grand assembly meets today to start choosing a government which will rule until elections in 18 months' time. Nothing is easy to predict in a country which has known more turbulence than almost any other over the last quarter of a century, but the word from diplomats in Kabul is that the process will go smoothly.

Hamid Karzai, a member of the country's Pashtun majority, who was selected in December as interim leader when Afghan factions met under United Nations auspices in Bonn, is expected to be reappointed as prime minister. The main interest centres on the other ministries which have been dominated by Tajiks, the second largest group. It is not yet clear if they will be willing to cede some of their power. Pashtuns were in disarray in December after the collapse of the Taliban but they are now insisting on a fairer balance.

Politics apart, the country is still desperately short of aid. The early post-Taliban promises by foreign governments of a massive infusion of cash have not been implemented quickly enough. In the cities money is needed to pay government employees. In the villages hundreds of thousands of displaced drought victims who were not able to return in time to plant crops this season still rely on food aid. In spite of the problems the Afghan community abroad has shown a remarkable eagerness to go home. Three times more refugees have returned from camps in Pakistan than the UN high commissioner for refugees expected, leaving the agency to appeal for urgent international assistance. Governments must be generous or else the mantra heard so much in December from George Bush and Tony Blair that "this time we will not walk away" will turn out to have been phoney.

How the West short-changed Afghanistan
Fariba Nawa reports on the troubles of her homeland
The supposedly "posh" apartment where I am writing this is in one of dozens of buildings constructed in 2004 near downtown Kabul. It is part of the extensive reconstruction process taking place in Afghanistan in the midst of war. The landlord is a businessman who built the shiny five-storey apartment block with tinted windows as an investment in what then seemed an equally shiny new economy. Across the way are a mosque and a wedding hall, and the call to prayer competes with Afghan pop music. Lately, the roar of fighter jets has added another level to the noise, as security in Kabul declines to its worst state in five years. During the morning rush hour earlier this month, the windows shook from an explosion that injured more than a dozen police several blocks away.

There are three of us in the flat, including my fiancé and an American friend, and we pay £165 a month in rent, the going price in the city. But few locals could afford such luxury: a civil servant’s salary is £27 a month. And this is no Trump Tower. We’re not sure if our building is earthquake-safe, since no seismic standards are enforced in this construction boom. Afghanistan is to earthquakes as Florida is to hurricanes – we know that when the ground shakes, the walls crack and the doorframes shift.

Our bathroom drains emit the stench of sewage; the pipes inside the walls leak, and the water seeps into the plaster. The lightest touch sends disintegrated wallboard cascading to the floor. There’s no insulation in the walls, and the gaps in our misshapen door and window frames allow icy winds to blow in. The building’s exterior was never finished with a primer or sealant, so when it rains, the moisture soaks through and beads on the interior walls. Metal beams supporting the ceiling of our living room are rusting, the rust is bleeding through the paint, and the paint is cracking. The list goes on.

I consider myself lucky. These flawed buildings and services are an inconvenience, but I could leave. Yet the shoddy reconstruction effort in Afghanistan since the Taliban were theoretically ousted has had far greater consequences for Afghans, and now, it seems, for westerners, who have footed the bill for these botched efforts. Amid the detritus of rubble and lost opportunities, the Taliban have returned.

Four million people in the capital still do not have access to reliable services such as water and electricity, even after £3.9 billion of international aid has been spent on reconstruction since the Afghan president, Hamid Karzai, declared peace in 2001. One in four children still dies before the age of five. Of the estimated 31m people in the country, 3.5m still rely on food rations.

While Kabul has been the beneficiary of much money, the country as a whole has seen little change. Dozens of private clinics have popped up with phoney doctors and fake medicines, partly because the western-backed government was not able to build enough clinics to provide basic health care, according to the Afghan health ministry. Many foreign-funded structures have had severe problems. Roads, hospitals and schools are crumbling away.

The excitement and hope Afghans had when the US-led coalition entered the country have faded. The mood on the streets is tinged with resentment towards foreign companies, NGOs and western governments, for the vast amounts spent on reconstruction with so little to show. The perception is that these companies and their Afghan counterparts are reaping big profits for bad work. Many Afghan and foreign-aid workers, military and government officials agree that the Taliban have taken advantage of the public distrust and gathered support. And it doesn’t help that aid money pays Afghan soldiers about £37 a month, while the Taliban are able to pay their fighters about £108.

That was from the Sunday Times of London.

You can find the rest of it here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-2422241.html

Aren't you beginning to see the problem?

Wow, you sure do know how to waste time... Let me know when you decide to crawl out from under the usual leftist drivel... Or at least speak to something relevant to Canada.

Of course, that is a waste of time with the likes of you.

OK CANADIANS LETS TAKE BACK CANADA BY KICKING HARPER OUT NOW! BRING BACK REAL DEMOCRACY! 40+ CF DEAD For what?? To be known as killers of Women, babies & kids? We should be in Darfur, Sudan as Peace Keepers! We have given 45 billion to the Corporations as their paid assassins. SHAME on Canada "Harper is Bad for Canada".

no time 4 history............

Waste time history1, I don't think so. Dealing with you took no more than 10 minutes.

Canada is part of this 'coalition' or weren't you aware of that either?

BC Dude... Really, go back to your pot farm.

G West, you are wasting your time... Unless of course you truely are bent on the path to sedition... Please, carry on, by all means.

You're the one who's bent on betraying his country and what it ought to stand for when you go into this with blinders on History1.

No one should go to war for a lie - and that's what you're doing. Sadly, you're even lying to yourself.

You think your leaders and the politicians care about the Afghans. Not on your life. If the GOP gets its ass handed to it a week from Tuesday you can count your lucky stars if you're not on a draft for Afghanistan. If they really cared about rescuing peole who need AND WANT help they'd be sending the aid to Africa and not Afghanistan.

Things are not going to be fun at all. DO you really believe pee wee Rambo cares about you?

He'd write you off in a minute if he couldn't impress George Bush with his false bravado, and after the 7th, if the GOP loses, George Bush is going to be more than a lame duck - he's going to be irrelevant.

Thank you G West for another display of the mindlessness and utter madness of the direction of the NATO mission.

The pieces from the Times and Guardian are particularly gaulling, given that the UK forces had the same sort of 'gloves off' approach that the Canadians have now. And all they got were more heartaches.

It only saddens me more that Canada, under Darth Cretinous and the LIEberal party took the decision to go into Afghanistan during the mad heady days after 9/11. Since, in our country, we the people have no say in what our government does in foreign affairs - nor in the employment of military force. This was the problem with our entry into the 'coalition of the willing' in the first place.

Unlike many other commentators I said back then that a proper debate in the House of Commons must be done BEFORE the deployment of the military force. Sadly Darth Cretinous had the power and the total lack of constraints on his exercise of that power -> he knew that Mr. Dithers was to be 'crowned' the next party leader and so, since no one could stop him, Darth Cretinous sent our young men into harms way. I do note that after leaving office Cretinous went to Uzbekistan and other parts in that region to 'negotiate' some sort of sensitive deal...

No it was a general panic that paralyzed more than enough commentators which allowed this debacle to get started. As usual, it is at the very moment that calm rational thought is needed -> it is not used.

The problem now is: 'What to do about it?'

IF the NATO partners are going to back away from the situation, WE, in Canada are going to have to decide:

1) Stand on our own in the areas we have stated we will defend and reconstruct?
- I really hope not, as this will be a death warrant on anyone so employed, sadly the total lack of heavy airlift (you know from the 'chair-force'!) will preclude any rapid evacuation.

2) Withdraw into 'safe-zones' like our NATO partners?
- I think this is a reasonable response, given that we cannot get out without some other nation(s) help, it would be better to stand shoulder-to-shoulder with UK, German, Dutch, Hungarian allies. Better than sticking out like a loose nail waiting to be banged down flat.

3) Take an offensive response?
- The worst of the three that come immediately to mind, but again not out of the realm of possibility. Using a 'causus-belli' with the Taliban-Pakistan connection we could, conceivably, start an offensive into these areas. It would mean going almost totally alone (unless the US has some extra air-ground support capacity to 'loan us' *wink-wink*) and engaging in multi-level combat against the Pakistan Governance, this would include commercial and other economic sanctions...madness to be sure, but given the other actions to date; why not?

Nothing else presented by you G West has given me pause to adjust any of my earlier thoughts (from a week ago) after you asked me about the TENILLE BONOGUORE Globe and Mail Update report. I did pause and think prior to responding and commenting, as I was afraid that you were going to accuse me of condoning or somehow supporting the mission going on in Afghanistan.

I still say, mark my words:
100% Casualties
and I am sad to say it.

History1

(I used the bold to get your attention)

In bacon and eggs the chicken was involved and the pig was committed.

I can only hope that you are so equally committed to the mission in Afghanistan.

If only so that your spirit can come to truly understand...

If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .
When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Jest roll to your rifle and blow out your brains
An' go to your Gawd like a soldier.
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
Go, go, go like a soldier,
So-oldier OF the Queen!

Remember, bacon and eggs?

Me too murdock.
I know history1 doesn't believe it , but me too - very sad.
g'night.

SEDITION!

Now I know I have entered the twilight zone!

What authority has G West incited any rebellion against?

Oh that's right -> yours! But then you have no authority! You are a pion! A cog in a much bigger machine!

*pause while a catch my breath from laughing so hard*

Look History1, I think you need to finish grade school before you go on to comment any further and really do us all harm from the side-splitting laughter.

Read, no really, read 1984 by George Orwell (not the coles notes version either). Take some time to think.

Ooops sorry, you do not have time, you are off to serve the Crown and your kin...ahem ... Prime Minister.

Stay alert, pack some extra warm socks and something to keep the wind out from your clothes, I understand silk undergarments are really good for this. I also recommend learning some Farsi.

Good luck in the mountains and, though I have slagged you with words here -> I do not really wish you any lasting harm, come home alive (the real job of a soldier not: service, and sacrifice -> the servile credo of a slave).

Murdoch, it would truely help if you would click the link I posted from the Criminal Code of Canada.

G West used words to the effect of "...hoping to instill doubt...", where as those words were directed at a member of the CF as it pertains to a legal mission, well, it is pretty clear cut. Fortunatly for G West, the criminal justice system has no teeth, and hence people could care to be bothered.

Since you love history so much Murdock, here is a peice I am sure you remember some where.

Vimy Ridge. Read up on it. It's an interesting tale... Hell, read up on the entirety of WW1 and WW2, you will find it rather illuminating, espcially WRT to your claims that Afghanistan is unwinnable (it would seem us Canadians are very good at acheiving the impossible historically speaking).

And learning Farsi in the south is a good way to get yourself killed fast... The language in our AOR is Pashtu. Nice to know you are so well read up on the subject.

I think you need to learn to read history, History1; it's obvious someone was trying to instill some doubt in your uncritical mind.

Unless the Canadian Forces have somehow been subsumed into the BORG then I think the others' reactions here - ie. laughter, is entirely appropriate. Surely to God not everyone going over there with a Kevlar helmet is as naïve as you are.

I'd say people are even less bothered by the utter nonsense you've been writing over the weekend. Since you can't hit the broad side of a barn in the logic department I hope your map reading and voice communications skills are in better shape if you should have the bad luck to go to Afghanistan.

Furthermore, any similarity between Vimy, which was a classic set-piece battle with lots and lots of advance preparation and what's going on in country right now is not even coincidental.

If that reference is the sum total of what you've learned from reading about the Great War I'd suggest you expand your library a little. Pierre Burton was a nice fellow, however, in virtually every other major text on the 1914-18 struggle you'll find that Vimy doesn't often get more than a footnote.

So, suck up those great military traditions and file them for the duration - they aren't going to do you any good over there. Neither will the fact that Andrew Leslie is a direct descendant of the late General McNaughton - another First World War hero who couldn't cut it in the second big shindig of the 20th century.

Keep reading. You have a lot to learn.

Um, ok, how about you go back and read up on Vimy... Specifically the parts where everyone else who tried it (for months at a time) failed, and we took it in a matter of days. The point being where otheres run of of ideas, we just start up.

And to be blunt, the level of ignorance displayed in this thread is not on my end. You clowns don't know what we are doing with detains, you do not know the languages spoken, you do not know the players. You are all drowning in ignorance claiming that I should be listening to you.

And how important was holding the ridge history1? It is an asteryx in the annals of the war and you can't deny it.

The fact that weeks of intensive preparation, practice and tunneling work permitted a small pimple of a hill and a stretch of high ground in Flanders to be taken after a stunningly comprehensive barrage and significant mining work had virtually no effect on the outcome of the war. The Germans withdrew and fell back to the next defensible position and trench war continued as before.

If you really want to crow about some foresight-full Canadian tactics you'd do better to analyze the last 100 days before the armistice when the Canadian Corps did come into its own as an innovative and mobile strike force. There are some real lessons there.

What deeply profound thoughts do you have to share with us about the overall significance of that Canadian action (Vimy) relative to the course of the war?

As for your musings on Afghanistan, until you can come to grips with the fundamental problems of the overall strategic situation there your jingoistic opinion of Canadian arms is about as credible as Ricky Hillier's.

Um, it was considered vital ground to move into the follow on esturaries... Not very important at all... I mean, you could only see for KMs of the AGerman or Allied front from there, and bombard at will.

Nope, not important at all.

Tell ya what... Stick to anything but tactics.