I read Catch-22 when I was 12 because it had a picture of a B-25 on the cover. I thought the book funny, but strange. Little did I realize that I was reading a realistic chronicle of what war really it. War is a useful tool for impeding the progress of humanity so that the investor class can reap huge profits. Our real mission in Afghanistan is to divert productivity from social programs to arms, to keep Canadians in a state of anxiety, to beat up on a country that has no means of winning an all-out war, and to look good in the eyes of US neocons. There might actually be a parallel between Afhganistan and Germany of the '30s: failure to deal with acute economic distress engendered chaos. Had the international community ensured, through the League of Nations, or some other mechanism, that Weimar Germany enjoyed stable economic conditions, it would have been less likely that Germans would have signed on to the program of a right-wing splinter group such as the National Socialists. Of course, the rampant capitalism of the '20s was in the process of running the economy of the rest of the world into the Great Depression, and given the quality of leadership in both the League and in Western 'democracies", the chances of Germany getting a fair shake seem about as remote in hindsight as the chances of our accomplishing anything very constructive in Afghanistan. Good on the Senlis Council for putting some perspective on what we're doing. We can't fix the past, but it might be possible to fix an increasingly bleak future if we can enlist a better quality of leadership.

Sure it would be a failure (i.e. we lose) to leave Afghanistan, but then, what would be a victory ? Is a victory possible ?

And would leaving be abandoning them ? If they are growing beards and living by Taliban rules, then haven't they really abandoned us ?

Are they really admitting that they don't see our presence as a solution ?

Or are they really showing that they don't want our solution ?

Clearly then, we should leave unless they shave their beards.

If Germany wanted a "fair shake" they shouldn't have invaded Belgium in 1914. They got off WW1 pretty much scot-free compared to the treaties like Brest-Litovsk that they imposed on those they defeated. In fact, they never did pay their reparations.

And sending aid to Afghanistan under the Taliban would be like sending aid to Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge or to North Korea now. It would make us feel good about ourselves without helping the people there one bit.

Its like when a father abuses his kids in BC, we don't ask why the Empty Stocking fund didn't provide more toys, we ask why the parent wasn't removed from the home.

"If they are growing beards and living by Taliban rules, then haven't they really abandoned us ?"

I would hazard to guess they'd rather be bearded and alive over bare-chinned and deceased.

Hard to feed your kids or live to fight another day when you're pushing up daisies.

Just a supposition. Frankly the whole region leaves me shaking my head. I don't understand the slavish devotion to the culture (of vengeance and violence) at work there, nor its underpinnings. Solutions seem nearly impossible, although Diderot's observation "Man will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest" might be a good place to start IMO.

Stump;

That's exactly my point, what does our grossly under staffed effort have that will compete with "summary execution".

It's futile in the extreme, and misleading to both them and us to imply we can change their plight.

At this point, no option looks good for the Afghani.

NATO and the Americans could make an all out effort, but this would mean a long bloody war like Vietnam. The human right and economic situation will deteriorate even more.

The westerners could withdraw to Kabul and hold on to western Afghanistan. This is the German and France position. However, the Taliban are likely to continue attacking from the south while profiteering from foreign aid to the south.

What should Canada do? Militarily, it has to withdraw from the south unless there is a coherent and sustained plan to win. It is unethical to ask a handful of troops to hold on in the face of an impossible task.

In 2001, Canada joined ISAF in the expectation that foreign aid would make a difference. However, foreign aid was never more than an afterthought. In 2006, there is still no foreign aid and only 1/10 of the troops needed. We have been betrayed twice.

The problem is that the Afghanis are not fighting the Taliban. There are not enough moderate Afghanis to fight the Taliban. There are not enough Afghanis committed to modernization to fight the conservatives. Westerners cannot win in Afghanistan because the locals will reject foreign ideas and institutions.

One strategic advantage of withdrawing from Kandahar is that it separates the conservatives (traditionalists) from the Taliban (revolutionaries). The Kabul government of Karzai may understand this distinction. But, it is not in control of NATO strategies.

NATO cannot hold on (much less win) unless it gasps these subtleties.

Ms. MacDonald's concern about pulling out make sense...if we lived in an ideal world. That world would mean Canada was permitted to point out the US bungling in Afghanistan; the British bungling; and the fact that Canada has virtually no authority over there. IF that could be changed, then yes, it would be right and humane to stay and help. However, that's an if that has virtually no chance of occuring. In which case we must look at Plan B. Withdraw. And leave the Americans and Brits to continue to destroy this victimized country. In this situation, we are no match for the US and they would react immediately if we didn't follow orders. So pulling out is in fact the only moral choice we have left.

Talleyrand said it best "France doesn't have permanent friends, just permanent interests". If the Taliban would only conform to what NATO wants then they too would be part of a negotiated settlement. Britain placated the Nazi Germany before the war and America/Britain accommodated many Nazis afterwards. After Stalin butchered millions in the thirties he became "Uncle Joe" in the forties when he became our ally. So look at the government in Afghanistan. Many of our erstwhile "friends" in Kabul committed atrocities - thousands were slaughtered in the mid nineties when the Northern Alliance took Kabul. They're quieter now because they've got financial and military backing from NATO. Why don't we hear much about the opium trade in the Uzbek/Tajik speaking areas in the North - where it gets quietly traded across the border into Uzbekistan/Tajikistan and ends up in Europe as Heroin? Simple logic.

Everything Senlis founder, Norine Mcdonald says about Afghanistan is correct, with one small exception: her conclusion.

Her details about the strife are reasons that Canada should withdraw its troops; not continue their presence.

It is obvious that once the NATO troops pull out, bloodshed is inevitable, but it is going on now and the NATO is powerless to stop it.

Ms Mac Donald admits that the Taliban are already in control and are fighting in the areas supposedly controlled by Canadian troops.

From the military point this is a hopeless case, the officers know it, but are lying about it. NATO has about 20,000, mobile fighting troops in Afgh. To occupy and "pacify" that roadless, mountain country, would take 500,000 infantry on foot, for at least 20 years.
The Russians had up to 130,000 and have lost with great casualties.

The present occupation is a stupid ideological, PR game, conditioning the Canadian military and public to become part of the NAU forces serving the interests of the multinational corporate empire.

The Taliban will be picking off the NATO troops one by one, or a few at a time, as it is now going on daily, until future governments pull them out, admitting a lost cause.

In the meantime the propaganda campaign and the losses will increase for no rational, or logical reason.

Ed Deak.

It's also possible that our involvement in Afghanistan is a huge success, as is US involvement there and in Iraq. But not from our viewpoint but from that of the elite. Harper has increased military spending hugely. Some would argue that this is good for our soldiers, giving them the equipment to perform their duties i.e. killing "scumbags". But the elite, who own the vast majority of the stock swirling about in the global casino, are making a killing(!) from the companies that do business in and profit from war.

When the US entered the second world war it turned the economy around on a dime. Carmakers began producing airplanes and missiles within a year, and amphibious vehicles in 90 days, from a standing start, and that was 65 years ago. But previous to that was the great depression, you know, no money around. This perfectly reveals how evil these people are, then and now.

It's horrendous how too many of us are so easily swayed by the false morality spoken by the puppets of the elite.

Let's say that the West lays down arms.
What then?

Do you think that the beardy ones (whether you call them Osamaism or radical Islam or Qutbism) spontaneously stop? Or do they continue to expand the territory under which all citizens enjoy the noble traditions of theocratic fascism?

First, there's no one on their side with whom to negotiate our surrender.

Second, violence directed by the beardy ones doesn't fizzle out at our borders.
Consider the rioting in France, whose government made a big deal of not participating in Afghanistan and Iraq. Or calls for Sharia here in Canada. Or the burning of Danish embassies because of cartoons.

I'm persuaded that the military option isn't working according to plan. The obvious flaw is that the beardy ones do not have a country; they have Paradise and all that is under it.

Bearing in mind that the endgame should be that we should not have to grow beards or cut our clits off, respectively, the defeat of this ideology will have to be done creatively.

For example -- just thinking aloud here -- Christian missionary work is a historically effective way of replacing backward superstitions with Roman superstitions. What missionary work can be done by the secularized, due-process West? Foreign aid. It seems like a good first step. But then, pretty much all of the grain that went to Somalia in the 90s wound up rotting on the docks because there was no military support for the aid. So we are back to guns.

Grandiose statements and 24 point bold titles including the word Nazi are meant to scare us. Frightened people are often not taking a moment to think, really think about what is going on.

"...have Southern Afghanistan..."
NO WAY IS THIS THE CASE. It has only become the matter since WE ARE THERE. Ordinary Afghanis (and I argue that no such person exists there) cannot 'take up arms' nor resist in their way because they are stuck between two opposing forces. This is always the case for the non-combattant neutrals in a MARCH region.

Ms. MacDonald needs to brush up on some geographical history about MARCH regions and places like Andorra...

try starting here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marches
and:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andorra

The 'solution' to Afghanistan must start with someone, anyone, we can have some social, emotional connection with - THAT LIVES OUTSIDE THE REGION = AND = is willing TO MOVE INTO THE REGION TO LIVE THERE!

We shall have to start in the one little valley, make life livable, prosperous and advantageous for others to live there and conduct their lives that way. Once we have that area stable, which could take 100 years; then we move on to the next little valley, and so on.

By stoming into the area the way we have done since 1870, all we are doing is stirring up a hornets nest. Unless we are prepared to do the sort of things the Mongols did to Kwarizam, and I am reasonably certain that Ms MacDonald's group would resist that sort of approach, then we must proceed very, very slowly. Possibly even using the sort of mental attitude that the Pakistani's are using - like it or not that is the way that the northern tribal homelands of Pakistan have been 'pacified' enough to conduct trade...

continued...

continued from above...

The federal government was stuck with the decision to stay in the region.

Why?

How to get out?
Marching = Lots of dead men in a death march in any direction, once the columns start moving then every mountain fighter available will close in on those slow moving targets to reduce it, since it will be their last shot.
Fly = We, in Canada, have NO HEAVY AIRLIFT CAPACITY. This means we need to lease it or 'hitch-hike' a ride. This is why we have been dubbed NATO's Taxi Squad. So whom can we get that heavy airlift from?

USA? NO, they, in the Pentagon and other halls of US power WANT THE CANADIAN IN THERE ON THE FLANK OF IRAN/IRAQ. No chance to get what we need from that source.
RUSSIA? Maybe. After they pick themselves off the floor from laughing so hard, then they will open a conversation, with the price tag being very, very high. That would be if they start talking at all, the Russians are happy to see NATO get a bloody nose, especially since the 'junior' members like Poland and Bulgaria (former Soviet Bloc nations) are likely to be humbled also. Making future negotiations better.
NATO? Maybe. With France, Germany, Italy and the UK all displaying a definate lack of interest in taking the kind of casualties that an airlift might have this option is also less likely because of the need to 'co-ordinate' resources. Especially since such co-ordination would not be secret, and any air-evacuation from Kandehar is going to have to be very fast otherwise the Stingers come out like flowers in the spring.

Air->Ground support of any operations to 'get out' will also be needed. Also not likely to come from any other sources.

The Canadian Forces are like a drowning man calling out for a life-belt right now. The good ship NATO has no-one on lookout, and is not listening to the emergency band. Other vessels are all watching with 'tsk-tsk' noises saying that the poor Canadian Forces should not have jumped into the deep end with their bigger friends USA and UK.

Mark my words:
100% Casualties

I don't know that one can "defeat an ideology". Akin to a "war on terror" perhaps?

I'd say reduce our need for oil, walk away, and let them kill each other from now till the Second Coming, but that seems unfair to the men and women born into a hellish situation who've done nothing to deserve it and one with which we have a degree of complicity. And even if we (the Western World) didn't help create the situation, am I not my brother's keeper? I don't know how one eradicates violent zealots without becoming one as well. The antidote to hate is also its antonym, and that doesn't emanate from the barrel of a gun.

Or there is the "satellite TV" solution. Iran is effectively secularizing itself, with only a thinning layer of deference to the beardies (because they have the guns), thanks to satellite TV. I've met tons of Iranians who watched "Dynasty" and "Dallas" illegally and wanted to get out, ideally to grab the capitalist lifestyle for themselves and, at minimum, to be allowed to watch these shows without risking torture in Evin prison.

I propose: a huge airdrop of cellphones, calling cards, and wireless PCs into Iraq and Afghanistan. Some of these will get into the hands of the un-fanatical, and this will establish back channel communication between Them and Us, eventually fomenting trust and cooperation on both sides. Why not?

Stump:

nice idea of freedom, sadly it will not come about in my lifetime I think.

in the meantime that leaves us with the problem of understanding the world around us.

I recommend a very good essay/book:

http://www.amazon.com/Prosperity-Violence-Political-Economy-Development/dp/0393050386

as a starting point, you may find that it helps to explain what is going on all over the place...

I guess our high school dropouts in our Armed Forces ( sorry, the Liberals changed the name to Canadian Forces, apparently we are no longer armed )are to dumb to fight the Taliban.
According the the Democratic Party the dumbest people end up in the military.
I am ashamed by the post of the Tyee regulars.

Ashamed and clueless. "To (sic) dumb to fight the Taliban"?? Your a moran.

Twin 42 inch natural gas and oil pipelines through Afghanistan. This is the goal. Not helping Afghani people. Not freeing the women from wearing burkhas or stoning. Not eradicating opium.

Only the naive think we are there for anything but to further the aims of big oil.

Yammer wrote:

Holy cow. Who will save us from the utterly ignorant? Much of Afghanistan can't feed itself (you did read the article right?). Most of Afghanistan doesn't have electricity, running water or sanitation. And you want to drop in cellphones, and wireless PCs? What about the support infrastructure of transmission towers? Airdrop those too? What about the electricity to power them? Beam it from satellites? You sound like one of the neo-con retards who's running the show who thinks that the "god-like hand" of the "free" market can fix all ills. What a pantload of utopian fantasizing.

If you want to understand the root problems of the mission in Afghanistan, just follow the money. There is no free market, only rapacious corporate capitalists with connections to western government out to screw Afghans and western tax-payers out of every red cent of aid money they can manage. And for those who care to look, there's more here:
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14076

IAMC likes to call those in the Canadian Forces stupid. And it appears he enjoys seeing them getting killed, and takes pleasure in the idea that they may murder innocent civilians.

I am ashamed by blood curdling warmongers like IAMC.

IAMC posted:

guessing is all you are good at, and even then you are wrong this time.

Not too dumb, there are not enough of them to do this job!

The dumbest do not all end up in the military, often they cannot find other work. This should be a tell-tale statement of what the lowest common denominator of what a soldier needs to be.

20 Years ago, you needed a college degree, or at least a few courses to even get your toe in the door of a recruiting office. Now those self-same recruiters are going begging. Where before there were tests and knowledge limits, now as long as you have a heartbeat and 'at least this tall' then you get in.

These economic 'conscripts' are the ones that are being warned to watch out for signing on the dotted line.

Not too dumb soldiers, too mis-led by dull leadership and listless 'allies'.

Sadly these 'newbies' are going to follow-march into a meat-grinder, believing all the way that they are 'fighting' for a better future.

But not just any big oil - OUR big oil...

With the Grain or Against the Grain? Energy Security and Chinese Foreign Policy in the Hu Jintao Era
http://www.brook.edu/fp/cnaps/papers/tang2006.htm

The Russian Federation
The Brookings Foreign Policy Studies Energy Security Series
http://www.brook.edu/fp/research/energy/2006russia.htm

Yammer,
You are so out of date. Head on over to the New York times and read the two long articles that were in the Times magazine on successive Sundays (3 days and 10 days ago) and then come back and share your knowledge with us. Author was Elizabeth Rubin; with luck the older one will still be available without a subscription.
THen go to the Guardian and look at the long list of articles and features on Afghanistan.

There was also an intereting column written by an Afghani woman in the Sunday Times of London on the 29th.

Yammer wrote:

"I propose: a huge airdrop of cellphones, calling cards, and wireless PCs into Iraq and Afghanistan."

James Burns responded:

What about the electricity to power them? Beam it from satellites?

That's not necessary. A project is already well underway to provide people in third world countries with very low cost and robust notebook computers that are powered by built-in hand-cranked generators and linked to the internet with built-in satellite connections. Some large, experienced, highly-credible, well-financed, mainstream organizations are behind this effort.

Much of Afghanistan can't feed itself

That's right. Largely due to lack of education in practical subjects such as irrigation techniques, etc. Even if it's only the teachers who at first get these self-contained notebook computers, they can act as miniature school libraries that cannot be easily located and burned-down by the Taliban. Giving each teacher one of these $100-$200 hand-cranked, satellite-linked notebook computers will cost orders of magnitude less than building libraries and stocking them with books ready to be burned.

Who will save us from the utterly ignorant?

You're the one who's utterly ignorant in this case. I have worked in corporate electronics Research and Development for many years. Much of the equipment I have worked on has been battery-powered and radio-linked to other equipment. I have plenty of successful real world experience determining what is technically and financially feasible. The wireless PC part of Yammer's suggestion is very feasible.

The notebook computer I'm using right now is plugged into a Kill-A-Watt brand digital wattmeter (cost was $20) which is logging its energy consumption. Most of the time, it uses less than 10 Watts. Handcranked PCs can be designed to use less than 1 watt if certain design tradeoffs are made (smaller LCD screen, fewer colours, slower CPU, Flash Memory instead of hard drive, etc.). To put this into perspective, a reasonably fit human being can easily generate 75 Watts with a pedal-powered generator. Photovoltaic panels (solar-electric) with 25-year warranties can be purchased for less than $10 per watt from Canadian Tire.

As for reliability, I once worked for a company that designed and built marine electronics equipment. That's a very tough environment for electronics due to exposure to highly corrosive salt water and other threats. Some of our stuff was used in the fishing industry. Our clients would occasionally haul a large shark on deck in a net along with other fish. When this happened, the fishers would grab the nearest thing they could lay their hands on and use it to club the shark to death. If one of our electronics products happened to be the nearest item available to be used as a club, that's what they used! We built our products in cast aluminum housings to withstand that kind of abuse day-after-day, year-after-year.

In another company, all staff was assembled in the front hall for the announcement of the launch of a new product - a small, handheld, battery-powered computer device with a built-in radio link. Senior managers threw one of the computers off the second floor balcony onto the hard tile floor of the lobby to demonstrate how tough it was. This would be the equivalent of dropping a notebook computer about 25 feet onto a cement floor. The computer survived and continued to work just fine even though the housing in this case was thick plastic, not aluminum.

It comes down to having people who know what they're doing designing things to suit the application. Competent people do their homework before forming an opinion, unlike James Burns who seems to be in the habit of plucking opinions out of thin air without bothering to first check the facts.

With all due respect, if the Taliban can prevent the general population from using razors (manual or wind-up models), then I suppose they would have a field day with anyone caught with a laptop.

Also, from my World Vision Christmas catalog I can order two goats, three chickens, two rabbits, a shovel, hoe and seeds for less than the $100-200 a wind-up laptop will cost.

I propose that we drop live goats, chickens and rabbits, not cheap electronic shit to polute the 3rd world.

Oh we are so wise as to know what is best for our neighbour, look at how we take care of our impoverished as proof.

No country will accept foreign troops determining their future.

All quasi-legal action at the point of a gun are rooted in greed, control, and oppression by the wealthy of the poor.

If the common people of Afghanistan ever do benefit, it will be decades after corporations have finished their systematic exploitation ownership and rape of every commodity and humans labour in the region.

At that point a shack will be built to house the workers.

We have become that which we loath.

"We're not winning the hearts and minds campaign -- the Taliban are.

The Taliban have psychological control in Kandahar now. So, what that looks like is all the men are growing beards. No one goes out without a beard. No one goes out at night. There are roadblocks and fighting inside Kandahar city. People are making their decisions about how to live their lives on their understanding of the Taliban's rules."

. . . . ya right, the Taliban are "winning" the hearts & minds campaign.

maybe just a weeeeee little bit of bias here . . . reads like a Taliban Jack Laydown press release

Yammer If you read French (I don't) http://www.afrik.com/article8965.html
1 Search Results from WhatReallyHappened.com
FRANCE: AMATEUR VIDEO SHOWS POLICE PROVOKING VIOLENCE BY INSULTING AND FIRING RUBBER BULLETS INTO GROUPS OF YOUNG PEOPLE
Posted Nov 7, 2005
FRANCE: AMATEUR VIDEO SHOWS POLICE PROVOKING VIOLENCE BY INSULTING AND FIRING RUBBER BULLETS INTO GROUPS OF YOUNG PEOPLE...
Also, as I remember there was something very stange about the car burnings in places in Germany where there were no riots and no Moslems.

I was in a "police riot" when I was in my early twenties....boyfriend had his knee shattered, and we were just trying to get out of it. We all had just been singing and walking with signs when the police attacked.

Cycling Commuter wrote:

You've got to be kidding me. The colossal ignorance and arrogance of technophiles never ceases to amaze me. Competent people do their homework before forming an opinion, right? So point out to me the historical precedent where people without basic infrastructure pulled themselves out of utter poverty merely through the application of education, especially education delivered via computer. The basic needs of the Afghan population are not being met and you promote a technophile's wet dream. They can't find enough to eat, let alone eat safe food, and you want to spend money on hand-cranked computer laptops? Let's just set aside the problems that the vast majority of the population can't read at all let alone read English. These people, if they're lucky, have a pot to piss in. Do you have any idea of the functional difficulties faced by people without proper sanitation. Do you understand why sanitation is so important for a society to function at all let alone function properly?

"That's right. Largely due to lack of education in practical subjects such as irrigation techniques, etc."

A lack of education? Without basic infrastructure you don't have a society. Have you even been to the poor parts of a truly third world country? Have you ever had to live with any form of true deprivation? Judging by your technophilic cheering I'd find it hard to believe you've had to unwillingly go a day without a square meal and a roof over your head.

If I needed any further proof of your utter disconnect from reality Cycling Commuter, you've done a spectacularly bang-up job of providing it for me. The extent of blind privilege operating unrecognized in your brain simply floors me.

It is these sorts technological corporate promoted white whales rooted firmly in complete ignorance of the difficulties facing Afghans that are at the heart of what's wrong with the aid going into Afghanistan. It's about making money for greedy ignorant bastards who's who don't have the first clue about true poverty and who's brains are deluded by utopian fantasies about the wonders of technology and the free market.

I don't understand how we can conceive of "winning."

Never mind our soldiers' education level. They can't even speak the local language. And they are supposed to "win hearts and minds" that they can't communicate with?

Their Afghan assistants (translators) and colleagues (soldiers, police -- some teenagers with 10 days of training and an AK-47) may -- or may not -- be providing accurate information in both directions.

Imagine yourself in the place of an Afghan farmer who sees part of his crop (on which he and his family depend FOR SURVIVAL) bulldozed to make way for "security" roads. Whose security?

I don't doubt the intelligence of the masterminds who got us in (Martin) and then extended our stay (Harper)--except that no-one has ever insisted that they look at the facts before jumping to conclusions and, worse, action.

" if the Taliban and al-Qaida have Southern Afghanistan, we know what will happen because we've already seen it. That basically makes us complicit in what will be a crime against humanity in Southern Afghanistan. It's like giving Germany back to the Nazis"

The reference to Germany and the Nazis is obviously hyperbole and deserves no further comment. However the conflating of the Taliban and al Qaeda does. Many, (actually "most") reports and comments are guilty of this.

An obvious example is any discussion of the existing opium problem that doesn't point out that the Taliban are not responsible for it, but in fact had almost eradicated the problem in the relatively brief period when they exercised some control in Afghanistan.

Even regards al Qaeda, bin Laden, and the training camps, those were problms the Taliban inherited when they gained control, not problems their control created. I doubt the Taliban would let al Qaeda flourish now if they returned to some degree of power.

The biggest complaint western democracies had against the Taliban before 9-11 was their human rights record, based on their fundamentalist religious fervour. Indeed, the incident that first brought them into my consciousness was their destruction of Buddhist images. That shows I wasn't paying a lot of attention, but even at that, probably more than a lot of folks were.

Now, when not conflating them with al
Qaeda, and opium growing war lords, the focus seems to be on their treatment of women. That is an issue that deserves condemnation, but not one, I submit, that can be successfully dealt with by bombs, guns, and killing of Afghanis by western soldiers.

It is not politically correct to suggest that Afghanistan would be better off if the Taliban were back in control, but I submit it is at least debatable. Time, and other types of pressures other than military force would do their work, probably faster than in the US where it took 150 years from the creation of that nation for women to get the constitional right to vote, and where it took a civil war 90 years after the nation's birth to get rid of slavery.

Just as it is at least debatable that Iraq, and the rest of the world, would be better off if the WMDless, chemical weaponless, nuclearles Saddam, having bowed to the UN pressure for inspections, was still in power in Iraq, rather than continuing to suffer through the horrible mess that exists there now and the even more horrible mess that is yet to come.

This time it was "Yammer's" idea of dropping technology all over the "ungovernable" but possibly receptive Afghani population. Seems like a pretty good idea but a couple of logistic problems should be mentioned:

1) Just how simple will the "Startup" instructions be and in which language?
2) will there be a standard understandable warning such as:
"This conversation could be monitored to help to bring you better service in the FUTURE?

We had HF radios in a war zone once upon a time - the local army took them away claiming we were calling in air strikes. We scoffed at their ignorance and had a good laugh - we would never call in an air strike!

Key your radio or attempt to uplink to a satalite and guess who is gonna know where you are?

EVERYONE who is interested!

Imported technology:
Oh Yeah! in the same country I "carried" some ICRC Techs through the checkpoints to a remote village and we ressurrected one of their water pumps. Most of the village was rubble but there was this brand spanking new hand pump sitting there in the midst.

We were very proud of our work.

One local piped up:

"Can we eat the pump?"

Some of the locals actually have a sense of humour.

We can't leave Afghanistan because the new Tim Hortons cost us big dollars.and now I see for what must be the first time, free postage for the dependents to send parcels to the troops. are we ever beginning to notice how we must support the troops with such dumb things.Why not free postage to ship food for the locals who are starving? Or maybe each time a airbus goes over with a politician the rest of the aircraft could be filled up with stuff for the people we are supposedly liberating ? YOU want people on side, feed them and stop shooting them. The most recent announcment of shipping F18's over, to do what. a supersonic , aged aircraft in my view seems the most unlikely thing to shiopver. Maybe they could be used to keep the Warthogs from killing any more Canadian troops. Yes I support the troops, having spent a lot of my life in the service but some of the things this minority government is doing makes me confused.

DPL wrote:

If true, then this would represent a potential positive move, or a more lethal one.

As I have mentioned before better air-ground support is going to have to be 'present' not just 'in theater' but actually active in support role(s).

The F-18, while not the best for mountain A-G attack and support, will fulfill this role. It can also do escort duties for those self-same A-10's (maybe even stop the 'friendly fire'?) or evac helo's or other aircraft.

Thus the reason why it may be a good (a signal that evac may be getting to be an option) or bad (an indication that the CONformers are prepared to 'roll the dice' on the entire military apparatus) signal about the operations to come...

Either way the tidings are less than pleasant for those wearing boots on the ground in Kandehar.

What a load of crap being dumped here.

The Taliban were not a problem so long as they were fighting the Russians. They were not a problem whent the nascent Neocon regime of the Empire approached them for approval to build a pipeline across Afghanistan, to transit oil from the norhern 'stans, through Pakistan, to Empire tankers in the Arabian Sea.

When they refused, even after offering to hand over Bin Laden, they suddenly became , briefly, The Problem and the subject of the current invasion. Until, that is, the US suddenly discovered Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, after which the fobbed the job off onto NATO and Bootlick Canada, and thereafter went in pursuit of Iraqi oil instead-, as a hedge against the risk of an internal collapse of Saudi Arabia.

So fuk off with the bullshitt already. Stop trying to sanitize it. The Empire and Bootlick Canada live happily with all manner of repressive regimes all over the world, viewing the problem as it suits them, as one for the people of Jordan, Egypt, Palestine/Israel, the Sheikdom of Kuwait, and the list goes on and on nigh ad infinitum, to resolve for themselves. (Except, of course, we provide them all with just enough arms to repress their own peoples and allow the US Empire theft of their resources.)

What pathtic fuks you US Empire Loyalists are. You just can't get beyond letting the US take you up the old hoop.

Afghanistan is no more a religious fundamentalist state than is the USA. If we can tolerate those religious loonies, and the positions they take towards women and children, the homeless, blacks and their poor, we can sure as Hell leave the Afghans in peace long enough for them to deal with the Taliban in their own good time.

The wingnut hypocrisy here, fair reeks of bs and brain rot.

And into which category we could as well apparently put a fair number of so called "liberals" and "left lights" .

When a right libertarian like Murdock makes more sense, the question has to occur, "My God! What passes for the left in this country and these times?"

Pretty compromised stuff very often.

The most obvious solution to the opium problem is to use ALL the money spent on arms, bombs and aid to BUY the damn stuff in the first place. It would give the farmers the funds they need. Cut out the distribution network to the city streets of North America and Europe. And close down the criminal profit ............. OOPS! Hah Hah Hah! silly me. Too many 'elites', 'politicos', and 'others' depend on the drug trade for obscene dollars that they could never spend in ten life times. It is all about power. That one US dollar an Afgani farmer makes multiplies into tens of thousands for all who touch 'it' on 'its' way to destroying lives in our country. Better to take our dollars and drop them on the Afganis than bombs. How many billions and counting? GIVE THEM THE BLODDY DOLLARS. It would be cheaper and we wouldn't be seeing the coffins returning and the soldiers then could just maybe be truly Peace Keepers rather than canon fodder.

Well as we all know Ethiopia is getting ready to strike Somalia. These poor guys are about to put their balls on the line in order to prevent the Taliban from threatening the security. [being just over the border]
Now I am probably ignorant of all the details, but it seems there is going to be a rumble in the jungle.
I assume you all know about Taliban exporting themselves into poor Africa, as if they could possibly offer any solution to improve the standard of living there.
The Taliban sere bakers. That's all they could come up with.
'We will provide everyone with a loaf of bread every day'
That's their claim to fame, 'bakers' and assasins.

Ron, you need to break out an atlas. Ethiopia is 'just over the border' from Afghanistan - what the hell are you smoking?

Read the long articles in the New York Times Magazine (22 and 29 October) by Elizabeth Rubin. Then come back and share what you've learned with us.

'The Taliban sere bakers.' - What the hell is that?

Hmmmm, like you are saying that the Taliban is going to steal a page out the great Western and US Empire book?

What's fair for the US Empire goose, is fair for the Taliban gander, makes sense to me.

The US Empire, with whom we are now slavishly joined at the imperialist hip,continuing a long Canadian tradition of being a bum-boy to Empire, are the main source of interference and war in the world. The Great Satan is real, in all its fire and sulphuric brimstone Evil, as Chavez observed at the UN. And he has his "little devils", such as Canada, who bathe Him, oil Him, fetch, carry and die for Him.

Canada is a country or a servant state?

Foolish question.

It is total and complete idiocy for Canada to be in Afghanistan. What a looser role to play! At least the Americans are there with the idea of using the country as a beach head for controlling the gas and oil in the other 'stans as part of their (thankfully failing) efforts to control the world.

"US Empire Loyalists" LOL That's a good one, Coyote, don't mind if I borrow it...

Burgess:

Please allow me to take you on a little thought experiment regarding these statements.

Dollars: What good are they, really? As the articles by Rubin comment about, much of the construction has be slipshod, moreover the Hindu Koush is still growing, there are earthquakes there as often as rain showers here.

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40715F935540C718EDDA90994DE404482
and
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/magazine/29taliban.html?hp&ex=1162094400&en=26144ea57a33b715&ei=5094&partner=homepage

The money would be of little value, what is needed is barter value, better if we shipped them seed, baby goats, saplings of all sorts that grow well in that mountainous terrain. Moreover there is the endless problem of getting those resources there, we could fly over and drop worthless paper money I suppose? This is supposed to be where the PRT's come in, but then the MSF discovered very early why PRT's are such a bad idea, then after 20 years in the region (including during the worst years of the SOVIET invasion ) they left. They, the Doctors Without Borders, cited the PRT's as the primary reason for working conditions becoming completely untenable in the region for any NGO's and that is why now almost none are active in there.

Yes cheaper than the coffins, but it would not allow the CONformers a nice seat at the conference table.

Peace-Keeping has gone the way of the dodo bird, stop trying to ressurect it like some kind of zombie. The only way it works is if both sides really, really want a neutral to stand between them. Right now no-one wants that and even fewer are keen to be 'in the line of fire'.

LOL IAMC!

Please do not drink and type, just say NO!

LOL

In two days the hang-over will be done and you will read what you just wrote and wonder yourself what they hell you were trying to say!

LOL

;-P

G; please revisit the map that locates Somalia next to Ethiopia. It's really true.
And to the mangy dog AKA Coyote, I must try to explain that Canadians did a heroic job in the last World War 11, and I am sure many are offended by your comments.
Somalia is the next big thing.
Believe me, I am the same dumb old person that has predicted the last ten national elections correctly.
I can tell you now, that the Republicans are going to win both houses.

Ron Earwig
Your post was so confused I thought you were trying to say Somalia/Ethiopia were next to Afghanistan...which is where the Taliban are now killing our Canadian soldiers.

I know all about what Canada did in WWII. What's your point? It's possible to support the soldiers and still think their lives are being wasted. No one is offended by my comments. Everyone is astounded by your stupidity.

Just remember, if the GOP doesn’t win, you have to admit you were wrong here. Watching you eat crow will be a great pleasure.

Have you read the articles by Elizabeth Rubin? She knows a lot more about the Taliban and Afghanistan than you do. Unfortunately , she also knows a lot more than Rick Hillier and pee wee Rambo combined.

By the way, this is what you posted:

Why wouldn't the reader think you were conflating Afghanistan with the horn of Africa? Your writing is so utterly devoid of consistency that it is impossible to determine exactly what you do mean, if anything. Normally, a single paragraph will deal with thoughts and concepts that have some connection. In your case, not so much!

Coyote

As the author of the post that is a mere four posts above yours that begins
"what a load of crap being dumped here", I would be interested in knowing what part of my post "reeks of bs and brain rot"?

IAMC

so what if these micro-nations engage in self-destruction? I do not see the US giving a drop of spit, let alone a drop of blood for either.

OK IAMC, please try.

I note little from Coyote's commentary that cannot be taken as accurate from the point of view that he has. Canada has always been a backwater of empire, either the Victorian one or the new American one. I'd compare Canada to Gaul as the Americans to Rome of the 3rd century CE now. Nothing more than a good source of cheap raw materials, manpower and a legal 'holding zone' for undesirables.

If some WWII vets are offended, poor whobie for them. They braved bullets, bombs and tanks; what more a few meaningless words from an angry man like Coyote?

I am reminded of the current Groan and Wail, ahem Globe and Mail commercials talking about 'telpathic MRI's'

You do not know what you are talking about.

Big to whom?

The Somali's? OK sure.

The Ethiopians? Alright I agree.

Anyone else?

...

*sound of crickets*

...

I thought as much.

What country are you in?

If it is the USA, OK carry on.

If it is Canada, oops - maybe Coyote is right?

LOL

LOL

LOL

There is not significant enough of a difference I have with you that is really much worth arguing about. Fence walking in politics generally results in about similar amounts of time spent on one side as the other.

We could perhaps argue some of your nuances, and over time we may eventually, otherwise your view is harmless enough I think. :-)

Which quote above from Murdock, though we otherwise disagree much with each other's fundamental views on many issues, from capitalism to democracy, and the nation state etc., obvious enough, I nonetheless acknowledge that on this issue, and a number of others actually, he makes more good sense than a good many more simplistic liberal do-gooders and, for sure, other more "neocon" wingnutters..

Which, for further example, makes more sense to me than either our current role as boot-lick backup for The Empire, or to drop endless buckets of money over Afghanistan-, though I do understand the good intentioned motivation of this latter sentiment.

Concluding with which I would only note that in both World Wars, including the latter, in which at the onset there was little to nada knowledge of "the holocaust" against the Jews, we were more fulfilling our perceived "obligation" of the time to assist the British Empire Motherland, than out of any concern for either real democracy or the Jews. (Indeed, as I have noted here at other times, immediately during and after the war, it was easier for ex-Nazis to get into Canada as immigrants, and very many did, than it was Jews.)

Indeed, though I consider it as a good thing that European fascism was defeated, it was really more a coincidental result almost, with much early support for fascism throughout the capitalist world of the time, officially and unofficially. The more real object going in was very much more fundamentally to prevent the rise of Germany as a competitor Empire power to the British Empire. And we, in Canada, as that historical and continuing "backwater of Empire" of which Murdoch speaks, really much more joined in, as I say, to defend the Empire Motherland-, as we are now doing for the US Empire in Afghanistan. (How e'er much we attempt to dress it up in a prettier dress, made of concern for democracy, women, and peace keeping etc.)

Continued next post...

From previous post...

And as for the average Canadian soldier, though there is after the fact a certain more nostalgic idealism that grows up, at the time they were as greatful to have a "job" , clean clothes and a barracks roof over their heads, just then initially not even out of the Great Depression of the 30s and its joblessness as very, very many of them were victims of. Though doubtless there was also some popular sentiment to join in the great struggle on behalf of the British Empire against The Huns as well.

And as well, of course, though it is generally under-appreciated and understood today, given a fairly large reservoir of working-class support for the Bolshevik Revolution of Russia, which existed in Canada at the time , which was also a product of the Great Depression and earlier capitalist history, that a great many of these revolutionary socialists, Communists and anarchists as well joined up-, only slightly differently motivated, to defend the Motherland of The Revolution from Fascism.

The point being, real history and politics are near always way more convoluted and complex than are generally "officially" or "popularly" acknowledged, either at the time, or especially in the sentimentality which grows up after the fact. Especially this far after-, for a popular sanitizing "mythology" also grows up around great historical events such as the reasons for war etc.

Except believing a thing, of course, like religion, does not really make it necessarily true, save in our own minds.

"US Empire Loyalists" LOL That's a good one, Coyote, don't mind if I borrow it...

Use it as your own, brother. :-)

So far as I know, it may be the only really original and entirely accurate play on words I have coined. And even then, who knows who else but that somewhere out there did not beat me to it. :-)

Besides, I plagiarize and steal words and ideas from other people all the time. There is no copyright to ideas, eh?

Afgani troops should be fighting the Taliban, not us. I could accept a peacekeeping role but why should foreign troops be in the front lines? Isn't there an Afgani army? Isn't it their country? The Americans tried the idea of creating protected enclaves in Vietnam. They had the same idea that these enclaves would expand as people started to feel safe. It didn't work then and it won't work now. Cultural changes like democracy,take decades and generations to be accepted. Only Afganis can get rid of the Taliban.

They told me, "Your leader came and he never came and said hello to us, he never had tea with us. He never came and asked us about what we thought. He just went to the military base."

I think this about sums up the feeling among Canadians also - I mean the non-rednecks.
Let's imagine - if NATO were successful in negotiating with the Taliban to correct its human rights violations and even abandon the drug trade - and to do so, pay the Taliban, in cash, just half the amount NATO is spending on this war, it still wouldn't satisfy the U.S. government.

And a tip of my hat to you Bucky, and Jack's, both of whom get it better than the conclusion at the end of this article. (Which also acknowledges the correctness, I think, of Truman Green's typically astute observation near the top of this thread, that it is an essentially accurate article which still manages to draw the wrong conclusion.)

On the bright side there's lots of other civil wars and killing of civilians going on in the world outside Afghanistan and yet I don't hear anyone cheering we aren't helping the victims. Why not?

Instead of concentrating on the one place we're trying to help and losing, shouldn't we all be holding big victory parties for not doing anything anywhere else and not losing anything in the process? I was going to hold a big bash at my place to celebrate Canada never helping Latin Americans for instance.

We should compile a list of current conflicts we aren't intervening in so we can feel good about letting the jackboots of the world do what they like secure in the knowledge that those on the receiving end are ever so grateful that we don't help them.

Canada should have its own Statue of Liberty, but instead of it saying "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" it should say "Send us your wealthy entrepreneurs who have $250,000 Cdn to invest and shoot your huddled masses, we don't give a damn what you do to them"

And even if we take it as correct that we are actually there for the best and most childishly noble of intentions, which I do not buy into for one millisecond, that is not why the Main Player to whom we are beholden is there.

For them it is about global hegemony and oil, stupid.

(911, even in the case of Afghanistan, was but the convenient pretext, for which there is much evidence that it was possibly/likely/almost certainly even set up by the PNAC and White House cabal themselves, as a justification for their latest adventure in imperialism.)

Colombia, 38 years of Civil War and counting. Killing 3,000 people a year.

Civil war in Georgia. Ditto on the bad times in Congo, Chechnya, Peru, Angola, Sri Lanka and the list just goes on.

Not to worry though, Canada isn't sending any help there either.

Shooting protestors in Mexico? Glad to hear it, we're Canadian after all.

Non-intervention in the affairs of other states no matter how bad they are. That makes us pretty much like Captain Kirk and his Prime Directive. Oh goody, Canadian foreign policy as written by Gene Roddenberry.

The important thing is Canada should never intervene to help other people so let's party like its 1945.

If that is the course you really think this country should be on Frank, why are you not advocating that we take on, with force of arms, the White House Jackboots and their interventions everywhere. I would venture that there are likely as many religious and other women oppressing/hating nutters there, possibly even here, for example, as in Afghanistan. Thinking some incidences in the US recently involving Mormon sects, as well as at Montreal's Concordia. I mean consider for a moment even the huge problem with pedophiles throughout the Western world, the traffic in women and children for the purposes of prostitution and pornography etc. Better we clean up our own act before we go rushing around the world so high and mighty on ourselves. (We can't even purify ourselves or our own regional (US) backyard yet. There is the main problem, without which we and the impoverished of the world might actually be able to get at some of these other problems, if so much of the world was not feeling so threatened by the global bully, and us carrying his coat and doing his kiss-ass bidding.)

But no, they, the US Empire actually have WMD, and are not some small backwater and poverty stricken state whose resources we can steal while pummelling the bejeesus out of them.

Besides then, if we were actually going to play this World Saviour role against this MAIN enemy of the world, we would actually have to be our own man, or in this case, our own country.

Certainly safer that we should pick and choose the weaker and the more impoverished, no doubt.

Whoaaa! We can't even beat these poor folks at our current levels of national manhood/womanhood!

Back to the drawing board Frank.

Maybe we should just concentrate on what we can do about our own inadequacies for now. Indeed, if all countries actually did that, there might actually be world peace for the first time, and the possibility for the creation of the material and prerequisite conditions for even backward and poor peoples to begin to get a better handle on their lives and social living conditions.

And those desirable social elements which can grow up within a people and a country of their own accord, such as democracy and equality, are far more likely to be durable and actually of value, than those imposed by force of arms from the outside and of dubious motivation, at best.

Which is exactly what I do on Hallowe'en when those little fascists come to my door with their little UNICEF boxes. I scream at them to fix the problems in their own fucking community before they ask me for a penny.

And tomorrow I'm calling on the NDP to bask in the glory of the policy of non-intervention and demand that doctors without borders be disbanded as well as giving the pink slip to all of our sociual workers. In fact, just get rid of the entire safety net, we shouldn't interfere in other people's lives.

Hmmmm. And it didn't actually work in Civil War Spain either.

Idealistic notions are just that. Nothing more. Though they are often used by powerful ruling class interests, for quite more crass purposes.

Ah, but you know full well that we are not talking about Doctors Without Borders here Frank, or any such. Do not attempt to play on our naivete.

Nice try. 8-D LOL.

Either you believe in non-intervention to not help those who need it or you don't.

I think there's another way. Yelling at each other about what works or doesn't work sure won't help.

Look at Libya. 20 odd years ago that regime was the ne plus ultra of international bad guys. Planes were blowing up; other planes were being shot down over the Mediterranean; tents were being targeted with missiles.

Somehow or other the international community managed to work together to straighten that out without the kind of bloodbath that's happened in IRAQ and the bad results that are happening in Afghanistan.

Why not study what works and , through cooperation, build on it? In the meantime, we, like the Cubans, should be doing everything we can to help in the humanitarian field. Just think for a minute how much "real" reconstruction could have been done in Afghanistan with the money and the lives we've wasted on this insane military project.

Choosing to help doesn’t mean signing on to US failed projects. I think, from Rubin’s articles – and she got very close to the ground – that the tribal chieftains make the Taliban look good.

And that is just silly absolutism, Frank, which I can't be bothered with. I am merely against armed intrusion into the internal affairs of other countries.

On the other hand, GWest draws closer to the essential point, that there are many other peaceful and humanitarian ways we can assist people and countries in material need. The essential point is that civil wars occur in all countries and societies, certainly known to me, from time to time in the course of their history and development, even we, as part of the early fight for nationhood and democracy (the MacKenzie Rebellion).

And from time to time no less, many peoples and nations produce what might be judged "undesirable regimes" by others, and even many of themselves. In which case we should not "militarily" intervene on one side or another, but allow such the time and opportunity to work through their own conflicts without interferences. In the aftermath, and given the final securement of peaceful conditions, that is another matter and time to review what useful "aid", besides armed force, might be provided or not, dependant on the particular circumstances.

Where I am some conflicted, however, I must concede, is in the case of the invasion of one country into another. The problem being, of course, if that were our criteria in the current world, not unlike at the time of the foreign aggressions of Nazi Germany, the "civilized" world community should not unlikely be considering how to militarily act against and contain the US Empire.

What is fair for the goose is fair for the gander applies here too.

Which ain't gonna hoppen. And both you and I know it.

We here too, as I advocate as a general policy in international relations, have no choice but to await either the defeat of the US Empire wherever it is imperialistically engaged in the world, its eventual internal socio-economic collapse, or the action of the US citizenry themselves, to "correct" the behaviours of their own government. (Such as was done even, for example, in the old USSR, post its own defeat and Empire collapse in Afghanistan.)

Like I say, in this period of time, better we focus on the critical issues of our own independence, national social and economic development, than running around assisting the US conquest of the world, behind whatever do-gooder guise we might seek to hide that central fact. There, in and of itself, we have a huge task to achieve, finally securing our own country, and control over our own democratic development, if we are to avoid the impending nightmare of the Uberstat NAU.

Let Afghan deal with both the US Empire and the Taliban. We have our own fish we need to get to frying.

Besides, Frank and I are not shouting at each other. There is no capitalization or bold type here.

We are merely "discussing" our positions passionately. :-)

I still hold Frank in the highest regard. Which doesn't mean we have to be kissy-face all the time. :-)

But the folowing statement is absolutism.

I am all for using force to protect kids from abusive fathers and using force to protect unarmed civilians from armed thugs. I see them differing only in degree.

We fought the Nazis although I'm sure there were many who thought it was Europe's problem and we should let them deal with it on their own.

To anyone who would say "yes but that was different..." no, it isn't.

Everything we do on this planet internationally, whether its a Cdn judge putting a Serbian leader in jail for war crimes against Albanians or an agreement to cut emissions in foreign countries or impose sanctions on a country that didn't do anything to us arises out of the belief we are our brother's keeper and the imaginary borders that exist as lines only on maps shouldn't prevent us from taking an interest in the affairs of humans on the other side of those lines.

No, it will happen. America is the third most populous country in the world and is by far the richest. So its not going to happen tomorrow. But all things change, all dogs have their day and eventually America will be on the receiving end. A rich India or China or even Europe or Brazil will one day be able to stand up to the US if it continues on its present course. And if the day ever came when America was ruled by a ruthless dictatorship I would hope we would assist the intervention and not stand back and say its none of our business.

And if America was defeated and occupied tomorrow will the world be a better place? Nope. I doubt anyone powerful enough to defeat America would be any better.

In my opinion there hasn't been enough interventions. Canadians have sat back and let the poor and oppressed of the world wallow in misery from Indonesia to Asia to Africa to Latin America. I don't recall any of them thanking us for not helping when they had brutal gov'ts and long lists of "disappeared ones". I don't see Chileans having parties outside the Canadian Embassy for doing business with Pinochet and leaving Chilean problems to Chileans.

I'm away to Kelowna for a few days, starting now.

At which point I will only observe that I will leave it to you Frank, to convince Canadians that instead of being preoccupied with their own internal development affairs and social issues, we should be running around the world like the US, though more likely serving the US Empire ambition, ostensibly, behind a thin veil of righteousness, engaging in endless wars to right the wrongs of the entire world, and civilize uncivilized regimes.

Good luck with it. The Neocons and The Empire will certainly appreciate it, though the Canadian people might just take another view-, is my bet. People tend to weary of the prospects of Endless War, and its cost in their sons and daughters.

And then who deals with the rich India or China?

It's a nightmare scenario you create for us Frank.

Though again Frank, Chileans in their own good time dealt with Pinochet too, just as the Russians dealt with their despots, in their own good time, and the Venezualans dealt with theirs. They didn't need us to waste our blood for them.

There are all manner of ways to "assist" people short of armed intervention, really invasions, and big stick interference in their affairs. And which likely result in the final tally, in a whole lot reduced body count on all sides, and more reliable final outcomes.

Okay, now I really am away. Attempt to convince away, Frank. 8-D LOL.

Regarding America, I'm against the war in Iraq. I never believed the reasons that started the war but I was happy to see Saddam removed from power. After the war I saw no reason for an occupation of the country. So America was wrong and Canada should have the balls to say so.

In Afghanistan removing the Taliban from power was the right thing to do and I'm happy that America did it. Just because I don't like Bush nor much of US foreign policy since 1945 doesn't mean I can't agree with them when I think they do something I would have done myself if I was in charge.

Canada doesn't have to go to war with the US whenever it does something we don't like but we can stand up and say when we agree and when we disagree. That's part of having an independent foreign policy.

An independent foreign policy does not mean agreeing all the time but it doesn't mean disagreeing all the time either. Each issue should be looked at based on what we think is right regardless of the nationalisty of those involved.

I expect I'll be as successful as I've been in convincing people that we don't have to have poor people sleeping on our streets nor teachers with 32 9-year old kids in their class. But just because the majority think I'm wrong about those things too doesn't stop me from believing them.

Frank, I tend to be far more interventionist than I think Coyote is, but the level of family violence in India is incredibly high - probably as high as anything - proportionally - that has happened in Afghanistan. Are you suggesting that Canada should go in there to stop the women being killed or maimed?

I'd urge you to read Rubin's two long articles. The people we've allied ourselves with are not angels - in many cases things are actually worse now than before the Taliban was ousted - especially in the countryside.

It we'd brought peace and a chance of prosperity (relative) and decent education as quickly as we should have then the result might have been different. We failed and the US failed more comprehensively. The evidence is all around us.

Instead we allied ourselves with a criminal regime in the White House and we are continuing to get along by going along. Although I agree with your sentiments, I can’t agree with your conclusions.

The US is going to get out of Iraq and we're going to get out of Afghanistan. The Brits will pull out when Gordon Brown takes over from Tony Blair.

We spent at least 35 years in Cyprus - some 30,000 Canadians served there over that time - although in the whole period I think we only lost a couple dozen troops. That project - which never degraded to the extent it has in Afghanistan - is still only a 'moderate' success - but at least the Greeks and the Turks on the Island aren't shooting at each other and Canadians are seen as honest brokers. I think you sell us too short as international good guys. The big mistake we’ve made lately is by buying into the whole regime change argument of the US which was a dead letter from the word go. The WWII situation is NOT analogous, not at all. The Nazis could have been stopped long before they were without using troops – but once they invaded Poland the die was cast.

Afghanistan hasn’t invaded anyone. The US has and we were there as their sidekick. Even Clinton’s actions against Slobbo and the Serbians didn’t amount to an invasion and our involvement in Bosnia wasn’t nominally aggressive either. And look how that’s turned out – better than Afghanistan it’s true, but hardly a screaming success story if you’ve been keeping up with events.

We're not honest brokers in Afghanistan - we're on the side of the long string of foreign bad guys who've come there to straighten out the locals - including the Russians - who actually did a better job in Kabul than we've done, at least for a while.

We need to get our troops out and send humanitarian assistance, money and favourable trade negotiators back in. I don't think you can solve these problems with guns - any more than India can fix the family violence that plagues that nation with guns.

I know quite a few Chileans here in Canada who were damned glad we let them in when Pinochet started his reign of terror. Not one of them ever said we should have sent troops - they did ask me, until about 10 years ago, not to buy Chilean wine though.

And I didn't.

Not without help. But even though the force disparity is immense (the Indians have more armoured divisions than Hitler did) we don't have to coddle them.

Now India, unlike Afganistan, is a democracy. I may not like their policies but at least they have the legitimacy of the ballot box. Unlike Pinochet and Franco and the Taliban.

Still, I would stress human rights, not trade deals in our discussions with them. Even going so far as to ignore things like the WTO.

I did read them after you sent the links to me. If its the article I'm thinking of (sitting in Pakistan with Taliban fighters enjoying a rest from the war) I replied to you in email about what I thought.

Yes, we failed, we should have done better. Canada, among others, could have stepped up after the US went into Iraq and Afghansistan was ignored. But that's a different argument than we were wrong to topple the Taliban.

How is it different? the Taliban could also have been stoppd before they took power.

When it comes to guys like Pinochet, speeches don't matter, only troops do. Canada could have supported Allende's gov't with troops. Legitimately I think since Allende was elected. Invade Chile years later? The right thing to do but we would have lost (although I still would supported it). The only time intervention there would have worked was when Pinochet was still in the process of taking power.

Rubin's articles were a lot longer than the one you seem to have read - I think that one may have been from another source. I'll check and get back to you.

The Taliban were an internal problem. Until they invade Poland I think the analogy fails. It wasn't what the Nazis were doing inside Germany that eventually caused us to act in 1939. In fact, if we'd opened our doors to the Jews before 1939 it's at least arguable that we might have prevented that part at least of the Holocaust. And, we'd have removed the 'other' that Hitler used as a justification for his program in Germany itself.

That wouldn't have involved invading Germany - it too was a democracy so there was no more justification to invade there than there is now in India.

You have to make too many compromises to make the case for pre-emptive war as an instrument of democracy. Even the good effects of the Marshall plan in Europe and MacArthur's constitution in Japan were not the result of the use of arms - they were the result of the incredible devastation that the war caused. Surely you're not suggesting that we need to pound the ground of Afghanistan into a dusty pulp so we can raise it from the ashes.

There has to be a better way. The cure you're suggesting; the cure George Bush is busy delivering to Iraq - is far worse than the disease.

gotta go - appointment
Cheers

G, Hitler was elected but once he was in power Germany didn't have a functioning democracy.

And yes, the Taliban didn't invade Poland. But my point was that we in Canada didn't say it was Europe's internal affair. Germany was no threat to us but we still lost a lot of troops.

Compromises are made regardless of which side of the argument you're on. As I pointed out earlier, its not like our non-interventions have a great record either.

There's lots of places in the world that have been having problems long before we went into Afghanistan. Has our non-intervention helped those countries?

Has the billions upon billions in foreign aid made the 3rd world a better place than it was in 1960?

Because I think foreign aid has proven to be a failure and has often made things worse such as for those farmers who can't compete with donated grain being dumped into the local market.

Would the money we put into foreign aid and things like UNICEF have been better spent in Canada? Would Canada still have poor people if we had spent those dollars on Canadians instead? That's a selfish argument obviously since I think Canada can afford it.

Of course I don't believe in non-intervention so I'm not against foreign aid in spite of its failures. Because I don't think ignoring problems beyond our borders would have a great record either.

I'm simply arguing that there are times when force can and should be used to remove tyrants. Its an age-old argument that I'm sure even Athenians, perhaps even Alcibiades, argued about.

That doesn't mean that our use of force means we won't send aid, or accept immigrants or anything else. Its just something that we shouldn't rule out with a blanket statement that sounds good.

I agree. I don't think I ever said that.

This isn't the time for force.

We could have done better, but we didn't, and shooting up the place now is just going to make things worse - with Iraq as my witness.

Mudock:
What's a PRT?

Worked with MSF in a couple of countries and got used to many of their achronyms (sp?) but we weren't using that one. In fact I was slated to go in to Harrar (afghanistan S.W.)to rebuild an hospital but that's a longer story.

It does interest me when they are mentioned. In some ways I still respect them but we had a rough (for me) parting of ways. Some other CDN volunteers (I was told) also fell from grace.

"I Sing of Olaf" comes to mind. Can't come up with the poet's name but I do agree with the last line.

Sorry Murdock. My secretary let that slip by. I am here to learn, no slur intended

"I Sing of Olaf"

by e.e. cummings

hello doggone,

Short for Provincial Reconstruction Team.

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

It was something very new at the start of the Afghanistan mission. In the US eyes it was such a good thing that they started trying to deploy similar ones in Iraq. The problem in Iraq was the extreme safety concerns and total lack of international involvement.

The difficulty in Afghanistan, from the perspective of the other NGO's and MSF, was the 'blurring' of the military/peace-keeper role and the building/civil reconstruction role that the NGO's normally were doing. With armed military personnel doing the building/operation of hospitals MSF suddenly found life very, very difficult as they were being seen as part of the occupying forces, something that they were not confused as when the Soviets were in there.

Hope this helps (check out the Wiki link for more details).

Cheers

I don't think we can say its ok that we ever started an offensive war in Afganistan to begin with. We didn't go there for good reasons that Canada can support. We went there to please the defense and oil corps bid to own the middle east and profit off of war. We aren't war mongers and don't like to fight? According to our present Canadian fearless leaders, we love to fight and don't "cut and run" as any other Republican american or Canadian Republican Conservative would put it. Hence, under certain circumstances, i.e. corporate bribes and directorships, to own something for nothing, the thing to do is fight, and thats what our military is for. Duh. Yah. I've never once seen a greedy old stock investor fight any war with their own bare hands.

Norine Macdonald might be a decent person, well meaning and all, "geez, with all of those starving Afgani's mere miles away, maybe we should share some candy with the kids..." but she's out of touch with why Canada is really there.

Its for the same reasons why warships are parked next to Iran, why U.S. troops numbering 100,000 are in Iraq and why virtually every other war the U.S. has lied to pick a fight with over the last 50 years was for. To own that countries resources. Does NATO give a shit about middle east poverty? Their religious views? Islam? Moral middle east issues? Someone please clue her in. ITS ABOUT THE MONEY$$$$$$

IAMC:
You continue to be an ugly joke on this site.

Coyote:
Much agreed. :-)

As for the rest of you, mainly good points, but lets face it. If it begins bad (greed) its going to end bad. We never had the moral high ground, we were never really looking for it, and we sure won't find it before we leave. Its dead Canadians for nothing, except for war mongerer's profits. There isn't much else to say about it, except that its long overdue we took our troops home.

If we took attempts to end Afgan poverty... we haven't even remotely begun to try. Bring our troops home.

But if Canada is run by a bad government and everything we do is to serve the evil men who rule the world (stealing a line from Dave Mathews) then why does it matter wherether our troops are in Afghanistan or downtown Toronto because they won't be doing any good for anybody in Canada either?

One could also say why bother worrying about Canadians since the USA owns us lock, stock and barrel and if they are in fact working for the Yanks in Kabul how is that any different from working for the Yanks in the oil fields of Alberta or at a Cargill grain elevator or a General Motors car plant or McDonalds or wherever else?

Actually, since Afghanistan is a write-off as far as global warming goes one could argue why bother trying to help people who are doomed anyway.

Eventually peace will come to Afghanistan because it'll be uninhabitable and since western civilization is the biggest contributor to greenhouse gases I think we can take a lot of credit for that peace.

I don't think the afghan solution will be as totally negative as you suggest Frank.
That's one of the most interesting things in Rubin's articles. There have been changes in the leadership, and the philosophy (if you can call it that) of the groups with whom Karzai is going to have to - one way or another - negotiate.

If I really thought there was a chance to bring about the kinds of positive change for the Afghanis - through this current Nato operation - I'd support it too.

Now, as a said to you privately, I think the Aga Khan, in his talk with Mansbridge at the weekend, says something quite different although, in retrospect, I don't think he is so much a supporter of a military solution as you are. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts if you saw the interview. He certainly painted a much less gloomy picture of the interface between Islam and the west. Which was welcome.

Karzai has asked the Taliban to negotiate with the Afghan gov't. They turned him down flat. They do not wish to negotiate with anybody about anything which looking at their history didn't exactly strike me as surprising since they know they'll win in the end and any Afghan who doesn't want to live in the 12th century will be beheaded in front of friends and family.

I only saw the interview that was broadcast on the National, I didn't see the full interview with Mansbridge.

Too bad, it was a good.

Seems to me that the opposition to the Karzai government isn't just the Taliban, right?

Depends where you're going with that. I would imagine even non-Taliban whose family had been blown up are probably more than a little miffed about it.

Not to worry, we're allied with drug lords and they seem to multiply like rabbits.

Perhaps we should switch sides and join with the Taliban in wiping out the Northern Alliance before resuming hostilities with the "beards for everyone crowd"?

Speaking of dictatorial governments, have you been following what's happening in Mexico?

Just pulled this off Reuters, re Oaxaca:
November 3, 2006
Protesters in Mexico Push Riot Police Back
By REUTERS

OAXACA, Mexico, Nov. 2 (Reuters) — Thousands of protesters hurling Molotov cocktails forced riot police officers with tear gas and water cannons to retreat on Thursday, as clashes intensified here in this popular tourist city.

At least eight people were injured in the violence, including a newspaper photographer who was hit by fireworks launched from the grounds of Oaxaca State’s university, a center of the protests. More than a dozen people have died in the conflict.

The federal police, who took over downtown Oaxaca last weekend, were pushed back by hundreds of protesters guarding the entrance to the university.

The riot police had the upper hand at first, when reinforcements arrived in armored trucks and helicopters, spraying water cannons and firing tear gas canisters.

But as they pushed through barricades of burned vehicles, the activists, who have blockaded the city for five months and demand that Gov. Ulises Ruiz step down, threw gasoline bombs at them. Local residents joined the demonstrators.

As the police backed away, the streets filled with thousands of people chanting, “Ulises has fallen.”

Go protesters. I'm all for the Mexican people fighting back against their out of touch gov't.

By the way G, what operating system is your computer?

Frank, I love how your mind works with your post just below mine. Smart assed humor is about the only good thing that can come out of this one. And in answer to your questions, there could, some decade, be the possibility of a Canadian government that serves Canadians over Americans, giving our troops a chance to be positively useful once again.

Until that time, of course, Canadian troops will station next to starving Afghani's and do nothing about it since it doesn't serve america's corporate interests, while telling the world and nation here at home, how they are indeed, winning the war. (yawn)

Frank: I use several, home and work:
all Windows OS - XP Pro/XPhome - Different browsers on each system and 3 browsers on this one...which is old an cranky but was state of the art once upon a time - getting too slow these days and I'm in the market for a new one.

Any suggestions?

Skookum1 posted a lot more stuff from Mexico on the Glavin thread, if you're interested.

Smart-assed? I think its just my depression about the state of the world that tends to come out as sarcasm anytime I think of global warming and world poverty. I just can't get into the whole optimist thing when it seems every single day there's a headline like this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/02/AR2006110200913.html

What if the Cdn Army's Tim Horton's started handing out free iced cappucino's and apple fritters to every hard working Afghan poppy grower? A veritble chain of Tim Horton's across Afghanistan (replacing the face of Tim with the stern countenance of Omar Mullah) serving the locals mucho goodies on the Cdn taxpayer dime. The Cdn troops would be used only to guard the Tim's. No more shooting up the countyside on the chance that you hit a bad guy once in a while. I realize the Great Wall didn't protect China, but couldn't a great wall of Tim's/Omar's do the job?

Beacause after a latte and a box of Timbits would people be so depressed being forced by the Taliban to head down to the local rink and watch the girl next door get beheaded for reading? I didn't think so. The whole country would perk up thanks to the Cdn Army. We could even provide the use of laptops inside the local establishments for news, enlightenment and cruising alt.sex.walltowallporn and that would be the end of the burkha I think.

Terry G? Surely you jest. I don't need to read a critic of the Left on the Tyee. That's why I read Andrew Coyne, Mark Steyn, everyone in the Sun and Can-West chains ...

Frank
Skookum's stuff is about the situation in Mexico - in the comments - nothing to do with Glavin. The dumb and blind look by the media here about what's going on in the land of our soutern Nafta partner is bizarre. Perhaps now that some plainclothes cops appear to have offed an American reporter we'll finally get some news about it here in Canada.

Glavin thinks he's hot stuff. You might want to check his opinion of Tyee commenters on his Blog.

I was hoping for some suggestions about upgrading my computer system after your query last night.

I was just curious about your system. I still have to use Windows XP for development but I do most day to day stuff in Vector Linux. A few guys in Winnipeg have put together one of the best operating systems around and only charge $25 for the full version. Their being Canadian appeals to me too.

Its certainly not the easiest Linux to get started with though once you know what you're doing it is one of the fastest. Everything just snaps open. Makes my XP (I dual boot) look pretty slow.

I'm kind of an evangelist for Linux in my other life and so I was just curious what you were using.

As for Glavin, I read his first article and wasn't impressed. Let me know if and when his writing improves.

As for Mexico, I follow yours, Skookum1's and Anarcho's posts in the other place.

Thanks for that, have you a link?- I'd be interested - also my son, who's doing his PhD in physics uses Linux to run all his reaserch programs - They have a big pipe at the University but he'd be interested in looking too.

Post it at the other place if you don't want to here - or email me.

I am looking to buy a new machine to replace this so it might not be a bad time to think about switching. I've also thought of getting an Apple for the graphics and auto cad stuff I do - windows is not as good for that kind of thing.

Glavin is fighting back on his own blog this morning

btw, nice little Krugman column and even one from Friedman worth reading this morning - They're behind subscription so I'll post them later in the other place I think Ronnie is going to have a bird on Tuesday.

Fighting back on his own blog is he? Can't figure out how to post on the Tyee or just doesn't want to look like he reads us peasants? I've always liked writers who think of themselves as intellectual Sun Kings. Its why I read Steyn. But there's a difference, Glavin's writing and research (basd on the article I read) is so amateurish he makes Mike Campbell look like an intellectual heavyweight.

But let me know if he ever goes beyond sounding like a guy uttering a stream of conciousness as he watches Tony Parsons.

Once you go Mac, you never go back!

Seriously, I use a Mac at home, and PCs at work. The Mac really does seem more stable, and for the $$$ does a lot of the same things out of the box that the PC needs aftermarket goodies to achieve (video editing, grafx, music/MIDI). Of course I've been an Apple guy for 15 or so years, so there's definitely a familiarity factor as well. Having said that the beauty of the Mac is you don't have to know how it works, just that it does. I don't have the computing background to do the Linux thing, but I love the open source idea.

Two cents worth of advice (and worth every penny) from a guy who couldn't care less if there's magic elves pushing pixels under the hood, as long as it works.

Haven't seen much of Ron lately, they must be playing Taps on Fox or maybe he's just too glued to Limbaugh hoping for some sign of the Apocalypse.

Don't hold your breath!

Did you notice that the cops are after his lady friend for voting irregularities?

Thx Stump!
I enjoyed your literary lesson for the conductor.

Stump, I was an Apple guy back in the early days. I had my Apple II+ with 64k of ram, two floppy drives and 280 by 192 resolution with 16 colours. Life was good.

I would have gone to a Mac when they came out but they were too expensive. So I went with Amiga and Atari ST and laughed at the PC guys and their Hercules video adaptors.

Eventually though the damn market forced me to buy a PC and it was like I was back in the old Apple II days with limited this and that. Then Windows came out and life was hell. Somehow I survived until Win 98 made the thing useable and XP is actually a real operating system.

I did buy an iMac for my daughter and have used it a bit. It is stable and it just works. Unfortunately it doesn't have the market share or the development tools I need. But its great for a user like my daughter. No argument there.

I love Linux, great tools but very little market share. So I'm forced to use Windows XP for work. With Vector I get different "desktops", Gnome, Kde, Enlightenment and XFCE. I can make the look and feel Mac-like or XP-like or something else entirely (Enlightenment even has animated window backgrounds).

And what I like about Vector compared to the big Linux's like Mandriva, Fedora, Ubuntu and Suse is the blazing speed. beats any other operating system I've used and is extremely secure to boot.

Ditto

Who's lady friend?

Ron's ie Ann Coulter

Found the story on

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/nellie-b/the-coulter-voting-story-_b_15862.html

That's pretty funny

LOL

till later, be interested in your thoughts about a new machine then maybe.

GW

I'm confident that if a poll were taken in Afghanistan among the Afghans, the majority would want the 'invaders' to leave.
As was written by bucky - only the Afghanis can get rid of the Taliban.

Frank:
The OpEd columns by Krugman and Friedman are up in the other place.

Frank:

I know how you felt and sometimes still feel... but I can't help but chuckle at the sarcasm... is that wrong? Probably, but its making the best of the worst of it.

I remember when GWBush stole the last election and I knew what was coming. More war! More poverty! More injustice. And since then, he didn't let us down. GWB suggested turning senior pensions into stock portfolio's, spying without cause on ordinary citizens, and continued to lie to monger over war (geez, I wonder if Carlyle and Haliburton profits had anything to do with it)

http://www.hereinreality.com/carlyle.html
http://www.thecarlylegroup.com/eng/company/index.html

The second site has figures that are much more accurate. I'm still trying to find their current list of directors of which Donald Rumsfelt is one... found an interesting name of one of the founders... remember Rubenstein, the guy who owned the WTC's? He's there too. And the Saudi's...

And then, theres tricky shotgun Dick Cheney, former CEO and 14.5 million share holder of Haliburton... KBR is nothing new to you...

Funny... all this Nazi talk. Travel down to Republican states like Arizona, and you hear "George is our leader. Doesn't matter who our president is, don't bash our leader!" I'm sure the Nazi's said the same thing with Hitlers opponents. Sad.

I remember when Bush stole the last election and I saw this young couple sitting on a sidewalk, holding a sign that said, "Please don't hate us. 49% of us voted against Bush." The worm does turn, Frank.

And the fish thing. In the 60's, cod stocks dropped like a rock. The DFO, knowing the facts, lied to the public for 10 years about their depleted stocks. When the stocks all but disappeared in the 70's and cod fisheries closed, people scratched their heads... why weren't we told? What happened? Since then, the cod have all but disappeared. Harpers answer? Open up cod fisheries. What a dunce.

The same scenerio is setting itself up today with all other marine life. We have major coral reefs dying or dead around the world. Bottom dragneting continues to wreck the ecologies of the oceans world wide. But as long as there are fish fillets, no one questions why... until its gone. And the big arguement for fish farms is? "Without them, we won't have enough fish to eat." Its a sad state when we have to eat polluted, out of shape fish fed junk and drugs to make up for the greed that has wrecked the oceans and why do people not know?

WE ONLY KNOW THAT WHICH WE ARE AWARE OF

Its weird to see clear cut protesters who know nothing of the ocean floors savaged loss. We only know that which we are aware of. People who are still reading this old and dying thread, it takes between 1 to 2 centuries before ocean floors can bounce back from dragnets to produce life. But when you put greedy warmongers who have blind support and corrupt media, what can we expect? A healed planet? I think not. Hopefully americans have had enough of the current lobbiests sluffing themselves off as congressmen and will do something about it.

The worm will turn, Frank. It always turns.

Canadians won't be in Afghanistan for long, if the Democrats get their wish.....
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/02/us/politics/02poll.html?ex=1163221200&en=b7694469da345e76&ei=5070&emc=eta1

I think Bill O'Reilly in his usual disjointed, lashing-out way is advocating that the US "cut and run"

http://www.billoreilly.com/newslettercolumn?pid=20603

10 bucks says that in 2 years O'Reilly will have half of America convinced the Iraqi Civil War was caused by David Letterman and the Democrat congress.

brain, I think the worm is dead from heat and a lack of soil nutrients.

But seriously, when the Americans toss Bush on the dustbin and historians quickly decide he's the worst president ever will anything get any better?

The Taliban were beheading people when Clinton was president. The Democrats showed how tough they were by beating up on America's poorest through "welfare reform". Will the world be a better place or just a more smiley place with Gore or Kerry or Obama as leader?

Will Iraq and Afghanistan become peaceful when westerners leave or will our news just ignore the violence like it used to or like it does now in Mexico?

Corporate America is almost as tied to the Democrats as they are to the Republicans so I don't expect healthier food, better air and water, better social programs or much else from a Democrat win.

By the way Frank, who the hell is O'Reilly talking about when he refers to 'far-left' America?

I didn't think Cindy Sheehan and Lynne Stewart were that powerful - especially since Stewart's off to jail.

I just don't see most Democrats as left wingers. In fact, I doubt if even a radical like David Letterman fits that mold.

Did you catch the (30 - 60 seconds maybe) coverage of the Oaxaca revolt on the CBC news tonight? Skookum1 posted more and better information here on Tyee.

Gosh! You mean that "teacher's strike" ....?
http://www.inthesetimes.com/site/main/article/2795/

BTW, I wonder if Bill O thought of criticizing the US Defense Industry for making their profits on the backs of the dead American soldiers, never mind the thousands of dead Iraqis -- ya know, the very ones America went over to free. I wonder if it ever may have entered Bill O's mind that profiteering is treason, and much more so than a few simple objections by a few Liberals.....

Rick W
I guess you've seen the things Skookum1's posted on that little teacher's strike?

There's a performance (song) up now on youtube by the fellow the cops shot in Qaxaca, brad will. check it out. If you can't find it, send me an email at

You two knuckle draggers (G West and Murdock) still claiming to be the all knowing all seeing experts on this?

Have you actually done a google this time so you can be factually correct on the ethnic groups involved, languages spoken, and the members of the coalition particiapting? Or are you still convinvced that the Indian Army is there and speaking Farsi, that we are giving detainess to the Americans (and not cooperating with ICRC). Perhaps you arm chair generals can relate the nuances on insergency based warfare on the unwashed masses.

Recommendation for the folks who think that we are in Afghanistan for oil. Pick up an atlas, look at the country, and ponder the massive expense of putting in a pipline through a country ringed by mountains. It was expensive to put a road and rail line through the rockies. It would be impossible to put a pipline through Afghanistan's mountains (lack of expereinced workers, terrain is too technical, complete lack of security).

History1
I followed that debate. I thought YOU were the expert.

Thanks again Murdock
I was a bit puzzeled there _ my involvement is getting on for a decade or so old and MSF does tend to condense whole paragraphs (let alone experiences) into a small number of significant letters.

By the way I got a feelin' about this here "History1": could be a computer program like the original "Elvira"

Naw, I am just a guy that appreciates it when people know the facts, and can apply context to questions they are asking before they make wild accusations.

Accuracy... It helps in keeping someone look the fool.

History1
Like I said, I read your posts and, relative to the facts, you sure had me fooled.

for doggone

My MSF information is about 4 years old now, from a doctor that had volunteered her time in the region in the early 1990's, then again in the late 1999-2000 time frame. Her friends in MSF told her not to volunteer for the region again, then about 4 months later (this would be about 2002) the word broke that MSF was leaving the area, citing the total lack of support, from some of the same people that had been supporting them in the area only a year or so before the US bomings/invasions.

doggone:

not sure at all, I am just waiting with baited breath for the next time 0=History tries to accuse someone of SEDITION!

I think The Tyee legal advisors might have something more to say about that.

Provocation is all 0=History has done so far...

RickW wrote:

Ok RickW, lets agree that the Democrats get both houses, that still leaves the Commander in Chimp in charge in the monkey house.

The only likely result will be a lot more Canadian casualties in Afghanistan, while the three groups get into bun fights about what to do about the mounting losses in the middle-east.

US military funding for more aggresive posturing might get curtailed, which will only guarantee that the air assets needed to either keep the casualties down or get out will also get cut.

More Canadian casualties.

This particular tar-baby has only one end in sight that I keep seeing. It is not pleasant and I will say it again.

Mark my words:
100% Casualties

Once again,

Why we, Canada, are there (in Afghanistan):

What we were doing there in the first place:

[edit]
2001-2005

After the attacks on the United States the Canadian Government announced that any Canadian Forces members serving on exchange with American counterparts could be used in any American operations. Soon after it was announced that Canadian Forces would be deployed supporting the American invasion of Afghanistan. A controversial photograph was released showing members of Canada's elite JTF-2 escorting prisoners off of an American aircraft. Proving that Canadian Forces were engaged in combat.

After that Darth Cretinous made sure we STAYED in combat operations and expanded our deployment. This was confirmed by Mr. Dithers, since he was so out of his league once the AdScam hit - the military operations were the least of his headaches!

Then Harpo and Co. again re-committed us to the region (since he really has no way to get out - without a LOT OF HELP!).

nothing at all to do with helping any Afghani, or 'regime-change' or pipelines. Just an insane knee-jerk reaction to the 'unprovoked' 9/11 attack.

Once this was done the Commander in Chimp had his 'mission accomplished' press conference on a training aircraft carrier off the coast of California! Clueless George got to dress-up and everything!

I guess all that military force is needed to make darn sure they actually eat the supplies?

OK so all the other stuff is done, but now Afghanistan needs to be 'escorted' into the international community (whatever the hell that is now) by lots of good Canadians with guns?

Sure it was never stated to be about oil, but then did not the Commander in Chimp say that it was 'mission accomplished'?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mission_Accomplished
http://www.harpers.org/WeeklyReview2003-11-04.html#20031104512333742675
http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/28/mission.accomplished/

and just in case the 'counting' crowd needs some reminders of the real cost:

http://www.icasualties.org/oef/

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/fallen/

The 'hearts and minds' of Afghanis (I still maintain that NO SUCH THING AS AN AFGHANISTAN NATIONAL EXISTS - THEY ARE ALL STILL TRIBAL BANDS! It is like calling Iranians, Iraqi's and Saudi's all arabs) are not being 'won over' and I echo the words of UK General(ret) the Lord Guthrie who said "... to launch the British army in with the numbers there are, while we're still going on in Iraq is cuckoo."

The Canadian defence establishment is at best only 1/2 that of the UK in land forces, indeed there are over 5000 UK ground troops in Afghanistan and only 2500 or so Canadians.

If they, the UK, are starting to get cold feet what do you think we had better start doing?

Finnaly, a few items of interest:

In comparison, there are about 20,000 US troops in Afghanistan, plus roughly the same number of troops belonging to NATO contingents, which includes 5,400 troops from Britain, 2,500 from Canada and 2,300 from the Netherlands. Nominally, there is a 42,000-strong Afghan National Army, but it suffers from a high rate of defection.

General Jones has asked for 2,500 additional NATO troops. But the major NATO countries - Turkey, France, Germany, Spain and Italy - have declined to send more. In actuality, it is questionable whether 2,500 more troops would make any significant difference in a country of the size of Afghanistan and with such a difficult terrain.

Distinguished British soldier-politician Sir Cyril Townsend wrote in Al-Hayat newspaper this week, "A realistic military appreciation of the situation would be that to gain the upper hand against the Taliban and al-Qaeda, and to start winning over the southeast of the country, will require deployment of at least 10,000 extra, highly trained professional and well-equipped troops with matching air support."

Clearly, a huge crisis is shaping up for NATO. Its credibility is at stake. Sir Cyril does not foresee that the alliance will come up with the required military resources "to beat the Taliban on its own ground". No wonder Lieutenant-General David Richards, commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan and former assistant chief of the general staff of the British army, ominously warned in a recent television interview, "We need to realize we could actually fail here."

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/HI30Df01.html

The Soviets admit now that they completely misunderstood the Afghan tribal warrior culture, and that by supporting a 'government' in Kahbul they, the Soviets, were not creating anything like a positive atmosphere. It was far too easy for the CIA supported Mujehedin mountain fighters to find recruits because of the constant boiling point pressures that the locals, in any of the areas that the Soviets, or thier Afghan 'coutnerparts', operated in.

WE ARE DOING THE EXACT SAME THING!

The Taliban is only finding it easier to get recruits!

If the Karzei 'government' is not seen as legitimate by even 30% of the population then the fighting will continue until either that 30% is dead or enough of them give up the fight. With the evidence so far I would say that the 30% is increasing and their willingness to take the fight to the invaders is also on the rise. A return to the 'ideal' boiling-point that the Taliban recruiters need, just like their Mujehedin counterparts did in the Soviet era.

Now keep in mind how you might react to a foreign INVASION of your country if they, the foreign troops, started doing these sort of things:

http://www.nato.int/issues/afghanistan/040628-factsheet.htm

especially if you did not ever even hear about some sort of 'election', or was that a farcical aquatic ceremony?

Next think about how hard it will be to get EU nations on side to send their young men to bleed and die for these aims?

http://www.rand.org/commentary/120805NR.html

note: at least the NATO site has a decen map for download showing the 'phases' of operations as if they were constructing a new housing development!

mark my words:
100% Casualties

First, the UK Gen's commentary is valid. He specifically was speaking to the lack of resources dedicated by his country to Afghanistan (namely they only have unarmoured Ranger Rovers and some Harriers as their tactical assets). We clearly have dedicated and focused our assets to the mission in a way that the UK government choose not to (they are spliting their commitment after all, which truely is mad). But then, understanding the context of what he was saying, is well, something that takes a lil studying for... Feel free to carry on with that thread of thinking though.

We are currently in Afghanistan in response to an attack on a NATO ally, and an attack that killed Canadians. Recent release of old video by AQ showing the 9/11 hijackers paling around with AQ leadership in Afghanistan, completely ties in the neccessity of the invasion. The Taliban pandered to the lefties in the western world, and demanded proof in the media. Proof was provided, and like any good lefty it was casually dismissed, then when the Taliban realised that the invasion was a go, they decided to play a false card by claiming they would hand Osama bin Laden over to a third party Islamic country (unacceptable by any standard aside from the hug-a-thug crowd, it would be the same as handing a biker over to a different club house, given the level of support AQ receives from Saudi Arabia, Syria, Pakistan, Iran, etc etc etc receives).

We leave now, things will only be worse for the people of Afghanistan. Let us look at the track record. Under Taliban rule, the Afghan people had specific freedoms:

1. The women were free of work. In fact, if a woman was caught outside without her husband or a male family memberr with her, she was subject to arrest, "questioning" and beatings. Women caught in adulterous relations (premarital sex, or raped) were free to choose method of punishment, death by stoning, or death by stoning (death by stoning involves burrying the subject to the shoulders, draping a sheet over the head, then pelting the head and shoulders area with rocks no bigger then the closed fist (this prevents the subject from being knocked unconcious or killed too early)). Women were free to sseek medical aid from other women, over course women are not allowed to work, or go to school, so this means many went without aid at all.

2. Afghans were free from such distractions as music, movies, books (other then the Koran). Afghans were free (as long as they were male) to go to school, as long as the only thing taught at said school is the Koran.

3. Afghan males were free to grow beards. In fact they had to on pain of beatings.

4. Afghans were free to practise whatever religion they wanted, as long as it was an Islamic faith. Otherwise, Hindus and others were made to wear yellow identifing markers (such as yellow turbans)... Hmmm, it wouls seem some of the Taliban were allowed to study WW2 history.

(NOTE: Afghan is the noun denoting a person from Afghanistan in the English language, an Afghani is the currency of Afghanistan. It is acceptable in other middleastern languages to use the term Afghani, as there is no other literal translation. In English though, always use the noun Afghan when refering to the broader group).

Interesting side note. Prior to the Soviets sponsoring a socialist revolution in the 70's, Afghanistan was on it's way to becoming a seccular Islamic democracy. Afghanistan even petitioned the US and Great Britian in the 60's for support, and trade (the West decided there was nothing worth while, and so ignored these requests, at least until it became clear that the Soviets were interested).

Correction to above: Kabul started petitioning the West in the 50's vise the 60's, and the Soviets got involved in about 55.

Sources:

1. http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA110012001?open&of=ENG-AFG

2. http://www.afghan-web.com/history/

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Afghanistan

4. http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA110141999?open&of=ENG-AFG

5. http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA110111999?open&of=ENG-AFG

6. http://web.amnesty.org/library/Index/ENGASA110031999?open&of=ENG-AFG

AI has many many pages of rights abuses listed under the years of Taliban rule. This is what people would have returned to Afghanistan. I haven't even touched on the hundreds of documents generated by ICRC or UNHCR.

Further. The biggest thing that fueled the insurgency during the Russian debacle, was the Socialists... Whoops, the Communists insistance on banning religious practices, and religion period (which is not something the west is interested in doing, and hence, the reason why we are not seeing the wide spread massive uprising Murdock is claiming is going on).

History1: Welcome back and I am sorry for guessing that you were a tape loop.If you, Murdock , Alcibiades and I could ever see "Eye to eye" we might together make some sensible comments here at least.

Must agree with you, murdock. If the democrats (not the party, but the voters) get their way, Canadians will be hung out to dry, and the kill rte will cimb geometrically (unless of course we "cut and run" when the Yankees do)

Murdock:
Maybe it was (the pullout of MSF) at least partly because of the same symptoms that got me fired. The reason I did not go there was (at least partly) because the same people I had dissagreed with in a previous project were in charge.
The level of actual sympathy with local people is pretty low even in trained volunteers. The level of actual sympathy with the locals amoung the "oversee ers" seemed to me to be even less.
Gotta admit I went "boshie" but danged if I did not have locals on my side: I had to ask them not to beat up on the rest of the team when I was forced out. Being Muslim they still had to take revenge which I heard they did and MSF pulled the plug there.
OK:
You send female non smoking, nondrinking, vegetarians to negotiate in a muslim country. Guess what is your (mandatory) welcome?
Booze,tobacco and meat and you should be of male persuasion.

Sorry I'm late for my jog about your city in my spandex breifs and I don't eat meat, smoke, or give a shit about your traditions, modern women have tits and butts and do not mind showing them off. Get used to it.

That went down pretty good

Doggone, MSF is one of those organisations I admire deeply, as I tend to admire most NGOs (granted, us in the military, and the NGOs do not always see eye to eye). I am sorry to hear that things did not work out for you (not my business, but I do take that you were with an NGO, and found yourself in an untendable position)...

One of the biggest dangers we face in Afghanistan that will lead to failure the fastest is trying to enforce change on Afghans. It took us in the western world centuries to get women and minority groups the vote, and even today, we are struggling on some fronts to ensure basic human rights in our own country are applied equaly.

To try and change the thought patterns and behaviours of the Afghan people as the Russians attempted to do, would certainly lead to failure, and lend itself to a worsening of the situation should we leave the country prematurely.

Change might be influenced over time however, as at one point, Afghanistan was close to becomeing an Islamic republic similar to UAE, with much more freedoms for the people, while maintaining the Islamic faith. Unfortunatly, over time, I do mean years or decades. If it is to be accelerated beyond that, it would have to be Afghans leading the charge, and they would have to know that religous fundamentalists like the Taliban are no longer a threat to their safety.

Best advice I remember was:
Find a local you can trust.
Trust him (or her).

That worked for me for a while.

I guess I'd have to add that you should attempt to sus out just what policies surround your project as well: what does your organization (be it military,religeous,non Government)actually have in mind. That's unclear in the situation in Afghanistan and it seems that things could change rapidly. I made the mistake of checking my "Job Description" and attempting to use it as a guide.

doggone

Sorry I'm late for my jog about your city in my spandex breifs and I don't eat meat, smoke, or give a shit about your traditions, modern women have tits and butts and do not mind showing them off. Get used to it.

That went down pretty good

I totally had to laugh at that one, especially after the 'guest' on the Bill Good show that was a female PR Officer, whom supposedly did negotiations over in Afghanistan. When she was questioned about her 'reception' by the male-dominant society, she responded with a 'most of my communications were written'.

I wondered at that point if she even got as far as Germany from Canada...

...and still there are those deluded enough to think that we are actually participating in the Afghan 'culture', when our PM visits he does the PR shots with some troops and wears his war-monkey PM kevlar then runs away without meeting a single Afghan in the area. No wonder they think we are cowards.

Uh oh! I have a real sense of impending doom here.
Did I say that? Does my wife read thetyee? My daughters will kill me if they can get here before Mom and the sisters.
Oh well
Seriously: there is a point buried in a discussion of whether or not the overseas "Volunteer" can overcome his/her indoctrination and upbringing.
On the simple level: do not expect to understand if you start your discussion with force. It takes a while just to get through the formalities. When Condi hits a couple of countries a day over there I do have to wonder what on earth she said to the folks (and what on earth she thinks she heard).
But I ain't sexist - Rhumey would likely have done just the same.

Online referendum on Canada's continued involvement in Afghanistan:

http://www.timeoutcanada.org/

Yes, we are in Afghanistan to kick over every rock, and do nothing more then force our values on the people of Afghanistan:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060327.wxblatchford27/BNStory/Afghanistan/home/?pageRequested=all

Later in this tour, Capt Turner lost his life (RIP):

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1145742615006&call_pageid=1144231318397&col=1144231318412

So, I guess the President of Afghanistan is not Afghan?

http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=1059

(For the record, President Karzai is Pashtun).

This gentleman has recently been to Afghanistan, amongst his spritual duties, he assisted in the conduct of several shuras... As detailed below (You will have to scroll down to an article titled "A secret weapon against Afghan insurgency")

http://www.afghanemb-canada.net/en/news_bulletin/2006/june/13/index.php

We go to great pains to learn the cultures of the many different ethinci groups involved, even to the point of learning and understanding the sub tribes within each ethnic group. The claim made above "...there are those deluded enough to think that we are actually participating in the Afghan 'culture'..." is spurious at best, though I am sure that this is born more out of ignorance then malicious intent.

In this article, a gentleman speaks. A Master Corperal (MCpl) Franklin. He is a vetern of Afghanistan. A front line troop (a field medic). He is an example of a soldier that beleives in the mission. There are thousands like him, an we all know and understand the risks involved (MCpl Franklin now has a better understanding then most):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20061104.RALLY04/TPStory/National

G West, I went to your link. Very telling.

When I voted, the results came up that 74% of respondants are AGAINST immediate withdrawal. In fairness, some follow on questions would be approprate.

I note how easily you dismiss a woman who spent more time in Afghanistan then any soldier I know. I do not agree with all her views, however, I have to concede that she knows Afghanistan better then I, which makes it infinatly better then you Murdock... And yet you casually dismiss her commentary. Speaks volumes of your knowledge of the people involved (right up there with thinking either Pashtun people or Indian persons speak Farsi).

History1:
Not very telling at all. When I voted last night the register was about 94 to 6. The against side is clearly slipping.

But, with swings like that we may be the only folks voting. Meaningless.

Where did you ever get the idea I said CF personnel didn't believe in the mission?

Of course they do.

That's what is so sad about the whole affair - they are being lied to, tricked and deceived, and they are giving up their lives for a lie.

I feel heart sick and sorry for them.

Please provide proof we are being lied to, or cease. Thousands of us on the pointy end know better, and your mealy mouthed claim just speaks of your vast ignorance on the subject.

Oh, if ya haven't figured it out yet, you credibility with all of us to date is exactly zero.

On the subject of lying, here is a fine example of a liar.

http://ruxted.ca/index.php?/archives/28-Franciso-Juarez.html

This guy was never in danger of going to Afghanistan if he didn't want to go and he knows it. Further, as a reservist, his commitment while on training is exactly 30 days long, that is how long it takes to process someone out of the forces if we choose to extend it.

I can attest that now one below the rank of full Lt, not 2Lt, and most definatly not OCdt. This man's credibility is severly damaging the already slim credibility of your beloved peace movement.

For G West,

I think the proof you may need could be found in the concpet of mission creep, nothing new to the USofA.

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

http://www.army.mil/CMH/LC/The%20Mission/mission_creep.htm

Sadly there are many whom are involved in these operations whom have their 'noses' into the grindstone so closely that they are not able to sit up and look around objectively at the situation. This is roughly analogus to the rat in the maze whom becomes frustrated running in little circles, certain that he knew the way out, only the poor rat is unaware that the walls are being moved by the behaviour scientist. All the rat would need to do is climb onto the tops of the walls to either see the new way or to note that someone has been monkeying with his world...

Our British allies are very concerned about these issues and are at least able to discuss it in their MSM:

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/richard_nortontaylor/2006/05/no_exit_from_kabul.html

http://news.monstersandcritics.com/uk/article_1177659.php/Britain_fears_mission_creep_in_Afghanistan

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-2254123,00.html

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/murray_armstrong/2006/06/mission_creep_in_afghanistan.html

At least some in Canada have taken a few notes:

The Leopards will be used for escort duty for Canadian convoys, which have continually come under attack by the Taliban, government sources said. In addition, some soldiers have suggested the presence of tanks would make insurgents think twice about attacking Canadian convoys.
No question, Canadian convoys are in need of greater protection and, perhaps an insurgent force might think twice about attacking a convoy escorted by a squadron of Leopards. Or, they might not.

In any case, given the fact that we have yet to encounter the truth over the Afghanistan mission and recently the deployment of tanks, there is no reason whatsoever to believe the "government sources" quoted. They've lied continually and they're lying now.

http://www.pkblogs.com/thegallopingbeaver/2006/09/sending-main-battle-tanks-is.html

The above last paragraph should read: "I can attest that no one below the rank of full Lt, not 2Lt (I suppose an arguement could be made for specialists, never heard of it, and this guy certainly is not a specialist), and certainly not OCdt would deploy to Afghanistan." This guy knows it evertime he opens his yap and says "I was scheduled to go..." BS.

Murdock, I am sure that you remember terms like OPSEC from your "days in the CF". If you do not know what I am talking about, then it only reaffirms my belief that you never served a day in uniform... If you did, I am guessing you were CIC, and nothing more.

More needs to be focussed on the continued use of air-power to overcome 'situations' that the NATO forces get themselves into.

http://www.isf.ethz.ch/swdetails.cfm?id=16623

Wings Over the World will not win this situation, notwithstanding anything 0=History has to say!

LOL

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/w/wells/hg/w45th/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Things_to_Come

http://www.isf.ethz.ch/swdetails.cfm?id=16623

When, not if, when the British start their retreat, count on the Canadian contingent to get the 'rear' guard function as the final act in their mission creep.

Mark my words:
100% Casualties

G West,

The obfuscation that some within the military community will use are things like operational security, or sensitive defence materials or some other such nonsense.

http://www.wordreference.com/definition/obfuscation

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/obfuscation

Since you are not NOTAL or APSCAL COSMIC TOP SECRET cleared you are not 'privvy' to their information.

Kind of like Mavericks "If I told you I'd have to kill you." line from Top Gun.

Do not let these smoke-screens get in the way of the truth, as I am certain that some similar methods were used by the SS in their obfuscation of what was really going on in places like Dachau.

Oh and another lie link, this one from the Ottawa Citizen, though I am certain that it only appeared in page 23 (if at all - it may be only online?):

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=732df853-5ac3-47eb-a080-e284cc6a6f1d&p=2

Cheers G! Good luck with the non-history understanding one.

Ahh yes, the same "expert" who doesn't even know the well published facts, like which ethnic groups are in our AOR, now foist' his delusions of grandour on us.

Mission creep is always on our radar. It is always a concern in everything we do from going to Timmy's to waging a strategic multi-national campaign. Keep going through the news articles, you will find many commanders quoted as showing a concern over mission creep.

I find it interesting Murdock, that you will not address my comment on your first post in relation to the OP article on the recommendations of the Senlis Council... I personally do not agree with everything they have to say, however, I understand my place in the world, and hence know I can not just dismiss what they have to say. Yet you, Gen Armchair, make gradious statements against the Senlis Council.

Murdock, thank you for confirming my suspicions of you. Did you even wear a Boy Scout uniform? Not likely, as they value honesty and integrity, values you know little about.

History1:

I already have. You have to read what I've posted and the articles I've linked to - and you have to apply some critical thinking. Not a high priority for the guys who 'educated' you, I guess. If you were so sure of yourself my friend, I’d suggest you wouldn’t keep coming back here like this. There is a small voice in the back of your mind that’s beginning to understand what a cock-up this mission is turning into. Just look at all the facile garbage the PR folks from Ottawa are spinning out to the media every day. You don’t need that kind of PR shuffle if you have the truth on your side.

You've been told you are making a difference on a scale that has repercussions for the whole country. I've posted numerous articles from people who know the situation on the ground and aren't reporting from an apartment in Kabul. Information that shows very clearly things are getting worse by the day.

You are not making a difference on anything but a pathetic local level – 2500 troops just aren’t up to the job, you can’t speak the language, you don’t understand the culture and the economy is a shambles – in short the mission is failing. Your leaders and your government and the gullible people here in Canada who think a decal on their car and a red scarf or sweater make anyone but themselves 'feel' better are treating brave Canadian soldiers with exactly the same disdain that Arthur Currie had for rules and trust accounts when he wanted uniforms for the Victoria militia.

And on top of it, you have to put up with the ignorance of a cheerleader like Don Cherry.

That's what I believe and all the posts from amnesty international about how awful a theocratic state is won't change my mind. Especially since I'm beginning to fear that Stephen Harper is intent upon creating the same thing here in a country I love and believe in. Get with the program History1, let the scales fall from your eyes. There is no longer any excuse for remaining ignorant.

Um, G West, you have not provided one shred of proof, not one... Just a bunch of articles which you clearly do NOT understand. You are dishonest to represent this as proof.

I am not the one who has repeatedly been lied to, you are. I am not the one who has scales on my eyes, you are. I am not the one who is ignorant, you are.

Ask yourself this. Why is it there is only ONE Afghan Canadian organisation that regularly comes out to your peace protests when the sole question is Afghanistan? Why is that? I wonder this whenever I take a look at the speakers and the associates for these events...

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=5&t=002158

Am I missing anything aside from the lack of Afghan community participation? You would think that with such an issue, that if people I would call friends in the Afghan community would not speak out against the mission then someone in the community would speak out, right? Only one organisation heard to date... RAWA.

If you want to know what I am talking about, feel free to put your convictions wher eyour mouth is. Volunteer with ICRC, or MSF (which may in the future return to Afghanistan), or even the UNHCR. Strange how they are not saying the same things you are... I mean ICRC is right there in Afghanistan, you would think you could find something from them that could support your idiotic claims... Or perhaps even Amnesty International (no friend of the military anywhere).

I'm sorry, History1, you're wasting my time. The evidence that the mission to democratize Afghanistan and bring economic well-being to the people is in the material I posted. The evidence that the people don't trust westerners is there too. They don't like women telling them how to run their lives; they live in a theocratic state and we're trying to help them turn it into Canada. The Afghans who want to be Canadians will come here to live - if Harper will let them in.

I'm quite sure that Afghan Canadians are very supportive of your efforts; it may surprise you, but I am too.

I think you and your comrades are noble, brave, hard working and dedicated but all that doesn't mean a damn thing if you are set about a fool's errand.

You don't have the men, you don't have the expertise, you don't have the equipment and you don't know the language. You are strangers in a strange land. The mission could have been different if the US and its allies hadn't decided to chew off Iraq too.

But they didn't George Bush had to prove he was a man and take down Saddam Hussein too.

They walked away. They disrespected the traditions of the land and its people and pretended that all there was to rebuilding a country was a bit of seed money, a kiss and a promise.

They, as the west has done time and time again, had other priorities. What you don't get is that no matter what your friends tell you from in country, it isn't going to matter in the end.

I'm sorry to have to say this because I think you're a good person with honour and decent ideals; but, it simply isn't enough...you've been sent on a fool's errand by people who don't care.

This is not about reconstruction, rebuilding and the welfare of the Afghan people, it's about brownie points in an international poker game. Sorry. Those are all just words and if the political winds change the words will fade into silence very quickly.

What idiotic claims have I made, by the way? I’ve been a supporter of and a letter-writer for Amnesty International for years, by the way.

Bucky posted:

There were no 'troops' fighting against the Taliban when the US invaded. The northern alliance, was a collection of drug-lords and made an 'alliance' of convenience, since the CIA was likely to be incapable of stopping a full-scale return to opium production they (the *northern alliance*) wanted to see the Taliban gone.

well, yes, 'however' it is still *under construction*.

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

Since it is being built so that it can perform functions *in support* of the other nations in Afghanistan (very similar to the "Vietnamization") it, the ANA will be totally outclassed by the Taliban and their 'from the ground up' approach to control of the situation. The ANA will be unable to do much without the heavy air-ground support that is coming from US/UK sources now. Two or three years after NATO leaves the ANA will be popped like a zit in Khabul.

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/VNvietnamization.htm

http://www.studyworld.com/Vietnamization.htm

http://www.military.com/NewContent/0,13190,SS_092205_Drawdown.html

Exactly why I have pointed out that a Dien Bien Phu re-enactment society will come into being for a few days around the airbase in Kandehar.

I totally agree with this sentiment, as this is they 'way' that Pakistan has come to terms with their northern tribal lands.

Sadly, they will be tricked into thinking they can 'do it', then we will leave, then the real dieing will begin.

Oh and for those whom believe that NATO is in Afghanistan for the 'duration' the calls to retreat started long ago, and those whom openly discussed these issues have since either been censured or resigned in disgust, making you wonder about the quality of those whom remain 'in charge'.

http://news.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=2402732005

I wonder about the quality of those that would leave Afghans to the likes of the Taliban, knowing full well what they have done in the past, what they are doing now, and what they will do in the future.

We have to try. Not to do so is a betrayal of humanity. A betray of the Afghan people, and a betrayal of our own qualities as Canadians.

It's not your neck on the line Murdock. Not that you would ever put your neck on the line to help anyone.

History1
I suggest you watch the National on CBC TV tonight. They're saying about Afghanistan exactly the same things I've been trying to tell you for weeks now. As has Murdock.

This is no betrayal, this is insanity. Canadians look like upbeat idiots crowing about their achievements in building a few dozen patches of road a few kilometres from villages where children are dying of starvation. What Canadian qualities are those?

Enjoy your Tim Horton's coffee and doughnuts...there are children starving while you guys play soldier. Are those the 'qualities' you're talking about?

Perhaps you prefer the Kevin Newman Global version of the news!

I do agree with the tone of the article that Canada can do more in regards to aid. I disagree with her opinion of Harper’s trip, no other PM has gone there and he also has to listen to his security team who would vet any trips outside of the base. His main goal was to show the troops over there that they mattered and that goal was achieved.

Regarding poppies and drug lords. Kind of the pot calling the kettle black. We here in BC have done such an outstanding job of eradicating our pot business and organized crime, can comment on how poor the Afghans have been at reducing their dependency on the drug trade. Of course we in the west could solve the problem by boycotting illegal drugs.

As I said before, The government should make it the law that all poppies (and their sap) are sold to the government, they are bought at the market price, the West will have to bankroll this. Most of it is destroyed, but some is allowed to mature into a usable form for making pharmaceuticals, (apparently the time to take the sap for heroin is slightly before the sap is better for making legal drugs) This allows Afghanistan to start an industry that benefits their economy and allows for cheaper drugs incountry. Harvesting the poppies will also allow for the hiring of labourers. After 2 harvests, order the poppy growers to plant 10% food crops, pay the difference, after a couple of years increase the amount of food crops. This gives a chance for the infrastructure to handle, move, store and sell food to develop again. Slowly decrease the subsidy for the poppies and increase the enforcement. This approach will give the government time to establish itself, remove much of the cash flow from the warlords and Taliban. It would likely be cheaper than dealing with the drugs once they arrive here.

Keep in mind that Canada has less troops in Afghanistan, then Toronto has police.

Don’t have the time to read all of the post, but Murdock I still think your comparisons of the French defeat in Vietnam are completely baseless. I see the concerns that active soldiers are talking about over there, they have to major issues, one being the corruption and poor quality of the ANP and two is stabbed in the back by politicians and the media back in Canada.

Alcibiades

The comment about Tim Horton’s is a low blow and not something you normally sink to. The soldiers there do what they can to help and those kids would be starving regardless of whether ours guys had a Timmes coffee or not. You sit here in comfort and do little to make a difference for those same kids. I think you should reflect on your comment.

Colin,
After what you posted about your dedication to the principles of justice on the hang em high thread I don't think so Colin. My dad served 4 1/2 years overseas in WWII. A lot of the time the quartermaster corps was selling the troops best food to the highest bidder on the black market. No 6 month tours either. Tim Horton's be damned. I thought they were supposed to be there doing the Lord's work?

Phony, to the core. If they don't like being soldiers do something else. I don't want them there ruining my country's reputation in aid of American hegemony anyway.

No other PM has ever gone where Colin? TO Afghanistan. You're completely wrong. I'm no defender of Jean Chretien but you need to check your facts on that one too.

Alcibiades, speaking of facts, the road construction that you bemoan, perhaps you can explain to all here how NGOs are supposed to get around to provide the aid they are trying to provide? How anyone is supposed to move the heavey material around necessary for rebuilding houses and mosques? Moving the thousands of tons of food?

Let me guess, you have developed a teleporter.

Reality on the ground, especially logistics, apparently is not your strong suit. Perhaps you are more at home discussing science fiction.

And I really prefer that smug critter like you do not ruin this country's reputation by uttering such utter non-sense as you choose to utter here. Feel free to move out.

Alcbiades
You are right, I totally forgot about Chretien, I guess I am trying to burn the memory of that man from my brain. He certainly knew how to fit in!

http://www.canada-afghanistan.gc.ca/pm_visit_afghan-en.asp

As for the hanging of Saddam I corrected your interpretation of my post in that thread.

I am unclear what your dad's WWII stories have to do with the slag of Canadian soldiers that you threw out, nor your attempt to paint them as religious missionaries. Are you attempting to claim that the military is exactly the same as it was 60+ years ago? I can assure you that it is significantly different then the one I served in during the 70-80’s,

I normally take time to read your posts as they generally stick to a point, but the slag and your rebuttal are far beneath your normal standards.

Good grief, I missed that completely irrelavant religious jab.

It's irrelevant, as we are an institution which encompasses all of Canada's society. Not just the WASP image that some ignorants have.

The changes in even the past 15 yrs have been rapid, and accepted for the most part within the CF. It's for the caveat that we have the CFAO's re written, and the QR&O's backing them.

Are there neanderthals and holdouts in the CF? Sure... Just as they exsist in every single group in this country.

I agree. Start feeding the children and stop shooting up the countryside.

Those kids are starving and you sure as hell don't need roads to save them. You need food, and medicine and their parents need jobs and a better life. What have we done for them - so far, not much.

What personnel do we have south of Kandahar, History1? A 2000 odd member battle group.

How many of those folks are feeding starving kids?

And, where was Canada prior to 2001? The situation in Afghanistan didn't suddenly develop on Sept 11, or do you think it did?

Tim Horton, Don Cherry and Rick Hillier - great leadership.

Their idea of hardship is not being able to use the internet in barracks.

Spend November/December 1943 on the Moro River and Christmas in Ortona and then tell me about the hardships of this Canadian army.

The Senlis Council has written much about the events in Afghanistan, and I have said nothing to refute their observations.

In particular:

(A) Following the US Military approach -

and

(B) Following their current mandate, Candadian soldiers have as yet been unable to win the hearts and minds of the local population: their dominatly military intervention has resulted in siginifican civilian deaths and local discontent.

http://www.senliscouncil.com/documents/Canadian_Policy_Paper_October_2006

AND, just in case some thought I was alone in the observation of:

http://www.senliscouncil.com/documents/Kandahar_Report_June_2006

BOTH ARE FROM THE SENLIS COUNCIL.

Mark my words:
100% Casualties

Colin
You deny there's a certain missionary zeal in the public pronouncements of today's Canadian Forces? If we weren’t so convinced of our own righteousness would be so hasty to call a system we know little or nothing about primitive barbarism?

I think we are hypocrites in the extreme.

C'mon, watch the news on TV, open a paper…you’ll see what I mean. Listen to the crap that comes out of the mouths of the reporters seconded to the troops. Killing is a nasty brutal bloody business and anyone who tried to dress it up in fancy red clothes is a liar and a fraud.

You must be joking. What is so pathetic about it is the idea that you can be busy killing people for God and the Canadian way of life. It's crap and you know it. Most soldiers couldn't care less about it but they eat it up on the home front, that's for sure. Killing is a nasty business and Hillier has the single advantage of not being smart enough to know when he's telling the real truth about what he's up to.

I heard him interviewed the other day and he was speechless when asked about the activities of our warlord allies. He's not so direct when he describes what they're up to.

We should get out of southern Afghanistan. The Taliban were the ones who eradicated Opium production, and helped people with alternatives. It was the US that let opium procuction skyrocket. Now they are sabotaging our troops by working their hypocritical drug war in the area.

This mess was created by US intervention. We are not their canon fodder. Let them sort it out or get out. We should be continuing to assist in the capitol or other areas that are already under Afghan government control, if anything.

We should get out of Afghanistan now. We should also get out of NATO if they continue to bomb civilians and use depleted uranium weapons. We need to negotiate mutual defence treaties one on one with nations that have nuclear weapons, like France and Britain. That is all the US seems to respect, and they are our biggest security threat, if we ever had the balls to stand up to them.

Mark my words. We leave Afghanistan now, the war will be here, in Canada beofre long. Wish I was wrong. I would love to be wrong. And I most certainly not gloat when I am proven right.

I am going to say something shocking now. But to preface, the Islamic faith numbers over a billion strong. Muslims as a whole are good peaceful people, no different then any other moderate of any faith anywhere.

This is a religious war, but we, the Canadians, are not the ones perpetuating the religious aspect. It is the Taliban and others. They will not stay home if we just pick up and leave... That is not the way the particular brand of Islam (that the blessed minority) preech.

Have you ever met a religous zealot? I have. I would feel safer locked in a dark room with an armed serial killer (I am talking about a Christian zealot in this case).

If this was just aboput land, then I would agree. However, every Afghan I have talked to about the situation has said the same thing. The Taliban are not good people, and they are not to be trusted. The Taliban willingly got into bed with AQ, knowing full well that bin Laden is all about waging a Jihad, not on governments, but on the citizens of the western world, without regard for who he intends to kill (man, woman, or child).

These are the people you would give Afganistan to. Afghanistan would become a country fueled by hatred, Madrass (SP) and founded by poppies (ahh yes, the much told lie about the Taliban eliminating the poppies... A bunch of hillbillies somehow destroyed a multi-billion dollar a year industry in a single year. Not the street price during that period went sky high... meaning profits didn't drop, but crime went waaaay up).

Again, I would love to be wrong on this. But anyone who listens to Afghans, and pays attention to history, understands that what I have painted above is the positive possibility (as I haven't even discussed what this would cost in lives).

There is a debate on this subject going on right now (7 Nov 2020hrs '06):

http://davidakin.blogware.com/blog

David Akin is bloging it right to the web as I type this.

Stephen Fisher-Bradley

yes, our American Cousins were the ones that went into Afghanistan, presumably to hunt for Osama bin Laden (still have not found him?). Then once in there, they made sure to drag some 'allies' in with them, the US moved-on into Iraq (the real target of the action in the New American Century).

You propose a pull-back towards Khabul, well like the one here whom will quote much of history to you, such a move will only embolden the Taliban and their Pakistani support base. The retreat will just take longer, it may 'mollify' the casualty count that is all.

As I have pointed out above, falling back with the NATO allies towards Khabul will probably seal the Canadian troops fate as the 'rear' guard.

Great idea, now may I politely ask you;

"How do you propose we get out?"

Another great idea, what political will do you think the major parties in Canada have to follow such a plan of action?

True, too true.

Your view may be adjusted if you look at Canada today as the parallel to Gaul of the 3rd Century. With the USA substituted for ROME...

Getting 'away' from our connection to the Pax Americana may not be so simple.

History1
You phony. Not very far up this thread you jumped on me for suggesting there was a religious or faith element to your madness.

Thanks for proving it. I hope Colin catches it too.

I hope that 'bunch of hillbillies' - you really do respect their differences don't you - doesn't hand too many more CF young people their ass.

Nice to see your true colours actually come out.

I do not refer to Afghans that way. I refer to the Taliban that way. To me, there is a huge difference. Please, don;t let your ignorance colour your deluded opinions.

The is nothing to respect about the Taliban.

Where is athe CF religious component? Of yea, we opened some Shuras with Islamic prayer, which is certainly not the deluded crap you are peddling.

There is a huge difference between the fight we would fight, and the one the enemy would visit on you.

Alcibiades posted:

Hope, on a wing and a prayer, is all that the Canadian military contingent in Afghanistan has left now...not surprising that our history challenged one here cannot formulate any sort of cogent argument, he(?) represents the confused, frightened and totally mis-led element of the CF that commanders like Hillier need to stand the 'thin red line' and die so that the 'aims' of the mission can be mapped out.

still the same sad result is all I can see:
100 % Casualties

And Murdock still mis-representing. Missing the mark is a theme of your that you like to continually drum, like some mad snar drummer.

You are so owned History1. After that utter nonsense about fight 'em there or be prepared to fight 'em here and you don't see the missionary zeal in your attitude.

You're nothing but a hopped up 21st century colonial crusader man. Get over it.

Remember the domino theory. I suppose the dark skinned ones are going to force us all to adopt Sharia law next. Wake up, you're dreaming. They want you out of their home - except for the few poor souls who buy your lies.

We'd feel the same way if a bunch of Americans were carrying guns on our steets and telling us how to live and when to stop and go.

FIRST LESSON IN WAR - RESPECT YOUR ENEMY. Calling them hillbillies sure doesn’t sound very respectful to me.

You are a waste of time History1. I hope, if you do go to Afghanistan, you don't end up being history yourself.

BYE.

If the Germans, in the last war, had had half the total manpower of their opponents combined and an equal compliment of German equipment, spare parts and petrol to man and consume, the end of WWII would have been very different. We won, but not because we were better - just because we had so many more men and so much more equipment and supplies.

These Hillbillies may very well show you and your comrades a lesson you’d rather not learn. I hope not, but the chances of it turning out that way in the next 4 – 6 months are very probable.

Without help, you may be asking the hillbillies for a way to go home.

G West,

Now I shall accept that beer.

The typos and frustration obviously showing from 0=History clearly demonstrates to me that the score is:

Game, Set, Match.

Game = Afghanistan is somehow 'winnable'? from a historical perspective, unless we are going to do what the Mongols did to Kwarizam then this situation is not winnable.

Set = Time after time I have presented cogent points of view, supported by well written and researched articles by authors from all over the western world, and a few from south Asia. My opponent has only said that my information was totally wrong, without a shred of evidence in support of his claims.

(in my one recognized error of language, confusing Farsi with Hindi; even after recognizing it my opponent in logic continued to use the comparison - as though it was the only moral support he could muster in the situation)

Match = Given the inability to counter every argument I have shown, even responding to the piece here with Senlis Council materials, that supported my observations from the start; the opposition is reduced to a grade 3 response in name calling, or the 'adult' equivalents; things like accusing me of sedition or warning that 'operational security' might be compromised by what I was writing here.

Statements like these only confirm that I am hitting my target 'dead center'.

GAME - SET - MATCH

Oh and G, I'd like a V-8, rather than a 'beer' thanks (I have shed those 'demons' - *wink wink to History1* - long ago).

I think also that my oft repeated claim of 100% Casualties has begun to hit home.

Maybe I have done some sedition after all...

Cheers

Just thought I'd drop in to let you know the Dems have taken the house and may well carry the senate too.

Iraq is going to be history a lot sooner than later.

Young people are voting in droves and the Democrats are gaining in the governor races too.

Not good news for Afghan adventures.

V8 it is my friend. Send me an email sometime if you made a note of my address.

Cheers, truly. I'm enjoying JTG btw.

for G West:

JTG?

and I noted the email before (you sent it out to others...)

Cheers

JTG, ah yes, GATTO.

Got it.

Owned, by you morons? You are blind, and you are tools of people who would kill you. Your infantile clinging to ideals which the enemy do not share, and your utter ignorance of the subject at hand are very telling of your "care" for any Afghans.

Your stamping of feet, and infantile temper tantrums on the occasions were I proved you absolutly wrong, and now your complete ignoring of it, show the strength of your convictions.

Morons, tools... Hoepfully not victims... Scratch that. You would bring this here, and so I scincerely hope, that if fighting starts here in Canada, you morons are the first victims.

Who exactly is calling people names and stamping their feet?

Could we at least have a little honesty on that score?

Perhaps not.

Honesty... That would be nice for a change.

Yes it would. Be nice, that is.

This is respectful, honest, not tantamount to a temper tantrum? It is you, history1 that I'm writing about...the case is actually crystal clear…..

Your words:

As to what you've proved, I'm sorry, it amounts to nothing except the fact that you have a seemingly blind conviction in the lies that others taught you.

Perhaps you prefer the Kevin Newman Global version of the news!

Now, what is the word I am looking for? Oh ya... Hypocrite.

Just because you village idiots choose to just slander soldiers in general, you think I am just gonna take it on the chin? Sorry, I aint your patsy. If ya can;t take it... Stop dishing it.

Murdock, I did counter you, and knock you clear out of the park on the basis, that:

a. You haven't got a clue on the ethnic groups prevelant in Afghanistan as evidenced by your lack of the languages spoke. Yes, you can get by in Farsi in some areas, but not where we are.

b. You haven't got a clue about what nations have forces in Afghanistan as evidenced by your claim that the Indian army might have to "rescue" me.

c. You haven't got a clue about current detainee handling drills, as evidenced by your claim that we are handing them over to the Americans.

You have not demonstrated, or even began to demonstrate why the mission is wrong. You have voiced opinion, fine, and then you decided you would slide straight into slander country, thinking you got the moral high ground.

You do not have the moral high ground. You would hand Afghans over to killers, who would rape and pillage that country, and once again provide safe harbour for terrorists to train, and prepare for attacks. You are a truely despicable human being.

When you see suffering in someone's eyes, up close and person... The kind of suffering only a war could generate, then maybe you would have a clue. But you do not have the parts to actually do something to make a difference. Mr Armchair General Sir!

Maybe if instead of getting fat in hotel rooms, you actually did something while the rest of us were on the ground in BiH, you would have a different view point... But then, that implies you were in the forces, when we both know you never spent day one in uniform.

Are you suggesting that the image of Canadian soldiers drinking TIM HORTON'S coffee and enjoying their doughnuts and timbits is not one of the predominant images of the modern Canadian soldier in Afghanistan?

Because if you are, sir, you are a liar and a cad.

Are you suggesting that children are not dying of starvation bare kilometres from the construction of the roads you are so dedicatedly working on? - Because the Senlis Council, whose representatives in Afghanistan have been in country much longer than any Canadian soldier has been disagree with you. Even your erstwhile leader, General Hillier, admitted the self-same thing in an interview on CBC radio last week.

Those statements are matters of fact, not opinion. Uncomfortable, but true.

We now find that it will cost a minimum of 186 million dollars to bring a small contingent of aging leopard tanks into your zone of operations and that the cost for your failing project is already in excess of $2 billion dollars - not, I'd wager, including the almost $200 million bill for tank cartage.

DO you have a point?

Alcibiades,

regarding 0=History:

The point he(?) has oft made is that the Canadian forces in the region are helping to keep some few Afghans from the clutches of the Taliban.

The other materials; such as:

a) the ethnicity of the groups, are irrelevant, since many of them see us Canadians as being just like the Americans or even Soviets - thier identity is irrelevant anyway since we, Canada are behaving just like Soviets, soldiers running about building things that will not feed anyone and are of such poor quality that they fall apart after the next earthquake (which come as often as rain showers in North Vancouver).

b) the one whom has no clue of history, will then tell you that because you have not met every nations soldier whom are acting in the region that you cannot look into a dark future...one that includes a very precipitous retreat to Khabul under difficult circumstances ~ made more so since their air-support will be 'busy' elsewhere. Canada has many 'liaison officers' working with the Indian Defence Ministry, I know that just such contingency plans are on the drawing board...not Indian ARMY coming to the rescue, Indian AIR FORCE, since seeing Pakistan embarassed in failing to massacre the NATO troops would do India well.

c) lastly, the history of the US prisoner handling has revealed that they participate in outsourcing the interrogation of at least one detainee...from New York to Syria. Given that performance I find no evidence that the prisoners taken from CF hands in Afghanistan are treated any better in US-led prisons in Afghanistan, or perhaps they are merely 'transferred' to other hands to do the outsourced interrogations?

Alcibiades ~ it makes not one bit of difference to 0=History that all he(?) is doing is making more enemies for Canada, doubly so since we, in Canada, do not have the will to fight the kind of fight that he(?), and those of his ilk, would have us do...

http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/ARTICLES/onon.htm

Alcibiades,

next you will be accused of:

even though you have already agreed with my proposal:

and

which are statments that make sense!

even to Coyote!

LOL

Good god. I can not get over the absolute stupidity.

Alcibiades, I noticed you failed to comment on the road reconstruction. Oh, I know... It's just there to get more Tim's in eh? OXFAM, et al fly flood in by way of hot air ballons, and don;t need roads. You are a moron.

Murdock, I would strongly suggest that if you think it is such a good idea, that you and Taliban Jack hop a plane, and go to Afghanista, move in to any village in the area of Kandhar... Let's see how long before you come back. (Wasting my breath, you don;t have the parts). I would also suggest that if you are going to sell youself as some sort of expert (which you plainly are not) on military affairs, that you hit the books, because son... You haven't even hit paper yet, let alone scored any points.

I stand by my point, that many thousands of Afghans will die at the hands of the Taliban if we leave prematurely... And the worst part is, hypocrites like you turds, would blame us yet again.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/world/asia/09afghan.html?ei=5088&en=c47d111088f2fb3e&ex=1320728400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1163050771-EIGpcQWWzYCU7WlQNdByhg

Interesting read. Seems to reinforce what I am saying... But I know you critters will find a way to twist and turn.

By the way... Isn't a 44% approval rating better then the current government Canada has? Especially taking into account the 29% with mixed feelings.

Now a critical look at the SENLIS COUNCIL report from October 2006:

This puts the lie of the 'plan' working to date.

Moreover I have not heard of any new discussions in NATO halls of power in Brussels. Nor are any likely going to be held, as NATO nations ~ France & Germany ~ want nothing more to do with or about Afghanistan. Chatting about it in NATO circles, expending more hot air, is all that will result from following this course.

I suppose the leopard tanks can carry the food aid out?

So far the CONformers are not displaying any intentions of this sort, nor do they have the political backing of their 'base' to do this sort of thing...kind of explains why they ignored the report presenters, while the opposition parties 'lapped it up'.

http://www.senliscouncil.com/documents/Canadian_Policy_Paper_October_2006

First off, and thank god for this, you are not privy to the information you are demanding, and if you ever spent day one in the CF, you know this, AND you know why. So knowing this, why is it you choose to shoot your mouth off like in such an ignorant matter?

Secondly, you have heard of a PRT. I know it, because you posted a link... It's too god damned bad you choose NOT to read the link. The PRT's primary finction is not warfare, which is why a battle group was moved down to protect it. I have friends mixed up right now in the whole reconstruction mess, and your ignorant little lies are not going to change the fact, that we are rebuilding, while under fire (something NGOs can not do).

I pray to what ever god that morons like you never get power. You half wits would sell the Afghans into murder and slavery, and us down the river.

continuing the SENLIS review:

I think something like this has started...Tim Hortons certainly has been 'empowered' by the Canadian Government!

Some small items have been organized, things like child shoe-boxes with pens & pencils, dolls for girls and cards for the boys (ya thats it get em hooked on Barbie and Pokemon!). While these are great for 'feel good' items to win 'hearts and minds' at home in Canada, it will not solve the real problem of starvation (a real threat this coming winter). The wheat board could do something, but the problem of getting it there into Afghanistan still exists...

This total lack of accurate intel makes doing ANYTHING of a military nature COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE.

If any one item stands out as a major reason for standing down from military actions and working more diligently on a better, more constructive position and set of actions (something that a military force cannot ever do since destruction is the only operations that they are trained for). It is this: by taking ill-informed or badly-led military actions; we, CANADA, are making enemies in the region. These enemies will have only one group to turn to for succor : the TALIBAN.

By taking military action the way it is being done now; we are fueling the insurgency and developing a more vicious civil war fighting force in the future, nothing more.

~ Jaap de Hoop Scheffer
NATO Secretary General
2004

NATO member nations are already backing away from the commitments, most notably the US, with thier pull-out of troops for Iraq, then capping of aid monies, further exacerbated by using sub-sub-sub-contractors of very poor quality for the work done.

The credibility of NATO was on the line as the Soviet Bloc fell apart, given that it was EU monitors in Kosovo (in white helmets flying EU flags from their vehicles not UN or NATO) I say that NATO has been untrustworthy for a decade or more now...

http://www.senliscouncil.com/documents/Canadian_Policy_Paper_October_2006

lastly

This is like some facile attempt to reconstruct the 'peace corps' of a generation ago.

I know of NO PROFESSIONALS that are interested in travelling to the Afghan region under any pretext that are not already under contract by such military or para-military organizations as Haliburton or Blackwater.

This leaves finding Afghans willing to come here to learn, then hopefully take back that knowledge to apply.

This might be a good way to start since the real solution to the quagmire lies in someone, anyone, we can have some social, emotional connection with - THAT LIVES OUTSIDE THE REGION = AND = is willing TO MOVE INTO THE REGION TO LIVE THERE!

Maybe we should fly out a few thousand promising locals on our way out, give them the needed training, etc; then once the next civil war is over ~ re-insert them back into the country?

Not likely to work, since by the time the return would come it would be tantamount to a death sentence, so the 'trained' would begin claiming refugee status so as to not be sent back.

The June SENLIS REPORT contains this damning statement:

mark my words:
100% Casualties

if you know of someone whom is thinking of 'signing on the dotted line' and joining the military, please have them read these two documents

http://www.senliscouncil.com/documents/Kandahar_Report_June_2006

http://www.senliscouncil.com/documents/Canadian_Policy_Paper_October_2006

This is a foolish choice of an article to support any claim that the 'mission' is doing well:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/09/world/asia/09afghan.html?ei=5088&en=c47d111088f2fb3e&ex=1320728400&adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1163050771-EIGpcQWWzYCU7WlQNdByhg

this is the title!

and

This is like taking a poll in the Toronto, Ottawa, Montreal corridor and saying that it reflects the mood in St. Johns or Vancouver!

History1:

Your words:

These are all the things you have written, not me. Have I called you any names? Expressed toward you anything but sympathy for your plight?
Failed to acknowledge that it COULD have been different?

I think not.

The penury of your argument and the desperation of your plight disarm you, my friend. Your wits fail you and when you are confused and confronted with an impossible situation and a stretch of logic your enthusiasm and dogmatic belief cannot bridge you resort to calling me names. Assaulting your interlocutor is not a very satisfying way to do anything except underline the weakness of your case.

If you can't make it with facts and reason you seem little constrained to use tactics more appropriate to the playground than the academy. And that’s too bad, altogether. But not my fault at all. Your words, again, condemn only you.

Alcibiades, offended by being called a moron? How about oxygen thief?

I have no respect, zero, for anyone who would willingling give Afghans back to the Taliban like you pukes would. I(f it happens, do not be a dirt bag hypocrite, and go move to Afghanistan.

Snivling no nothing dirt bags. You want me to think differently then that? Fine, go read up on the history of Afghanistan, go meet with some Afghans. Two white socialist pigs, sitting at home in complete safety are not going to change my mind.

History1:
And I thought you said the military had changed?

More names. You should read Paul Fussell’s Wartime: Understanding and Behavior in the Second World War, he has a whole chapter on the fine art of military ‘typecasting’.

It is boringly typical of someone who can't make a logical case to resort to the exact same sort of ad hominen tactics you say characterize the people who are your alleged opponents in Afghanistan.

You appear to have little enough mind to change. Well-taught by your superiors, I guess, you have lost the power of critical thought, logical analysis and civil discourse. What would one expect from an army composed of individuals schooled in debate by Lt. General Rick Hillier? My friend nightbloom says that Andrew Leslie is made of more well-alloyed metal, but we shall see.

I could not possibly care less what you think. You, my friend, are a complete waste of time.

No ill will though. If you really are a soldier and you do end up in Afghanistan, I hope you don't come home in a box.

Alcibiades,

Yes the quality of thought coming from the trenchmouth of General "Scumbags" Hillier is something of a demonstration of the quality of officer that has remained within the Canadian Military establishment. Given what he, Hillier, has presented publically I can only imagine how 'pleasant' he is in private. While some soldiers may approve of this approach, it speaks to the overall nature of our military when the top soldier has such wonderful command of the language.

At one time, we had such soldeir-generals as MacKenzie ~ whom were more humble and understood their position did not mean that they did not need to put their boots on one foot at a time.

Now, after 20 years of treating the officers like trash, poorly paying the rank and file, and limiting new equipment purchase so completely that the aircraft are 'literally' falling out of the sky (Sea Kings), the ships were rusting completely through (Restigouche had a different nickname that was accurate), and allowing vital parts of a mechanized land force to reach the point that it makes no sense to take them to the combat zoens, since there are no parts to keep them functioning (the 'tank' at the gates in Kandehar ~ does not drive ~ it is a 'turret' only!). I know of a friend whom has loaned his old WWII Ferret to the region, and it is getting better use!

I need not guess, as I know that such things as critical thinking (beyond the limits of the 'mission' of the moment) is drilled out from the minds of the rank and file.

Your interlocutor has already admitted TQ3/4 as his highest achievement (along with a medal for 10 years of undetected crime), which would put him in the ranks of Sergeant to Warrant Officer. This puts him in charge of a modest body of young men.

Sadly, since his position means he must follow, he cannot do more to safeguard the lives of the men under his command than plead with his betters for more flank and rear support.

Neither of which are coming;

"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," he said.

~ Lord Guthrie, a former Chief of the (UK) General Staff

nor can Canada's Hillier or Harper do any better...

for anyone else reading this discourse, please point it out to any young persons you know of that are considering a suicidal career in the current military.

Alcibiades

I won’t deny that Hiller is enthusiastic at his job and believes in what he is doing, makes a change from the politically animals that slithered in that position previously.

Reading posts from soldiers who have served there, are there or recovering from wounds, they take fighting and killing seriously and most have grudging respect for their opponents. I don’t know of any soldier I have met that is “killing for Christ”, but certainly the Taliban are happy to “kill for Allah” The troops also believe in what they are doing out there and some who are on their 2nd tour have seen slow improvements. They are equally frustrated with the slow pace of reconstruction because they know better than the rest of us that the key to winning in the long run lays there.

The Toronto star ran an article yesterday on the funding of a program which allows US commanders on the ground to pay for small projects, this program has been a big success for the US and bypasses the corruption and bureaucracy. It is a program that our guys would like to have increased also.

I did not see the interview, but I suspect that “speechlessness” was caused by trying to answer a difficult and complex question.

Of course we could institute the draft, build up the army to 50,000+ combat troops and take over, kill the warlords and impose order on them, otherwise you have to work with what you have.

By the way the photo’s of soldiers drinking coffee and eating doughnuts is more to do with the press looking for a “feel good story”

History 1 is mistaken in that the Taliban are not “Hillbillies” the original ones were refuge students from Pakistani based Madrass’s. funded by the ISI and filled with a extreme radical fundamentalism that would likely make a Wahhabi blush. Hillbillies would better describe the village fighters who fought the soviets in the 80’s and are either dead or in their 50-60’s now.

Stephan
What exactly do you mean by “the Taliban helped them with alternatives” the only option for people dealing with the Taliban was to obey or suffer drastic consequence. If the Taliban offer such a great alternatives why do they attack schools, clinc, teachers and aid agencies?

Murdock
Quick point, the Ferret was introduced after WWII to replace the Daimler and Humber Scout cars.

I still not clear how you withdraw from combat operations when your opponents are still in the field and are specifically targeting the reconstruction project? Are you saying the Canadians should only respond to direct attacks on themselves and sit back and watch while the Taliban attack the ANA & ANP? Since the Taliban have never agreed to any form of peacekeeping force, what would be your mechanisms for dealing with disputes?

Colin:
history1 is mistaken about almost everything. The Tim Horton thing is obviously good PR ... better than the CF is getting from their female press officers who might as well be reporting from a Wal-Mart in Saudi Arabia….I should also have mentioned the hockey night in Canada embarrassment too of course.

Hillier wasn't speechless, just very ineffective at answering a difficult question. He tried to give the impression that he was following Karzai's orders; which, I suppose, is better than having pee wee for a boss.

Alcibiades, there are many things I am not mistaken on. One of them being you are an idealistic moron who would give Afghans back to the Taliban to be murdered by the thousands (this is the crux of the hatred I feel towards you... I can not stand by and watch a mugging... Apparently, not only would you not intervene or call the cops, but you would try to stop the cops from using force to stop the mugging). Alcibiades, you are a clueless half wit, how would do well to at elast do some rudimentary study on the subject to which you speak... And I do mean stepping away, and looking at more then the pictures, and reading the by-line... I know, some of the words are big, but you will just have to learn to use a dictionary.

Murdock, you have once again shown your complete ignorance on things military. TQ2/3 are the basic courses. If that is all I had, then I would be a Cpl, max (I am not). I could have CFR'd by now). Fact is, I have completed another 7 courses that are trade specific to the infantry, and several other non-trade specific. Three trips to BiH is were I got the bulk of my OJT, and nothing opens your eyes to reality like the suffering of others, and nothing feels better then stepping in and helping them out of that suffering. I have done everything from perform trauma first on civilians (construction accident), to rebuilding schools, and marking minefields (not an engineer, so I mark em as I find them, and let the engineers take it fromt here).

The most touching moments, which cemented my current views, are the ones holding a sobbing grown man, who is happy to be alive... Seeing children go to school unmolested, and knowing in all this, that their are guns trained on me, waiting for me to mess up, so they could kill the ones I am watching. How yould your suggestions work in Medac Pocket Murdock? How many Canadians would you have seen killed there to satisfy your view of rightousness? If a pre-emptive strike had of been allowed, knowing full well it would have spared hundreds of innocent lives, and thousands from suffering, would you have allowed it then? Or were the lives of the Croatian soldiers that important to you?

Historically speaking, the Taliban have engaged in ethnic cleansing, religious persecution, torture, murder for the slightest offence, extreme sexism (up to and including murder), intellectual slavery. There is not a single Afghan I have met that wants that back. The poll I linked, there is little support for the Taliban there. No one but you wants the Taliban back in Afghanistan. Your complete disregard for the lives of Afghans is nauseating, and I see you as being now better then the "socialists" who broght Stalin into power, or Hitler, or Pol Pot.

On that last note. Sat I will not remember me fallen comrades, as I remember them everyday. Sat I will remember the 110 million human lives extinguished in the name of communism. Next time you wear your sickle and hammer shirt, remember that symbol is responsible for more death and destruction then the US of A's meddling, WW1, WW2, and the current war on terror combined.

More name-calling. You really do have quite a potty mouth - obviously a product of our seriously flawed barracks education system.

You should be a social worker, not a soldier. Even Colin, your ostensible ally in this bun fight, sees the holes in your prejudicial, even racist, attitudes toward your opponents.

I've actually seen the totals compared and taken as a whole right wing extremists are every bit a match for the left-wing ones. You really do need to actually read some real history. You might, for example, investigate the devastation of the whole of the housing stock in North Korea by aerial bombardment as part of the reason why that sad little country is so suspicious of the intentions of your avatar, the United States. As far as the involvement of the US in both World Wars, it was very little and almost too late in WWI; more involved in WWII but still - even when compared with the loses by Great Britain - much less of a player - except as an economic beneficiary.

Furthermore, considering the period since 1989 only, I think you'll find it's the United States of America, almost by itself, that is responsible for most of the violent killings in the world - in Iraq alone the 655,000 deaths since the start of ‘Enduring Freedom’ (there’s in irony soaked label) make the USA the biggest winner in the modern death sweepstakes.

Only natural disasters come close to being as deadly as Washington is.

They are all - regardless of their political stripe - essentially fascists, and soldiers have always been their closest friends - from the Egyptians and the Greeks down to the current time servers in the Pentagon and DND in Ottawa.

I wonder if you're familiar with Vinegar Joe Stilwell?. Sometime, if you have a thoughtful moment you might find Barbara Tuchman's biography of him: Stilwell and the American Experience in China a worthwhile read. It might disabuse you of some of your more irrational beliefs about all those deaths you seem to be so worried about.

A few years from now, when you've actually learned something from your experiences, you may remember these exchanges in a somewhat different light.

110 million vs 655,000... Apples and oranges, innocents are still dead, but you can NOT be serious even drawing that one up? No wonder you morons make me want to vomit. (I am actually a centerist thanks).

You haven't even read all I posted. The 655,000 is since the start of Operation Freedom whatsis andsince 1989. I already said rightwing and leftwing fascists are a saw off in the death game. Can't you pay attention?

Colin:

Correct, I put it as a WWII era vehicle, since it looks like the 'duck' to me.
Thanks.

The objectives of the extension of "Operation Enduring Freedom: A" have caused the combat forces to become extremely, and I want to stress EXTREMELY overextended.

I understand the strategic desire to control the Herat - Kandehar - Khabul highway. As this is the simplest way around the Hindu Kush and its many spurs.

The problem is that there are not enough NATO troops to secure all this territory.

This leaves the decisions to be one of contract into 'defensible perimiter', disburse into operational zones, advance on tangible enemy assets, or more violent response ~ that involve either more troops or a more ruthless posture.

The disbursals mode is not available, since this is essentially hostile territory. The Afghans in 'Stage 3' zones of Nimroz, Helmand, Kandehar, Uruzgan, Zabul and Day Kundi are not 'onside' with NATO since the US have been blazing away at the poppy crops over the past three years (problem with that is fire cannot tell if it is poppy or wheat or fig trees that are burning).

The 'Defensible Zones' are also smaller due to the hostile position of much of the population. Meaning a withdrawl to either just the road defence, or better perhaps only in Stage 4 zone (around Khabul) for the NATO troops and allow Turkmenistan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan to police and maintain Zone 1 areas (north of Khabul). This will also likely mean ceeding areas of Stage 2 and 3 to Iran and Pakistan (as much as they essentially control now, just not overtly).

Like the Brits found in trying to 'hold' America during the 'revolution' there are not fixed 'tangible assets' to control. Taking this or that city or mountain pass or river valley will not accomplish anything.

The use of greater amounts of force ~ up to nuclear assets will not give any better results than such things did in Vietnam. It will only increase the death toll...

to be continued...

...continued for Colin:

IF WE MUST STAY:
I think that Canadians need to 'wise-up' their NATO allies, and the troops of ANA ANP and stop acting like they can control the whole of the countryside with the pittance of a force that is there. Focus on the achievable and let go that which cannot be controlled for now. Spend the next 5 years on creating a life worth living along the northern borders (next to the former Soviet Union), connect it with Khabul and show the Taliban support areas that their way is wrong. This is what the SENLIS REPORTS repeat over and over.

I STILL SAY WE HAVE NO REASON TO STAY SINCE THE ORIGINAL GOALS OF OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED.

The local mechanisms.

Look, please read-up about MARCH REGIONS, and specifically the history of a little march region called Andorra.

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

There is no way that we will ever turn this area into 'little Canada' or anything like it - ever!

To take over or control a march region, you move in with some of your own people, with their laws, customs & traditions.

Like was done in the Welsh Marches:

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

This is a process that takes CENTURIES.

Because of this we, in CANADA, can only help it along...we will never accomplish it with armed force.

NEVER.

Murdock, once again you display your complete ignorance for all to see. At which point in time, did any suggest (either soldier, or government) that our intent is to create a 'little Canada'? Or even words that could be loosely cobbled togeather to come up with such a thing? Good luck, you aint gonna find it, and you know it.

Just to remind you half wits what you would be giving back to Afghans if you get your way (warning, graphic scenes of death and dying):

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=48781c6af8

The punishment of amputation (one or both hands) is given for theft... Even if it just to feed yourself or family (as was most often the case under the Taliban).

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=370532bf45

Like the Salem Witch trials... Spies are everywhere... Maybe even your neighbor. All it takes to lose your head in Taliban controlled areas is the unfounded accusation (Murdock, unfounded accusations, something you are very familiar with).

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=9e911280b0

The dress, of the men in this video clearly marks them as Taliban. For all the sins the Americans have commited NOTHING touches this.

Oh, and your idea that Afghanistan is a "march region" is truely laughable today. Maybe in the 80's, but I am sure you noticed that it is now the 21st Century. The 80's are done, and the Russians are now our friends and allies. The region is however the heartland of terrorists now, it was when we invaded (rightously, legally, and with UN sanction), and if you have your way, it will be again. The march regions, would be the countries boardering Afghanistan if you get your way.

Now THAT, is funny. If you think Putin is a friend and an Ally, you really don’t know much outside of the mantra your superiors have taught you to recite.

I'm not going to speak for Murdock, but, you're the guy with stars in his eyes and hope in his soul who thinks you transform people into Afghan versions of Canadians. That’s what Murdock is trying to tell you.

All Murdock said was that that is the only way to alter a peoples' (or a group of tribes') essential character and turn them into something different. It takes generations - look at our own native people for confirmation - not a few months.

I'm afraid, despite how culturally discomfited the habits of other people make you feel, the average Afghan is a lot closer to being on the same wavelength with the Taliban than he, or she, is with you.

And, really, history1 "righteously"...I thought you weren't a religious fanatic - guess you gave off the wrong vibes on that score too...so you do think you're doing God's work.

Alcibiades,

much earlier in this thread you have identified your commentator as being very religious.

This obersvation only continues the commentary.

Further, 0=History, continues on with the lie that the invasion of the region was done with some sort of legal 'sanction'. The UN is strictly a talk-shop, where permission to do this invasion was gained by the fact that China and Russia chose to not oppose it.

I suspect the Russians wanted to see the US/UK - NATO group bleed a while (not unlike the US did with the Soviet plans in 1979), the Chinese aquiesence is more clouded...given that some of their 'advisors' are busy in the region (possibly getting some first hand knowledge of their opponents? - sort of like they did in Korea?).

The continued statements that we must stay - for the sake of the Afghan people - speak to the hypocrisy of the group of people that say we must continue to fight in Afghanistan but cannot lift even a diplomatic finger - indeed we cannot even condemn the actions in a simple statement from the House of Commons - to help anyone in Darfur.

A real holocaust, not a supposed one.

I am agnostic, but hey... You are so good at assumption, why not make a few more.

And we are trading partners right now with Russia, and I have personally escorted Russian officers around my unit's lines with an LO. Ya, they are huge enemies of ours currently. Try to catch up with the times sunshine... This really must be embarassing for you.

And if you want us to do something in Sudan, sure... What do you suggest there? Frankly, it would take a greater ground offensive (read warfighting) then anything we have recently done in Afghanistan, and then you would be crying again.

Oh, and a small problem with China. They do not want any capable Peacekeeping force in Sudan, so we can move in unilaterally with NATO, but without UN support. Do you suggest we do such a thing? Knowing that China has a great ammount of natural resource investments in the country, and they profit hugely from the misery, do you think we should still provoke the Chinese? I think we should...

But the reality is, that is a war fighting mission first. (Funny thing about providing aid, is one has to have a secure environment to do it in).

And Murdock, I am not the hypocrite here. We are there with the intent (at least on the pointy end, it appears some lefty civies back here have not the stomache) to do real help in the region, and frankly, all of your "professional" assessments of the region are not holding water in Afghanistan. In fact your delusions only work here in the great ether.

My friend,

If you'd taken the time to read what’s been posted here, and on other threads dedicated to the subject you'd see that the 'lefties' here made exactly the same points about Darfur/Sudan and China. You are like most private soldiers in the field - you see only through a narrow tunnel and you are unaware of the situation on either flanks and to the rear - it has ever been this way. True professionals have a sense of logistics and direction. They are not so enamored of their own sector that they are unable to understand the overall strategic position. The description fits you and Lt General Hillier to a tee and when I see the utter garbage on television which purports to describe Canada's role in past struggles - small efforts like Vimy and Dieppe - I can understand how you got the way you are. You have been taught a lot of crap and you’ve learned it thoroughly.

You've been lied to, and you've come to believe the lies. Sadly.

Don;t call me your friend, I am not. You do not know me from Adam. You do not know soldiers. And you do not know what you are talking about.

Youa re giving opinion based on newspaper, and you are telling me I am lied to from your observations from a newspaper. Mean while, the people you are telling me are lying to me are actually known to me. Aint gonna wash half wit. Like I said before, I am getting updates from Afghanistan on a regular basis, from friends in the field and official channels.

The most insulting thing of all, is you self-rightous morons, and oxygen thieves assume tha we are an army of uneducated hacks, who can not read between the lines, and gobble up any drivel thrown at us. Sorry, we are not. And we take offense at your insinuations that we are.

Take my advice, and if you go to a cerimony today. Keep your yap shut. You would find your point of view is most unwelcome, and discover that I am really a nice guy in comparison (and I can;t stand you).

Your last point about Vimy... If you were not a complete retard, you would have pulled out a map, of the region, matched the battles to the ground, and realised, without Vimy, there would not have been any other battles... Without Vimy, later in the war Paris would have fell. Vimy was THE key battle of the war, and some slack jawed, inbred, civie, who has never spent day one studying tactics is not going to convince me otherwise. You are a complete and total moron... How the hell did you figure out how to turn on a computer?

Vimy was not the key battle of the war. The allies didn't even hold it for long my friend - which, if you knew anything about history, you'd have known.

I've read more First World War history and analysis than you could imagine.

You really are pretty funny my friend, I suppose you believe that crap about VImy creating the Canadian nation too.

All baloney.

You're a waste of my time my friend. Come back in a few years when you've grown up.
An awful lot of my friends are veterans, and, surprise, surprise - they agree with me.

The defining war in the history of this country, to the extent any war defines a country, is that of the War of 1812 to 1814, which culminated in British and Canadian forces, including Indian tribe contingents, burning down Washington, DC. (The Native tribes involved on the side of the British and Canadians were the Potawatomi, Kickappo, and The Sac and Fox.) Had that war ended differently than it did, with at least the temporary defeat of US dreams of Manifest Destiny, for US hegemony over the entire North American continent, we would today already be Amerikans and not Canadians.

This was the war, to which veterans on this Remembrance Day we should most honour, which allowed that this country would develop independently from the United States and the imperialist power it has become. All the other wars of this country, though the defeat of Fascism in the Second Great War undoubtedly had its universal aspects, were largely fought around European centric interests and competing Empire ambitions. (And I understand the desire of people to not think that any of their wars might not have actually been their own.)

Still, if we are ranking the wars of this country in their importance, it is to the veterans of this war, 1812 to 1814, we should possibly be paying the greatest homage, for allowing this country to be at all, truly. And fought defending the actual territorial homeland of Canada, not that of Europe's.

And though the Manifest Destiny ambitions of the US continue to pose a threat to this country, in many and diverse forms, economic and political as well as military, it is the veterans of this war, fought on this continent, who first allowed Canada to be at all, and demonstrated for us, that the US is neither infallible or unbeatable.

Well put Coyote.

Interesting Coyote,

I would have put the 1-1 tie sawoff of the First and Second Battles of Abraham as more 'important' in the formation of Canada. Given also that it was part of the first world war.

But then the tie-breaker was the Royal Navy and we are the living continuation of that victory with NAVAL LAW in the BNA and QR&O's as the real and true law of this RUPERTS LAND.

Anything after this was only defence of the 'claim'.

Why else,
"Je me souviens"?
(on every Quebec provincial licence plate?)

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

Hmmm, tell you fucking morions and half wits what. When I want a brick layer to advise a brain surgeon on how to do his/her job, I will rattle my fly. It is clear from the commentary that you inbred rejects have not the first clue about strategy. Go back and study the fucking map retard.

And yes half wit.. I do mean to look down on you with complete and utter disrespect and disdain. I have studied strategy since before I joind (gasp) the infantry, and you are a fucking what? Janitor? Ubnderstanding strategy is the difference between life and death for me, and for you it is an idle fucking past time, which you have clearly fucking wasted.

And for the complete fucking moron coyote, you would do well to study historyl. If you did, you would know that Canada did not exsist before what date? I will give you a a big hint... It was well before the date you quoted.

Before, after... Blah. Drunk blogging brings out the best in me.

1867 is the magic date to which I reference. Prior to that Canada was not allowed to raise our own army. 1868 is when the Canada Militia Act came into power, and hence the first possible claim that Canada did anything as a nation.

You're no more rational drunk than sober.
If you're typical of the folks in the CF it is a very good thing that we aren't under any real threat these days.

Thanks for showing your true colours. I rather suspected you were the mess drunk all along. If the Americans had won the war of 1812 - there never would have been a Canada - not that I'd expect you to understand a concept that fundamental.

Some patriot!

If the resideent half wit would come to an understandning of some basics, like prior to 1868, our militias who were seconded to the British army, were only a small contribution, and that it is the British army that defeated the Americans with the help of FN and Canadian militias, and not some non-exsistant Canadian army.

Your revisionist theories of history and tactics remind me of another groupd of revisionists I have run into on the web. Your stupidity can only be explained by inbreeding. You are a half wit, moron, simplton, and an idiot. You have utterly failed to understand even basics of strategy, and then you decide you would challenge someone who studies strategy like his life depends on it. In fact, my life does depend on an understanding of stretegy, where as you clearly involve yourself in nothing more dangerous or indepth then checkers.

Alcibiades posted:

LOL

at least IAMC is more humerous when he is posting-drunk!

now at last we have some truth, 0=History cannot formulate the needed argument since his braincells are swimming in alcolhol, the perfect solvent! It dissolves minds, relationships, careers and lives...

I suggest standing down from the attempt to rationally discuss anything with 0=History as the booze cloud cannot be broken.

History1, seek help.

Indeed Murdock! I often wonder why folks like History1 are so sanguine about posting the kinds of things they do (sober or under the influence) despite the fact that the evidence of their folly will remain, like bloody footprints in the snow, long after the page has turned. I would think he should protect his secret identity with all the courage he can muster. When he posts at Tyee again, some of us will remember – and without the mnemonic of a crimson poppy.

If the word ever gets out to the men he purportedly 'leads' there are bound to be a handful among them who are sufficiently discriminating to understand that following such a one as he into battle would be fatally unwise.

LOL.

Like I said before. I can not stand back and do nothing when someone is getting mugged or murdered, whereas you filthy animals would not just stand bac, you would actually help the mugger/murderer.

You morons are like a homophobe telling a gay man how to be a better gay man. You have no terms of reference, no expereince in it, or even the basic working knowledge of the subject you wish to speak to, but not only do you insist in throwing out the arguements of someone with experince, schooling and working knowledge, you sell yourselves as some sort of expert.

Vimy ridge, you idiots would have all beleive it was not an important strategic battle, when in point of fact without winning Vimy ridge there would not have been any other battles afterwards... One only has to take a quick look at the maps to follow the progression... But no, the "experts" have decreed without study, or expereince, that Vimy was not important. Morons.

You have not acknowledged the FACT that we leave under your terms, the impact would be a swift return of the TB, and the murder of tens of thousands of Afghans.

You have not acknowqledged the fact that the Afghans want us there. This is evidenced by Afghan Canadians telling us to stay the course. This is evidenced by the complete lack of support the moron's, whoops, the peacemovement has received in regards to any peace march against the mission in Afghanistan... Yup the commies are always right.

Your ignorance on the mechanisms of Afghanistan are evident throughout by your repeated referencing of the Russians. Note, we are not seeing the vast uprising the Russians saw, and one of the key factors of that is typical of socialist meddling, the Soviets tried to snuff out religion in one of the most religious countries on the planet. We are not doing this, and in point of fact, we are activly fostering the Islamic faith in Afghanistan while at the same time trying to influence some tolerance of the other religions found in the area. See if you IDIOTS could bring yourselves to read other sources then the highly biased left sources you are using now, maybe you would have a more clear picture... I mean really, the only thing the NYTimes is missing to make the newspaper complete is changing the name to Pravda, and replacing their graphic with a hammer and sickle. Of course, for hypocrites and liars like yourself the only unbiased newspapers are the ones with the deep commie, whoops, left slant you can agree on. If you were a lil more honest (impossible task for you twits), you would recognise that all media is biased one way or another, and you would explore ALL media.

Honesty, study, knowledge... All things you twits would do well to grab a better knowledge of. You filthy hug-a-thugs would gladly give Afghans over to murderers, and that is something the is abhorant to me. Marks you pricks as the evil pukes you are, and I sincerely hope that for all the evils the TB will bring down on the Afghan people, they are visited on you one hundred fold.

Thank you so much.

Just the kind of fellow and just the kind of attitude one expects from our military 'heroes'.

Oh but we have.

Your problem is that you are so busy throwing mud you haven't awakened to the fact that the person who is totally covered in the stuff is you.

Your kind of purblind patriotism is the stuff of Kipling's poems, The Charge of the Light Brigade and a product of the colonial mentality of the 'white man's burden'. It's time to leave the 19th century and come into the light of the modern world. Given the result of the mid-term elections in the United States there isn’t much doubt that ‘even the Americans’ are finally coming to their senses. Can Canada be far behind?

That line about Vimy was the final straw, have you read a single 'chapter' book in your young life, my friend?

Anyone who spends all his time describing the imagined shortcomings of his interlocutor and none of his efforts defending his own position is perfectly at home in the schoolyard. In an adult conversation, you are no more significant than the television behind the bar. Ignored and irrelevant.

Now it's all the 'newspaper's' fault?

Carry on!

Reading comprehension of the moron is evident above. Where did I say it's the newspaper's fault? I said you choose to read only the bias that suits your fancy, and it is clear you dismiss anything that does not suit your fancy.

As to Vimy, I have read everything I can on it, AND I have been there and walked the ground. My Regt fought at Vimy, and the war diaries are very detailed. I applied everything that I read to my understanding of tactics AND strategy (the missing peice in your flawed psuedo intellectual analysis), to draw up my own conclusions which are shared by most everyone who actually studies land based warfare (again, something you are too damned lazy to do).

The white man's burden is on your side twit. Not here. Your burden from guilt of people clearly not contected to you is blinding you to the REALITY of Afghanistan. You hatred of western civilisation is evident throught your wildly inaccurate postings. Your infantile arguments which you refuse to go near the meat of the subject mark you for the moron you are. Half wit. Imbecile. If you do not like the way this country is run, please feel free to unburden yourself and move away. Perhaps the Taliban would appreciate your hatred more. Or better still, maybe you could prove Darwin right, and remove yourself from the equation.

Now I hate western civilization?

So typical of your type, like it or lump it eh!

Darren Entwhistle had a similar refrain at Telus, remember – FIFO – extremely intelligent I guess he’d be another of your heroes.

Birds of a feather I guess. I'm afraid the subset of thinking people who can defend our involvement in Afghanistan in anything like a coherent fashion doesn't include the folks like you and Hillier on the pointy end. Such ones are much more useful drawing enemy fire.

You might want at some point to consider the damage your attitude has done, as I pointed out above, to your own credibility.

For someone so poorly armed with little more than blank rounds of invective, your contribution to any intellectual exercise will never be of much consequence. So clean your rifle and polish your boots lad, you are needed elsewhere and Tim Horton beckons; the siren call of Don Cherry will carry you into battle with the dark forces of evil. In the end, you’ll find that all that ever matters to the soldier is his brother – all the rest, the brass hats and the politicians – couldn’t care less.

Carry on Colonel Blimp. I hope your foolishness and lack of critical faculties does not personally create problems for you or the poor fellows you try to lead. They may need more than Sir Henry Newbolt as inspiration soon.

http://media2.liveleak.com/xyz2/2006/Nov/11/LiveLeak-dot-com-13846-stoning.jpg

Yes, it is so much better that we give Afghanistan back to the Taliban. Adultery is such a sin... Women should not be allowed to behave in such sinful ways as being raped, or having premarital sex. Such a drain on society, they should be killed for it. Perhaps when they get back on their feet there again, we can revist bringing their laws here.

Accusing me of lack of critical thought... Why, because I refuse to shut down my mind and be the ever faithful drone to Taliban Jack? Nauseating critter like yourself, so full of hypocrisy.

Speaking of critical thought... Here is a pic of two socialists... Good people, share a lot of qualities with your friendly Taliban.

http://media2.liveleak.com/xyz2/2006/Nov/10/LiveLeak-dot-com-12822-ww203.jpg

Course, we all know how these two stayed the course. Let's look at another...

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

No.

Because you don't use your mind to actually analyze what you're saying, what its sources are and what it says about western cultural hegemony and nascent superiority.

And, you haven’t the intellectual jam to actually discuss the issue without resorting to calling the people you disagree with by every slanderous name you can muster in a nominally-public forum.

I think one could make a case for some limited military (blue helmet) involvement in Afghanistan. Something led by countries not so totally compromised by western solipsism.

I have never written that I don't support and would not favour helping the Afghan people. But we cannot change a peoples mind by killing them and devastating their economy; we cannot point out to them the problems we see in their Weltanschauung without an equally thoroughgoing analysis of our own.

I have no wish to embarrass you. Why are you so determined to embarrass yourself?

And you continue to display utter ignorance on the subject of the military in Afghanistan, as evidenced by your utter lack of understanding of the enemy we face there (hint, the enemy we seek to kill is not Afghans in general, but Taliban and aQ operatives specifically). Blue helments would be slaughtered in Afghanistan just before the NGOs are, just as the AU "blue helmets" in Sudan are getting slaughtered currently.

The mission is legal, and your revisionist theories to the contrary mean nothing. Afghans in Afghanistan want us there, and there is not a damned thing wrong with my sources that are currently there now.

The thing that offends me the most is you, a lefty psuedo intellectual, are trying to tell me that my friends, the people I have trained with, lived with, and shared a lot of misery with over the years are lying. Think about that for a sec (I know you won't be bothered). How would you take it if I told you your friends and family are lying to you? People you have known for decades. People you know to be absolutly honest. I take offence myself, and I see you as nothing more then a Taliban Jack suck up wasting bandwidth.

Oh I don't think your friends are lying and I’ve never said they were. They see what they report back as through a glass darkly, that’s all.

I think you and they have been lied to. That's all.

Guess you didn't see this:

before you slagged my UN suggestion. Why not take a minute and look it up.

Many of those friends you respect spent their whole career wearing that blue helmet with a lot of pride. Nothing I’ve written could be construed as implying the sentiment you so cavalierly ascribe to me.

If your current allies and their governments were a little less selfish and ego-driven you might find that the blue helmet would a lot more worthy of your devotion than this current half-hearted project. I think you need to consider the wealth of self-interest that’s subsumed by all the worthy nonsense that comes from your erstwhile superiors and their political masters.

In fact, it is you who isn't paying attention, my friend.

Again, you're more interested in calling me names than actually trying to comprehend what I've written and its implications. If you were so certain of the righteousness of your cause, you wouldn’t bother with the objections of a virtual adversary like me.

Oh, by the way is that the same Taliban jack you were calling a hillbilly earlier? Very mature. And very foolish.

Taliban Jack Layton sure looks like a hillbillie. Is as intelligent as one too.

You really need to go back and read some more on the UN, and the rampent nepotism that prevades there. ATO has proven to be a far more compentant and fair broker of peace then the UN as history has been written. One only has to look at the utter failure of the UN in UNPROFOR mission in BiH, or the murder of 100's of thousands in Rawanda while the UN was in a position to stop it.

You know nothing about me and my friends, your views are skewed so heavily, that you fail utterly to notice your complete ignorant bias in your diatribes.

More names – when confronted with an intellectual challenge you broaden the swath of your condemnatory brush.

I'm sorry; I enjoy talking to children normally. The wonderful thing about this discussion format is that a reader who comes along a year from now won't have any trouble determining who is delivering diatribes.

If you knew anything about Rwanda, my friend, you'd know the final thumbs-down on intervention came from Washington, not New York: To Clinton's everlasting discredit.

I absolutely agree the present security-council format and decision-making effectiveness of the United Nations has been ruined by nearly 20 years of American villainy and unadulterated selfishness - not to mention their reticence to pay their dues.

In fact, you and your colleagues are, in effect, paying the Americans’ dues in Afghanistan right now. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on that earlier.

If you were a little more diligent with your reading and a little less concerned with acting like the town drunk you might have come to some other conclusion than that I'm the one who's blind, deaf and dumb.

Intellectual challenge on this particular subject from you? Please, spare me.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2006/11/12/2327009-cp.html

Yes, I should listen to a white man, safe in Canada, rather then this man who is now in his home country. Yup, how could I be so wrong. You clearly have all the answers, let us just pull up the stakes, and let a peacekeeping force from the UN, say, the Taliban and al'Qaeda, bring peace to Afghanistan. It will be very peaceful there when they murder ALL the other ethnic groups, and kill/convert all all the Shia, Hindi, animist, Christians and Budhists in Afghanistan (all of which is exactly what they were doing before we went there).

HYPOCRITE. Counsel me on namecalling, and then you turn around and do exactly that. HYPOCRITE. But then, that is just true to form for your disgusting ilk.

history1,

Hitler and Mussolino were lefties?

Hate to break this to you but nobody on the planet believes this. Certainly not the socialists and communists the Nazi's fought in the streets.

Have you read any history? Don't just say "yup". I'd like to hear the names of some actual authors.

I agree with you on Afghanistan but when you get out of the military you need to spend some quality time educating yourself.

murdock, you can use acronyms all day long, it doesn't make your bizarre assertion that Canada will suffer 100% casualties any more credible. As for comparing the Afghanistan of 2006 to Andorra and medieval Wales, I think you're doing so simply because you wish to ignore the reality of the current situation and what Afghans themselves say they want.

This is what you would return to Afghanistan.

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

Hitler for instance rose in power in the late 20's early 30's on a socialist ticket. It was not until 1933 that the National Socialist German Workers Party dropped all pretenses of socialism... Granted, their view of socialism was greatly skewed even before '33, and there was a general loathing within the party of true socialists.

history1, Hitler's Nazis fought the Socialists in the street. The only "socialism" within the Nazis was mouthing the most popular parts of the Socialist programme because it appealed to many of the segments of the population that they were trying to win over.

Hitler jailed the Leftists when he was in power. internatioally, Socialists supported those Hitler fought against such as Soviet Russia and Republican Spain.

Hitler was not a lefty.

History1: Where did I call you a name? Just out of interest I said I thought you were behaving like a child, that's all

Frank:
I thought you'd be at the game.

Hitler was on a 'socialist' ticket?

You must be joking. DTs after last night?

Was watching it on tv and was so disgusted by what the Riders served up in the first half I came to the Tyee looking for an outlet for my frustration :-)

Tried to post: me too; but I ran into the space police.

Alci, since you're never going to agree with me that we should support the mission in Afghanistan why not come back to the Versailles discussion?

I'm back there already, but the Riders just got a flag in the end zone. I think we may have a game here!

murdock,

There's what? 34 provinces in Afghanistan??? So how does not being able to conduct the poll in two of them discount the whole poll?

That's like saying polling in Canada doesn't mean anything if Nunavut isn't represented.

Most Afghans enjoy the fact that the Taliban are not in power. They support their elected government and their new army.

They want more security and less corruption. We can work on those issues only by being in the country. We need more troops there, not less. If we listen to the Afghan people themselves we won't go wrong.

Just some of the highlights.

Hey bud, you're the one who came here last night and posted drunk - I just brought if back to your attention.

I think you've behaved like a child so I consider that fair comment and if you'd shown any signs of intellectual promise I'd have given you credit for it too.

If you don't agree what you've been saying about me is invective then you need to haul out that dictionary again.

The colonel blimp was tied to the Henry Newbolt reference, sorry it troubled you.

Have you read any of his poetry?

I suggest it might be an interesting exercise.

I don't think you want to get into a comparison contest my friend because the invective meter is way over on your side of the table.

As I said, carry on.

Really, and what you are saying about me, albiet indirectly is not invective?

Stop, for the love of god calling me your friend. My friends generally have much higher functioning cognetive abilities.

You really are out of control aren't you? Invoking the deity again.
Even the most simple and fundamental niceties of civil discourse are beyond your capacity to master.

All I've ever done is spike your guns and turn the grapeshot back at you.

If you can show me some reliable evidence that things in Afghanistan are better, on average and in aggregate, than they were at the end of 2002 then you might have a defensible case and you might even earn my support. Virtually everything I've seen from a wide variety of credible sources indicates that is not the case and, given recent polls, it seems quite clear that the people of Afghanistan feel the same way.

Nevertheless, even if I couldn't find a way to support your mission, I could respect you as a man if you weren't so convinced of your own rectitude while denying that I could honestly and conscientiously believe what I do believe without being the target of your intemperate ire.

How could I rely upon your remaining cool under fire if the questions I've directed at you are cause enough for you to lose your composure so completely, my friend?

Well, I would be a much cooler head if I did not have someone here suggesting that I am being lied too, and that my friends over seas are incapable of independant thought. It would never occur to you that such things are deeply offensive to me?

Naw, it wouldn't would it.

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/HMYT-6VESD3?OpenDocument&rc=3&cc=afg

Is Relief Web a reliable enough source for you?

Leaving surely would not improve life for Afghans. They know it, as they have already suffered under the Taliban. During the drought of 2001, the Taliban was more concerned with the length of men's beards then getting food and water aid to those dying.

Post some evidence, stop acting emotional, and you'd be surprised how much respect you'd earn.

Look above, and you will find more like this. Other peices of evidence, you just summerarily dismissed as not far enough left for you I guess.

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/CMAS-6UHTEB?OpenDocument&rc=3&cc=afg

And my tone is reactionary, meaning, I am reacting to your tone, and language directed at me. I am not some softy pot head who can be bullied into your "acceptable" thought.

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/STED-6V6STL?OpenDocument&rc=3&cc=afg

I do not agree with some of the stuff in this report... Others show hope, and the entire document tells of authors who studied the region, the players, the history.

Rather then repeating your mantra of "you have been lied to..." why not try reading some of the other stuff out there. Someone has been lied to, and I have the luxury of being able to independantly verify news stories found on the web.

Well, I disagree with that - I think you came to this thread half cocked - but let's let that go.

Let's look at what you've got:
1. there has been an increase in school enrollment; good
2. there has been an enormous increase in opium poppy growth and production;
not so good
3. fatalities are up among both foreign forces and locals; bad
4. big increase in cell phone use;
irrelevant.

Second source:

Quote:

with which I totally agree.

And that's the problem, we in the west aren't being fair to guys like you who are busting their guts in a Sisyphian attempt to make this better on the cheap.

It's not fair to them, it's not fair to you and it's not fair to the Canadian taxpayer.

If the US, which is the only country with the economic clout and military might to make a project like Afghanistan work, had kept to its promises and not gone off on its big Iraqi adventure then we should have been in there pitching too. They didn't, they haven't and they won't and I don't want to see another Canadian life sacrificed on the altar of what might have been. We should get out now and find other ways - maybe not as dramatic and heroic - to help. Over time we are not going to turn this place into another little Canada and we are making a mistake to try.

We should bring as many refugees as we can bring to this country if they want to come and right now. How many Afghanis would we bring to Canada and give a new start for the 189 million we spent on airlifting tanks and spares to Afghanistan? How many of the Sudanese who are having their eyes bayoneted in Darfur each week could we have saved for the $2 billion we've burned up in Afghanistan.

How much good could those 42 soldiers who've died in the aid of what I unfortunately think is now a lost cause have done for their country and their families if they'd come home in a seat in stead of a box?

I admire your dedication, I just fear it's wasted on a failed project.

I can not and will not beleive this is a lost cause. Afghans deserve better, and hell, if we could bring those that want to Canada, and keep me from risking my neck there, then I am all for it. I will not leave them to the wolves tho.

Each of those soldiers (some of whom I know), beleived deeply in the mission as I do.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=fa955669-ecce-4833-b8c9-ae15a74cad18

We only truely die when we are forgotten. These people will remain immortal in our souls.

Oh, and the use of cell phones and other emerging technologies is indicative of several things, not the least of which is the ability to spread ideas quickly. Within the region, cell phones are much cheaper then land line, and it is a show of continuing development.

Are you surfing the complete Relief Web site yet? There is a fair bit about Sudan there, as well as many other places. You should be able to find direct contact information for the different NGOs there, as the NGOs and IOs tend to use Relief Web as a coord point... I watched Tsunami relief efforts unfold real time on that web site.

Yeah, I'm all for helping and I think the Relief website is interesting and helpful.
But I know enough about the lost causes of history to understand that you can only do so much in a democracy.

We're reaching the point of diminishing returns and with the change in government in the US it isn't going to be long before they start to withdraw from Iraq. Britain is talking about pulling out within 6 months and as much as you're willing to sacrifice, there aren't enough Canadian soldiers to do this job. We have people in Canada who don't have enough to eat and are living in squalor right here in Canada.

In a democracy, people won't sit still while those things are ignored and we make a big show about prosecuting what they are beginning to see as a lost cause in the Far East. Therefore, my point is: start negotiating with the enemy now and try to get the best deal you can before the cards are all flipped on you. Our ostensible allies the warlords are as much a danger to the locals as the Taliban who are, from everything I've read about them, a much more pragmatic lot than they were in 2001/02. That's one of the reasons they've proved to be so resilient. In my view.

Alci,

I know we've been over this ground but I want to voice my difference in opinion with what you said above. The connection you're making is that the war in Afghanistan means we can't take care of our own here. You know that's not true because the system was a failure before Canada ever sent troops to Afghanistan.

We're a trillion a year economy, the couple of billion over 4 years that Afghanistan has cost us is really inconsequential.

Also, no one is calling for us to go into Sudan in any meaningful way. And how could 2500 troops make any more of a difference there than in Afghanistan?

And I hate to sound callous, but we've taken in about a million immigrants while losing those 48 soldiers. We, with the exception of families and friends, won't miss them.

The Taliban won't negotiate. Until they are willing to do so its simply not an option.

All good points Frank and, as you've observed we've been here before. We could easily devote 1% of GDP to meaningful aid and I think it would make a difference. There were reports in the British Press that some elements of the Taliban (which are now less than 60% of the forces against us anyway) were willing to talk to Karzai about some form of power sharing.

It's going to happen in the end. As for the lost soldiers, I'm sure you're right about them being inconsequential to the public at large but they mean a lot to guys like History1 who is prepared to fight to the death for this lost cause.

I wish it were different. I wish we cared more about education and development than our cars and vacations - but we don't. I think we might be able to get folks to care more about it in the future if I felt that the people prepared to sacrifice their lives in a battle overseas could understand the hypocrisy of doing that while we ignore the real and completely solvable problems here at home. I'd like to think that history1 and his colleagues cared a little more about the kids in the reserves on the banks of James Bay and in a hundred other locations across the country. If were not willing to fight the easy battles - the ones that don't require an airlift of antique tanks - I can't see much need for asking anyone to sacrifice their lives for such a compromised effort that can’t succeed without a lot more commitment and cooperation from our allies. And we both know that’s not going to happen. With Bush on death watch and Blair about to step down the big boys are going to start bringing their troops home tout suite. We need to read the writing on the wall.

If Britain and the US pull their troops we'll go home with them. We both know Canada won't stay there on its own. Only murdock believes we'll be force-marching along the path of the British forces that retreated from Kabul 150+ years go.

And when our troops get back here they'll go back into their normal life and conditions among many Canadians will only worsen even though we're awash in real wealth and not involved in foreign entanglements.

Personally I think the soldiers that have died gave their life for something worthwhile even if we are forced to leave at some point. They've certainly done more for more people than I ever have.

I'd like to see Canada doing more but I don't think writing cheques to the Taliban or the dictators in Burma, Pakistan, Africa and so on will help the people there.

I think Paul Martin's cutbacks hurt more Canadians than the Taliban ever did. And I expect with people like Harper and eventually Ignatieff in charge there's probably more than 48 Canadians right now that wish they were dead.

But shit Frank, we can't just throw up our hands and give up. I'd like to see history1's enthusiasm and idealism given some more purpose than collecting spit.

I like that last line by the way. I think Ignatieff's musings about Quebec - which is about the only thing I've heard him say lately that I agree with by the way - have probably done his chances of becoming PM. Just goes to show how out of touch with Canadian public opinion I am.

I think there are other alternatives than writing cheques to dictators too btw.
In fact, the only harm the Taliban do that makes any impression on me is the harm they do to their own people - I can't blame them for defending what they see as their home against interlopers like us who step in there to tell them how to live. As for our own people, you're right that our governments do us far more harm than the Taliban ever have or ever will.

Oh so do I. But I think our soldiers have already made a positive difference in the lives of some Afghans. More of a difference than if they had been in barracks at Gagetown or Petawawa consuming food and gas. Even if they do lose eventually and the Afghans are once again in the living hell of Taliban rule, at least our 48 dead helped give them a few years respite.

I can't offer any evidence, but I just bet there's a lot of Afghans who see Pakistan-raised Taliban as interlopers/foreigners.

I don't think boundaries mean a lot to these guys in those areas...but you could be right.

I just can't convince myself that giving people a lot of false hope does either them or us much good.

I think, as I wrote earlier, that we should bring $189,000.0000 worth of Afghans to canada and leave the tanks there. Then send the 2500 troops to clean up every god-forsaken mess of an Indian reserve in this country - and send the bill to Stephen Harper along with a years supply of Timbits. He looks to me like he'd appreciate them.

I support the immigration idea. Wasn't it my idea originally? :)

Is it false hope? The people there know what's going on. I imagine much of the Taliban "support" is simply people who want to be on the winning side. As the NY Times poll showed, there's not a lot of genuine Taliban support over there. And without the existence of the warlords I imagine it would be even less.

Let's say we hold out for two more years. that means people had 7 years of being able to send their girls to school and the freedom to not get whipped for not growing a beard. That's gotta be worth something.

As for the Native reserves, we can't even get something like the Kelowna Accord done, what hope is there that in 20 years conditions for the Natives will be better? Maybe the Natives should pull a Taliban and start fighting back and demanding that they share in the running of the country? I think its possible it could have come to that if natives made up a larger share of the population.

I'm coming to the conclusion that the only issues that mean anything to the average person are local issues. You just can't get them to really care about anything that doesn't touch them personally.

Maybe if the economy went into the toilet in a really comprehensive way we could create something better. I'm not sure creating more misery is the right way to get things done.

Aren't there as many Afghans as there are Canadians, or nearly so? Good on us for helping a few thousand of them. IS giving the rest of them a measure of false hope much help in the end? I still say we have more of an obligation to solve our own 3rd world problem right now.

Anyway, that's it for me. G'night Frank, it's been a slice.

Agreed, people's lives are busy, its getting harder just to keep your head above water and of course a fatigue sets in when the outrages seem to be coming at them on a daily basis.

I think it is. Lots of great things came out of the Depression and major wars.

Yep, and how many NATO troops are there? 40,000 in Afghanistan? That's not a lot of troops but they have helped lots of people for at least a few years. Considering the general apathy out there for doing anything that ever helps someone else, around the world or just across the street, I think that's pretty good.

nite

Dunno Frank, If I were at the bottom of a well and somebody came along and hoisted me a third of the way out, then tied the rope to a tree and walked away I'm not sure I'd thank him.

Time will tell.

For Frank:

acronymns? The titles given to the various organizations operating in Afghanistan? NATO, PRT's etc?

100% casualties (in the classical sense of dead, wounded or injured) is getting very close to the tally that is coming back right now among the American Ranger Battalions from that very region.

I just got a personal update from 12 friends that got back two weeks ago. All 12 had some sort of wound, from small shrapnel fragments in his knee to a bullet wound in one other (whom did not die from the 'grazing') that they all got in just three small firefights. The one whom I had the main contact said that of the 800 or so in the Battalion only 3 did not have a combat-related injury and that those three also had major broken bones from a vehicle roll-over in the first week of deployment. So 100% is accurate!

more about Marche regions next...

So first, the Marche region: it is a zone between 2 or more other 'zones' that are nominally under the control of a singular authority. These authorities are 'contesting' the control of the Marche region, not by direct military action, but by having more of thier 'like-minded' persons living in the region than that of the other. This 'contesting' is being done under the guise of *hearts and minds* strategy in the modern parlance.

Now as for the comparison to Andorra.

Andorra was a battleground, just like the border zones of Afghanistan are now, between the 'christian' (read western in modern terms) socities of France (under Charlemange) and the Moorish (Muslim) regions of Southern Spain. 1000 years ago this contest was going on just as nasty and as heated as we see the one happening in Afghanistan today, the difference today is that we have a global media that is reporting all the juicy daily details and media that is recording it all in full color for longer than many want to see reported.

Some items I will now use for comparison:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taliban
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Wales

compared to:

The killing of Bleddyn ap Cynfyn in 1075 led to civil war and gave the Normans an opportunity to seize lands in North Wales. In 1081 Gruffydd ap Cynan, who had just won the throne of Gwynedd from Trahaearn ap Caradog at the Battle of Mynydd Carn was enticed to a meeting with the Earls of Chester and Shrewsbury and promptly seized and imprisoned, leading to the seizure of much of Gwynedd by the Normans.[29] In the south, Iestyn ab Gwrgant, the last ruler of the kingdom of Morgannwg, was deposed about 1090 by Robert Fitzhamon, lord of Gloucester, who established a lordship based in Cardiff and subsequently conquered the lowland part of Glamorgan. Rhys ap Tewdwr of Deheubarth was killed in 1093 while resisting Norman encroachment in Brycheiniog, and his kingdom was seized and divided between various Norman lordships.[30] The Norman conquest of Wales appeared virtually complete.

Just as in Wales after an invader, the Normans, had kicked around folks for a while, they (the invaders) found life difficult to control and even more difficult to obtain any benefits from their conquest (of the land). What was needed was to 'convert' the people.

We've seen this before in Afghanistan when the Soviets did their dance in the 1980's.

Now we are bumbling around to the same tune in the 2000's.

The Pakistani government understands these techniques, since they have had to adopt them in 'controlling' their own Pashtun lands in the north of Pakistan. All that is happening now is an extension of that method of control futher north into Afghanistan.

JUST LIKE THE NORMANS DID 940 YEARS AGO!

JUST LIKE CHARLEMANGE DID 1200 YEARS AGO!

A summary analysis follows...

alci,

More like we got him out of the well for 7 years and then the guy who put him there in the first place put him back in. I think the guy would hope we'd return.

so if we send 2500 guys then rotate in a 2nd set of 2500 guys and so on are you claiming that 100% is actually 200 dead and 2300 wounded even if 50% of those wounded return to duty within a few weeks?

Your "march" region is so broad that almost every country on the globe would qualify at one time or another. Including Canada.

I'm willing to say Afghanistan was a "march" region when Britain and Russia were playing their "game" in Central Asia. But nowadays? Too broad a definition. No comparison to the era of Charlemagne.

I am hoping that I have shown you what I mean by Marche regions now, and that I consider the entire region of Afghanistan as an immense version of this.

The contesters over this region are the Northern 'stans', China, Iran, and Pakistan.

Thrown into this classical marche region mix are the modern claimants and their supporters from all over the globe. If anything it make the marche region more unstable and difficult to manage since each of the primary 'claimants' have their own collection of supporters. Each of these 'outsiders' can arrive via air which confuses the whole 'on the ground' situation. The northern 'stans' had been part of the Soviet Union, they had started to develop closer ties to groups in Afghanistan that shared their veiws (in the classical means of control of a marche region - some from the 'stans' probably moved into the area to live, got married to locals etc.). Then these folks turned to Moscow for 'support' in their cause, so Moscow being very willing to support Communist leaning regions along their borders (in a sense continuing to support the borders by having 'friends' there rather than enemies is better) the Soviets chose to support the Khabul government requests for aid in 1979. Then more troops were needed, they were sent, and so on and so on until there were more than 100,000 Soviet troops in the region!

Why?

Well, starting with the Carter Administration, it was seen as beneficial to have the Soviets 'bogged down' in Afghanistan, so there were methods of 'aid' sent off to those whom opposed the government in Kahbul at that time in 1979.

This little cat-and-mouse game continued for 10 years! Until finally the Soviets decided that they had wasted enough and left.

2 years later the 100,000 man army that they had trained was gone, a full-on civil war was going and 10 years later the Taliban were the winners? They did not 'win' much...they were dependant on continuing to accept the 'advice' and 'support' of the radical Muslim movement that had supported them in gaining the control over the region.

So now AQ is born, training camps continue, and so on.

Then 9/11 happens, it is decided that Afghanistan is where AQ is getting its support base and so that is where Osama must be, so Six-Gun Commander in Chimp Clueless George GOES TO WAR!

http://cluelessgeorgegoestowar.com/html/clueless_page1.html

Why?
(this is one that will take many lifetimes to get to the truth about I think)

In order to complete this maquerade a 'local' is needed = enter Karzei, someone whom has left, run away from the Taliban. Smart fella, he bought himself time and a place to return 'from', since staying was only going to get him dead.

Very much like many of the Saxons that were living in Norman conquered areas, likely ran away to rally support in northern territories or deeper into Wales to try and achieve the same things 900+ years ago.

The difficulty today is, the 'physical' barrier of actually walking into and out of the place is gone. With the right 'friends' you can fly all over the place and 'appear' simply in the place as though from the ether.

The other side of that air arrival is that such a supply line is very, very tenuous. It can be broken far, far to easily.

The 'rally' of support?

Comes in many forms:

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/War_Terror/2006/11/12/2327009-cp.html

This man wants to see his home returned to the way he wants to see it be.

Fine.

Tell me,

"Why should Canadian solders help him do this?"

"Why should Canadian tax dollars be spent to ship over the supplies and equipment to accomplish this for him?"

- Supporting the Government of Afghanistan in reforms to improve the quality and efficiency of the civil service

- Training and mentoring staff in key Ministries in central government

- Working alongside the international military to give development advice

- Funding for the the Presidential and Parliamentary elections

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWB.NSF/db900SID/HMYT-6VESD3?OpenDocument&rc=3&cc=afg

How is this any different that the Normans pushing into Wales, converting a few Saxons to assist them in building 'infrastructure' (castles and forts)?

How is this any different than the Chalemange courts providing aid to the Andorrans whenever the Court's interest was at stake?

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/story.html?id=fa955669-ecce-4833-b8c9-ae15a74cad18&p=1

These are the sad words of a Canadian soldier, early on her words included condemnation of the conditions and doubts about her personal 'space'.

I am absolutely certain that, were such writings taken down by the churl conscripts of the middle ages, that exactly the same sentiments would be found in camps of the Norman troops as they pushed further into Wales. No such records exist - that I am aware of - so we can only imagine what might have been thought of.

The nature and distance travelled is different than that of the battles over marches in the past, that we have battled over them and will do so in the future is not in doubt.

What is needed is to clearly see that this kind of conflict is timeless and that we, in Canada must collectively decide what price we are prepared to pay - over the long-term.

I say that we had better examine these deployments of military force with these longer-term visions before we launch such missions. This is something that will not happen in Canada currently since the decision making power to go into military (mis)adventure lies solely within the office of the Prime Minister, there are not any checks or balances on this.

Whom are we to pick a fight with next?

With whom are we to reckon if our great and wise PM's (LOL) choose poorly?

Frank

Very accurate observation, perhaps within Afghanistan we are seeing the 'deconstruction' of nations?

Or a re-drawing of the map?

All of these kinds of questions are answered in far more detail, including loads of references in the book:

http://www.amazon.com/SOVEREIGN-INDIVIDUAL-MASTERING-TRANSITION-INFORMATION/dp/0684832720

They make the case far better than I can in a blog entry.

Alcibiades posted:

so maybe the late Tip O’Neill had it right after all?

“All politics is local.”

Churchill also spoke often about the local level politician needing to be both local in connection and worldly in outlook.

Unfortunately the current crop of Canadian politicoes does not give me much hope for a statesman among their ranks...

murdock,

Tell me honestly murdock, were you chuckling when you yet again referenced the Sovereign Individual to me?

Ya but Churchill also thought invading Gallipoli, Salonika and Iraq were great ideas.

I don't wanna bring Rafe into this but I think Churchill was a windbag that got good press.

Look, I'm just saying that the definition is so general that we can't draw any specific conclusions. I'm sure Norman soldiers could share with Canadian soldiers their experiences and not feel too far apart, fine. Its the nature of warfare. But its not just warfare where you can make such comparisons. We still have families and therefore domestic issues that were the subject of many an argument back in Roman times have their parallels to this day. Same with working for the boss, getting along with your in-laws etc. Some things never change.

What's important is your conclusion. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Afghanistan is a march region like medieval Wales and Andorra. What's the punch line?

I assume you're okay with "nobody"? What if Mexico decided to rape every 2nd 10 year old girl. Would that be worth picking a fight over? Perhaps my bar for picking a fight is simply lower than yours?

The core of the Taliban will not negotiate. The core of the Taliban was never exclusively Pashtun or even Afghan, they drew from like minded individuals across the Islamic world. So the core of the Taliban were not fighting exclusively for their own homeland... If they were, in Afghan tradition, they would have expelled the others.

The Taliban is about bringing their narrow view of Islam (which is abhorant to the vast majority in the Islamic world) back into Afghanistan, and then into the world as a whole. The core of the Taliban is a very real threat to us, especially in the friend's that they choose to keep.

Now, that is not to say that ALL of the Taliban is evil incarnate. Many of them are lost souls who have been coerced into it on pain of death to selves or family. Many of them are uneducated youth, who simply beleive the first person that talks to them (the advantages of destroying the school system, and a reason to build it up and protect it).

We must fix and destroy the core of the Taliban, and the way we do that is by rebuilding the country. The infrastructure, the schools, hospitals. We do this by making sure that they get fed, have access to their mosques, to their families. When we accomplish these things (and we have made many contributions in these areas) we fix the core of the Taliban in place, by affecting the moderates (and we are seeing this in the moderates who have stepped forward, and laid down their arms). We destroy the core of the Taliban by continuing education.

We are their, not to create a little Canada, but to give Afghanistan (once a fairly secular Islamic state), back to Afghans.

To get there from here, the reconstruction must go on, and the Taliban know this, and this is the reason why they attack the reconstruction efforts.