Reality can be so unpatriotic.

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Don't blame Jack
Reality can be so unpatriotic when it comes to Afghanistan
By Bill Kaufmann
That Jack Layton -- the more he talks, the more he sounds like the Cheney administration and their chums.

The timing's suspicious. Only a month before Oktoberfest in Kitchener, it's said that Jack served up another Munich.

This time it was coddling the Taliban, who have been drafted as enemy No. 1 for Canadians.

In a world teeming with despots, it's those Taliban creeps alone who've long aspired to occupy our country and prevent girls from attending K-12 from Corner Brook to Comox.

But can Layton's verbiage properly be considered appeasement, given the Cheney gang's well-known dealings with the Taliban well into 2001?

That was when U.S. funding of the Taliban and negotiations -- yes, negotiations -- with them broke off due to a squabble over a petroleum pipeline some Americans wanted to push through Afghanistan.

It must have been before the Taliban were "Islamofascists" or before their medieval misogyny suddenly mattered.


We know they're incapable of appeasement; only Layton with that moustache fits the Neville Chamberlain mould.

And those Taliban members who've come over to our side?

I'll bet dollars to donuts some of them entered into discussions with the Canadian military -- you know, negotiations.

It might have even saved Canadian lives, but who needs appeasement?

No, far better to have our politicians preening in camo, sloganeering and playing soldier while the sight of flag-draped caskets returning from Afghanistan lose their novelty.

They've locked and loaded the chutzpah to accuse the mission's critics of playing politics with an occupation that's killing and maiming Canadians, one they've extended for two years.

Better political face-saving than "appeasement."

Pakistan just granted amnesty to pro-Taliban militants in their midst they couldn't defeat. More appeasement.

Increasingly unpopular Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the guy our troops are dying to defend, has cut appeasement-type deals with war lords and drug runners as the only way to keep his country intact.

And Karzai doubtless knows he'll have to court the Taliban. For years, Karzai overtures have been made to the Taliban, who have essentially re-taken Afghanistan's South.

Since appeasement appears to know no bounds, it must be Layton's bring-em-home message that offends.

Stephen Harper will tell us we're fighting a resistance movement in Afghanistan to prevent a repeat of 9/11 after the terrorists have dispersed all over the map to do their scheming.

Hopefully, our future military budgets can cover all this terrorist real estate.

But for now, propping up one side of a long, dismal Afghan civil war is about all that military budget can handle.

Don't look now -- there's Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor relishing the thought of expanding Canada's war into Pakistan because our Pakistani allies, shall we say delicately, go rather easy on the Taliban. Quadruple the reserves.

The Afghan civil war has expanded into a struggle against occupation and Canadians are coming to realize our troops will be under attack as long as they're there.

It's mainly because our side, those weaker Afghan allies, are held in contempt by their people as corrupt, incompetent and abusive puppets of foreign occupiers.

Now two think-tanks that have spent years observing Afghanistan are telling us what you won't hear from Peter MacKay.

It's that the failure to nation-build and provide humanitarian assistance, widespread bombing of civilians and the massive fleecing of aid dollars has energized the Taliban.

"The foreigners came here and said they would help the poor people, and they only spend money on their military operations," one of the reports quotes an Afghan commander in Kandahar. "The poor people are poorer now than when the Taliban were the government. We would be fools to continue to believe their lies."

Little noticed was an admission last Thursday by O'Connor -- sounding every bit as defeatist as Jack Layton -- that the Taliban can never be eliminated at the very same time NATO began pleading for more troops.

We hear from Canadian soldiers of how those devious Afghans appear to love them during the day but after night falls, all bets are off. Where have we heard all this before?

Canada's soldiers are trapped on a bloody treadmill George W. Bush set in motion but wouldn't or couldn't stop and what thanks do we receive? U.S. high explosives on our troops.

Reality can be so unpatriotic.

What it is, is Iraq in slow motion :(

regroup
rethink
redeploy
 

DurkaDurka

Internet Lawyer
Mar 15, 2006
10,385
129
63
Toronto
BitWhys said:
Don't blame Jack
Reality can be so unpatriotic when it comes to Afghanistan
By Bill Kaufmann
That Jack Layton -- the more he talks, the more he sounds like the Cheney administration and their chums.

The timing's suspicious. Only a month before Oktoberfest in Kitchener, it's said that Jack served up another Munich.

This time it was coddling the Taliban, who have been drafted as enemy No. 1 for Canadians.

In a world teeming with despots, it's those Taliban creeps alone who've long aspired to occupy our country and prevent girls from attending K-12 from Corner Brook to Comox.

But can Layton's verbiage properly be considered appeasement, given the Cheney gang's well-known dealings with the Taliban well into 2001?

That was when U.S. funding of the Taliban and negotiations -- yes, negotiations -- with them broke off due to a squabble over a petroleum pipeline some Americans wanted to push through Afghanistan.

It must have been before the Taliban were "Islamofascists" or before their medieval misogyny suddenly mattered.


We know they're incapable of appeasement; only Layton with that moustache fits the Neville Chamberlain mould.

And those Taliban members who've come over to our side?

I'll bet dollars to donuts some of them entered into discussions with the Canadian military -- you know, negotiations.

It might have even saved Canadian lives, but who needs appeasement?

No, far better to have our politicians preening in camo, sloganeering and playing soldier while the sight of flag-draped caskets returning from Afghanistan lose their novelty.

They've locked and loaded the chutzpah to accuse the mission's critics of playing politics with an occupation that's killing and maiming Canadians, one they've extended for two years.

Better political face-saving than "appeasement."

Pakistan just granted amnesty to pro-Taliban militants in their midst they couldn't defeat. More appeasement.

Increasingly unpopular Afghan President Hamid Karzai, the guy our troops are dying to defend, has cut appeasement-type deals with war lords and drug runners as the only way to keep his country intact.

And Karzai doubtless knows he'll have to court the Taliban. For years, Karzai overtures have been made to the Taliban, who have essentially re-taken Afghanistan's South.

Since appeasement appears to know no bounds, it must be Layton's bring-em-home message that offends.

Stephen Harper will tell us we're fighting a resistance movement in Afghanistan to prevent a repeat of 9/11 after the terrorists have dispersed all over the map to do their scheming.

Hopefully, our future military budgets can cover all this terrorist real estate.

But for now, propping up one side of a long, dismal Afghan civil war is about all that military budget can handle.

Don't look now -- there's Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor relishing the thought of expanding Canada's war into Pakistan because our Pakistani allies, shall we say delicately, go rather easy on the Taliban. Quadruple the reserves.

The Afghan civil war has expanded into a struggle against occupation and Canadians are coming to realize our troops will be under attack as long as they're there.

It's mainly because our side, those weaker Afghan allies, are held in contempt by their people as corrupt, incompetent and abusive puppets of foreign occupiers.

Now two think-tanks that have spent years observing Afghanistan are telling us what you won't hear from Peter MacKay.

It's that the failure to nation-build and provide humanitarian assistance, widespread bombing of civilians and the massive fleecing of aid dollars has energized the Taliban.

"The foreigners came here and said they would help the poor people, and they only spend money on their military operations," one of the reports quotes an Afghan commander in Kandahar. "The poor people are poorer now than when the Taliban were the government. We would be fools to continue to believe their lies."

Little noticed was an admission last Thursday by O'Connor -- sounding every bit as defeatist as Jack Layton -- that the Taliban can never be eliminated at the very same time NATO began pleading for more troops.

We hear from Canadian soldiers of how those devious Afghans appear to love them during the day but after night falls, all bets are off. Where have we heard all this before?

Canada's soldiers are trapped on a bloody treadmill George W. Bush set in motion but wouldn't or couldn't stop and what thanks do we receive? U.S. high explosives on our troops.

Reality can be so unpatriotic.

What it is, is Iraq in slow motion :(

regroup
rethink
redeploy

Where exactly would they redeploy to?
 

elevennevele

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2006
787
11
18
Canada
Re: RE: Reality can be so unpatriotic.

iARTthere4iam said:
nice cutting and pasting. too bad you don't have an original thought to debate. Thanks for coming out.


This is your retort? This is what you can say in response? Nice one "line nothing contribution."

And what original thought have you contributed? Please point the way. I'll be waiting on that one.


.......

Part of forum rules allows for the referencing of articles. That is part of the whole sharing process and very much a part of what starts to become a debate. Someone posts and article and everyone gets a chance to have their say.

What is so wrong about that?!

It’s not your place to take ownership unless this is your forum with your rules.
 

elevennevele

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2006
787
11
18
Canada
Re: RE: Reality can be so unpatriotic.

iARTthere4iam, tell me your original thought on why it’s been ok for our military to hold negotiations with the Taliban, but if Jack Layton speaks of it he is greeted with contempt for such a suggestion? Do you think Harper was unaware of the military negotiating with the Taliban, or that he really didn’t see it as anything he should have stopped?

Is that a sort of passive allowance of negotiations with the Taliban from our government?

Our military negotiating with the Taliban was made public for quite some time. Or does that suggest that really Harper doesn’t know what is going on despite ramming Afghanistan commitments down our Canadian throats?
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Re: RE: Reality can be so unpatriotic.

elevennevele said:
iARTthere4iam, tell me your original thought on why it’s been ok for our military to hold negotiations with the Taliban, but if Jack Layton speaks of it he is greeted with contempt for such a suggestion? Do you think Harper was unaware of the military negotiating with the Taliban, or that he really didn’t see it as anything he should have stopped?

Is that a sort of passive allowance of negotiations with the Taliban from our government?

Our military negotiating with the Taliban was made public for quite some time. Or does that suggest that really Harper doesn’t know what is going on despite ramming Afghanistan commitments down our Canadian throats?

There is a HUGE difference between negotiating the surrender of your enemy, and negotiating your own surrender.

Jack Layton is such a moron he can't tell the difference.
 

Colpy

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 5, 2005
21,887
847
113
69
Saint John, N.B.
Just finished reading in the Globe and Mail that the resolutions at the NDP convention included pulling Canadian troops TOTALLY out of Afghanistan (known unofficially as the cut and run, stab your allies in the back because we're cowards resolution), along with one calling for a two-state solution in the ME (sensible) and one that listed Israel's sins, while praising Hezbollah as elected social workers.

All these resolutions got more than 90% support.

The last resolution irritated one sitting NDP MP who asked that it also be noted Hezbollahis a terrorist organization. She was booed down by the crowd.

DAMN! I had hoped that the NDP would maintain a facsimile of sanity until the next election, and draw away some of the Liberal voters, helping the Conservatives get a majority.

No such luck. The NDP have gone completely loopy.
 

iARTthere4iam

Electoral Member
Jul 23, 2006
533
3
18
Pointy Rocks
Re: RE: Reality can be so unpatriotic.

elevennevele said:
iARTthere4iam, tell me your original thought on why it’s been ok for our military to hold negotiations with the Taliban, but if Jack Layton speaks of it he is greeted with contempt for such a suggestion? Do you think Harper was unaware of the military negotiating with the Taliban, or that he really didn’t see it as anything he should have stopped?

Is that a sort of passive allowance of negotiations with the Taliban from our government?

Our military negotiating with the Taliban was made public for quite some time. Or does that suggest that really Harper doesn’t know what is going on despite ramming Afghanistan commitments down our Canadian throats?
That isn't what Jack was saying, he wants to pull Canadians out before our commitments are up (he has stated february 2007 to pull out) because Canadians are dying. We made the commitment, we have been asked to stay. That is the minimum that we should do. The minimum.
If taleban fighters want to turn in their arms I'm all for taking them up on that offer. I don't consider every Afghan with a gun to be a terrorist. There has been instability in this country and in many cases the safest move for an Afghani to do may have been to join with a warlord and take up arms. A government has been established, for this sad country to slip back into chaos now would be truly tragic. Soldiers with guns need to be there to ensure that the government has a chance to survive. If the Afghan government decides that Canada is no longer needed they should let us know. I will be happy to see our soldiers leave when our commitment has been completed, their mission is accomplished, or we are asked to leave. To leave because of weak-kneed cowardice will do nothing for the people of Afghanistan as they try to establish a functioning nation.
 

elevennevele

Electoral Member
Mar 13, 2006
787
11
18
Canada
Re: RE: Reality can be so unpatriotic.

Colpy said:
There is a HUGE difference between negotiating the surrender of your enemy, and negotiating your own surrender.

Jack Layton is such a moron he can't tell the difference.



No, they have held talks with Taliban fractions to try to aim for reconciliation. Does it look like the Taliban have surrendered? NATO aimed for a kind of mediation. The Taliban weren't going to turn themselves in by a long shot.

The Taliban are really just a political side of the Afghan people. Whether with more support from the population or less. It seems however they are gathering the support of the people and we seem to be losing that support. How long can that go on, in your opinion?

And these articles are written from our point of view. I guess we just couldn't find the right way to 'appease' them at this time through these talks.


http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/17082006...taliban-insurgents-mass-renewed-fighting.html

http://www.canada.com/globaltv/national/story.html?id=90a452eb-028f-4754-995c-9b9f2beaa75b

NATO quietly talking with Taliban as insurgents mass for renewed fighting

Thu Aug 17, 3:01 PM

Privately, however, Taliban sources said they are open to overtures from the government through ISAF. ISAF requested their identities be withheld for fear that they could be killed by hardliners for even suggesting reconciliation was possible.

Asked about the talks Thursday, an Afghan government official expressed pessimism about their outcome.

"Things are not going well," he said through a translator. "They are not ready to talk. They say they will never reconcile."


"NATO quietly talking with Taliban as insurgents mass for renewed fighting"?

That is not a statement of an enemy standing on it's last legs.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Re: RE: Reality can be so unpatriotic.

Colpy said:
There is a HUGE difference between negotiating the surrender of your enemy, and negotiating your own surrender.

Jack Layton is such a moron he can't tell the difference.

we're not bugging out; we're just going to a little more defensible position.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Re: RE: Reality can be so unpatriotic.

Toro said:
BitWhys said:
BitWhys said:

some might find that last part a little more difficult than others

You should be posting this in the 9/11 foiler threads.

heh

I dunno. When it comes to the mafia I can't tell a knight from a day without a program.

now quit hijacking my thread :wink:
 

tamarin

House Member
Jun 12, 2006
3,197
22
38
Oshawa ON
A high profile journalist was on one US network discussing Afghanistan tonight. He remarked that the US never defeated the Taliban. The wily characters merely retreated leaving key towns and villagers to the invaders. Now as the Taliban regroup and grow stronger, we're increasingly likely to see a Soviet-style campaign there. This is one we can't win.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Re: RE: Reality can be so unpatriotic.

iARTthere4iam said:
...A government has been established, for this sad country to slip back into chaos now would be truly tragic...

The government is to the north of Canada's position (Kabul - the whole in the donut where the Taliban used to be) and Canada no longer plays any part in maintaining its security. The Southern mission is an attempt to extend its control.

the season's almost finished and they've got what to show for it?

one stinking town from an enemy that gave them the slip. I hope to God they're watching their rear flank.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Re: RE: Reality can be so unpatriotic.

Colpy said:
...The last resolution irritated one sitting NDP MP who asked that it also be noted Hezbollahis a terrorist organization. She was booed down by the crowd.

DAMN! I had hoped that the NDP would maintain a facsimile of sanity until the next election, and draw away some of the Liberal voters, helping the Conservatives get a majority.

No such luck. The NDP have gone completely loopy.

I'm not pleased about that at all. Thanks for pointing it out. I'm glad it was Judy that spoke up. That's my riding.

Its not over yet. Resolutions need to be incorporated into a comprehensive platform. Might be tough but it can be worked around if a few higher-ups can be talked into putting their head on the block about it. Correspondence time.

Gah. Lefties can be so reactionary sometimes. :roll:
 

iARTthere4iam

Electoral Member
Jul 23, 2006
533
3
18
Pointy Rocks
Re: RE: Reality can be so unpatriotic.

BitWhys said:
Colpy said:
There is a HUGE difference between negotiating the surrender of your enemy, and negotiating your own surrender.

Jack Layton is such a moron he can't tell the difference.

we're not bugging out; we're just going to a little more defensible position.

Ya, back in Canada. It's much more defensible here.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
Re: RE: Reality can be so unpatriotic.

iARTthere4iam said:
Ya, back in Canada. It's much more defensible here.

If that's meant as a retort its ironic you'd say that since the defense of Canada is supposed to be the whole object of the exercise. :p