Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,898 
Location: in town
Location: in town
January 22nd, 2008, 02:56 AM
Just as I expected... we stay in Afghanistan and will very likely provide more troops, too!
Read here what Manley's panel has recommended:
"The Manley panel's report will recommend that Canadian soldiers remain in Afghanistan to train the Afghan army and police, but only if NATO provides more troops and equipment, CTV News has learned.
http://tinyurl.com/3564gh
Just as I expected... we stay in Afghanistan and will very likely provide more troops, too!
Read here what Manley's panel has recommended:
"The Manley panel's report will recommend that Canadian soldiers remain in Afghanistan to train the Afghan army and police, but only if NATO provides more troops and equipment, CTV News has learned.
http://tinyurl.com/3564gh
Gobsmacked
Posts: 4,735
January 22nd, 2008, 07:52 AM
DL, your link isn't working for me, but I was hoping to read the article - watching The National last night, I didn't see the one option I was hoping for mentioned in the piece that outlined what options are likely going to be looked at in the report... that being the option to remain in Afghanistan in a non-combat role. Perhaps your link could shed some light on that for me, if I could read it...
DL, your link isn't working for me, but I was hoping to read the article - watching The National last night, I didn't see the one option I was hoping for mentioned in the piece that outlined what options are likely going to be looked at in the report... that being the option to remain in Afghanistan in a non-combat role. Perhaps your link could shed some light on that for me, if I could read it...
January 22nd, 2008, 08:33 AM
To sum it up Zan....
"Sources have told CTV News that the panel will recommend NATO put another 1,000 soldiers on the ground in Kandahar and supply mid-range transport helicopters and more light-armoured vehicles. "Manley is telling the prime minister that if NATO won't provide these troops and equipment, then Canada should withdraw from Afghanistan," reported CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife.
The panel is also expected to advise the government that soldiers should stay beyond 2009 to train the Afghan army and police outside Kandahar Airfield -- even if that means engaging the Taliban."
IMO, the decision that we need to either get a commitment for more soldiers or get out is fair no matter what side of the issue you're on. Trying to fight short handed is suicide, and there's no point in wasting soldiers. Commit and do it right, or get out.
To sum it up Zan....
"Sources have told CTV News that the panel will recommend NATO put another 1,000 soldiers on the ground in Kandahar and supply mid-range transport helicopters and more light-armoured vehicles. "Manley is telling the prime minister that if NATO won't provide these troops and equipment, then Canada should withdraw from Afghanistan," reported CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife.
The panel is also expected to advise the government that soldiers should stay beyond 2009 to train the Afghan army and police outside Kandahar Airfield -- even if that means engaging the Taliban."
IMO, the decision that we need to either get a commitment for more soldiers or get out is fair no matter what side of the issue you're on. Trying to fight short handed is suicide, and there's no point in wasting soldiers. Commit and do it right, or get out.
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,612
January 22nd, 2008, 09:06 AM
It's interesting to watch and compare contributions from posters. Obviously we have some who feel that war and conflict is prefferable to diplomacy and negotiated settlement....
Alternatives are dismissed as lacking reason since the only reasonable point of view is to continue to send folk into war to die. That's been happening a lot in Afghanistan and although these reasonable folk seem to believe that this situation is black and white it isn't. Russians with far greater investment in this theater lost, so there's no reason to believe that Canadians should triumph... The bloodlust of some Canadian Content posters is a clear indication of how and why conflicts rage for decades and the answer to everything from international terrorism to the treatment of people caught up in the tumult of religious fanaticism and big-business frustrations. The attitude that the answer to these issues is more war an more death and destruction appears to be popular. We've entertained the "cycle of poverty" and we've talked about the cycle of abuse/violence, and we've noted time and time again how repetative the human dynamic seems to play out.
The reasonable answer regarding why this is true is obvious.
It's interesting to watch and compare contributions from posters. Obviously we have some who feel that war and conflict is prefferable to diplomacy and negotiated settlement....
Alternatives are dismissed as lacking reason since the only reasonable point of view is to continue to send folk into war to die. That's been happening a lot in Afghanistan and although these reasonable folk seem to believe that this situation is black and white it isn't. Russians with far greater investment in this theater lost, so there's no reason to believe that Canadians should triumph... The bloodlust of some Canadian Content posters is a clear indication of how and why conflicts rage for decades and the answer to everything from international terrorism to the treatment of people caught up in the tumult of religious fanaticism and big-business frustrations. The attitude that the answer to these issues is more war an more death and destruction appears to be popular. We've entertained the "cycle of poverty" and we've talked about the cycle of abuse/violence, and we've noted time and time again how repetative the human dynamic seems to play out.
The reasonable answer regarding why this is true is obvious.
January 22nd, 2008, 09:15 AM
Nothing like missing the monumental differences between intent and objectives.
Brits...Colonization, as seen by moving British nationals in to Afghanistan under the guise of moral for the Troops.
The Russians...Complete assimilation and without question, the complete removal of the way of life of the average Afgani.
No, it doesn't seem to be a different policy all the way round at all, with us terrorists building schools, hospitals, curing diseases and promoting health and achieving it.
Sure there is some take going on from western interests, but the give trumps it ten fold.
And my assertion seems to stand and be proven...
Quoting MikeyDB
Wrong again my good man, but I won't stop you from believing what you will. I'll just keep on proving your assertions and meanderings as wrong.
It's interesting to watch and compare contributions from posters. Obviously we have some who feel that war and conflict is prefferable to diplomacy and negotiated settlement....
Quote:
What a lot of junk, I'm surprised you didn't comapre it to the British invasion of Afghanistan in in 1839.
The reasonable answer regarding why this is true is obvious.
Nothing like missing the monumental differences between intent and objectives.
Brits...Colonization, as seen by moving British nationals in to Afghanistan under the guise of moral for the Troops.
The Russians...Complete assimilation and without question, the complete removal of the way of life of the average Afgani.
No, it doesn't seem to be a different policy all the way round at all, with us terrorists building schools, hospitals, curing diseases and promoting health and achieving it.
Sure there is some take going on from western interests, but the give trumps it ten fold.
And my assertion seems to stand and be proven...
January 22nd, 2008, 09:26 AM
Quoting MikeyDB
It's apparently not as obvious as you might think Mikey, because I haven't seen one person in this thread say that we shouldn't try to find a peaceful solution, or that they WANT to be fighting.
Obviously we have some who feel that war and conflict is prefferable to diplomacy and negotiated settlement....
January 22nd, 2008, 09:32 AM
You are not interested in others opinions.
The world is finite in your eyes, a shyte storm of hate and barbarity that is well on its way to a grizzly demise.
For someone that espouses the teachings of Toa, you sure have a flawed way of highlighting its beauty in your posts.
btw...The fact that you felt the need to tel me you don't, proves the opposite.
I still love ya Mikey Durgan.
Quoting MikeyDB
Of course not Mikey, which is likely the reason you make shyte up about what I have and/or have not said, and twist my assertions and my requests for you to provide some sort of evidence, until the point is lost.
Perhaps you think I give a **** what you have to say....
I don't.
I don't.
You are not interested in others opinions.
The world is finite in your eyes, a shyte storm of hate and barbarity that is well on its way to a grizzly demise.
For someone that espouses the teachings of Toa, you sure have a flawed way of highlighting its beauty in your posts.
btw...The fact that you felt the need to tel me you don't, proves the opposite.
I still love ya Mikey Durgan.
Quoting karrie
As I anticipated and predicted...
It's apparently not as obvious as you might think Mikey, because I haven't seen one person in this thread say that we shouldn't try to find a peaceful solution, or that they WANT to be fighting.
Quoting CDNBear
Seems reasonable to me.
I can see why some people would take issue with it though.
Reason isn't there strong suit.
I can see why some people would take issue with it though.
Reason isn't there strong suit.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 8,698
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
January 22nd, 2008, 10:39 AM
People make decisions and form opinions not based on any realistic understanding of what the war is about, who the combatants are, the geostratigic goals, tactics, alliances or economics. Most often what I see put forward here in regard to Canadas involvment in the hostilitys is emotional nonsence based on media conditioning and very little else. In the first place counterterrorism is a completely spurious issue, the links between the Taleban, Al-Qaeda and the ISI/CIA are a matter of record. Similarly the cause of the Russian invastion of Afghanistan and it's funding are also a matter of historical record, not in the least open to speculative thinking. Both sides of the conflict since 1979 have been funded by western money, that is also a matter of record.
We see absolutely no proof of humanitarian benevolence, we do see the same corruption in every western governmental exercise of aid money, in every case the balance of that aid is syphoned off by private contractors.
I have lisened to the prees conference this morning regarding Canadas continued involvment none of it was a surprise all of it followed the same pattern of the last seven years, simply put that was a hand picked panel of professional liars, to understand that you just have to read why Micheal Byers refused to head it when asked by Harper to sell his name for the bankers cause.
There is no possible win in Afghanistan that does not involve the death of millions more Afghans. Simply put the welfare of the Afghans is just of no importance to those conducting the operation, thier welfare was never the reason for intervention, neither was Bin-Laden, the simple facts of the war in Afghanistan seem to escape the majority here.
If you support continued military intervention by NATO you will also be supporting the murder of innocent people, all to ensure the eventual destruction of the entire region including Iran and Pakistan, the operation has nothing to do whatever with the well being of Afghans and everything to do with The New World Order which you probably don't believe in either.
Quite simply put, a vote for Canadian Government policy is a vote for continued barbarity of arms and nothing more, you cannot kill civilians in those numbers and then claim it's good for they're futures, that is called insanity.
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle19122.htm
People make decisions and form opinions not based on any realistic understanding of what the war is about, who the combatants are, the geostratigic goals, tactics, alliances or economics. Most often what I see put forward here in regard to Canadas involvment in the hostilitys is emotional nonsence based on media conditioning and very little else. In the first place counterterrorism is a completely spurious issue, the links between the Taleban, Al-Qaeda and the ISI/CIA are a matter of record. Similarly the cause of the Russian invastion of Afghanistan and it's funding are also a matter of historical record, not in the least open to speculative thinking. Both sides of the conflict since 1979 have been funded by western money, that is also a matter of record.
We see absolutely no proof of humanitarian benevolence, we do see the same corruption in every western governmental exercise of aid money, in every case the balance of that aid is syphoned off by private contractors.
I have lisened to the prees conference this morning regarding Canadas continued involvment none of it was a surprise all of it followed the same pattern of the last seven years, simply put that was a hand picked panel of professional liars, to understand that you just have to read why Micheal Byers refused to head it when asked by Harper to sell his name for the bankers cause.
There is no possible win in Afghanistan that does not involve the death of millions more Afghans. Simply put the welfare of the Afghans is just of no importance to those conducting the operation, thier welfare was never the reason for intervention, neither was Bin-Laden, the simple facts of the war in Afghanistan seem to escape the majority here.
If you support continued military intervention by NATO you will also be supporting the murder of innocent people, all to ensure the eventual destruction of the entire region including Iran and Pakistan, the operation has nothing to do whatever with the well being of Afghans and everything to do with The New World Order which you probably don't believe in either.
Quite simply put, a vote for Canadian Government policy is a vote for continued barbarity of arms and nothing more, you cannot kill civilians in those numbers and then claim it's good for they're futures, that is called insanity.
http://www.informationclearinghouse....ticle19122.htm
January 22nd, 2008, 10:49 AM
That's right Beav, we just don't get it, but all your supporters that use gossip rags and communist web promoters as supporting arguements are all the free thinkers and see right through all the corporate BS...
That's right Beav...my stocks in Coldwater and Haliburton are havin' me seein'
That's right Beav, we just don't get it, but all your supporters that use gossip rags and communist web promoters as supporting arguements are all the free thinkers and see right through all the corporate BS...
That's right Beav...my stocks in Coldwater and Haliburton are havin' me seein'
Bright Spark
Posts: 476
Location: Zurich
Location: Zurich
January 22nd, 2008, 11:15 AM
Karrie, "Commit and do it right, or get out."
You got that right in 8 words or less.
Talking to the Taliban as one poster seems to suggest is a waste of time. Killing the Taliban is the lesser of evils. At some point these geurrilas will be tossed out and won't come back. If the Afghans are still onside, there will be peace.
At what point is that? How many must die? This we are going to find out the hard way, because there is no easy way. History is no absolute guide when it is in the making, and we are making history here. I hope that it is success, though it will mean more battles for us, not fewer.
Karrie, "Commit and do it right, or get out."
You got that right in 8 words or less.
Talking to the Taliban as one poster seems to suggest is a waste of time. Killing the Taliban is the lesser of evils. At some point these geurrilas will be tossed out and won't come back. If the Afghans are still onside, there will be peace.
At what point is that? How many must die? This we are going to find out the hard way, because there is no easy way. History is no absolute guide when it is in the making, and we are making history here. I hope that it is success, though it will mean more battles for us, not fewer.
Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 8,698
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
January 22nd, 2008, 11:49 AM
Deterioration of Iraqi Women's Rights and Living Conditions Under Occupation
by Souad N. Al-Azzawi
Global Research, January 13, 2008
brusselstribunal.org/
Abstract:
For centuries, Iraqi women struggled for their human rights. It wasn't until the 1960's that some improvements in constitutional women's rights were implemented. During the seventies and eighties, women's rights improved significantly, providing better educational opportunities, political involvement, equal job opportunities, health care and development of laws and regulations to ensure a better life for Iraqi women and girls.
Deterioration of women's rights in Iraq began during the US-UN comprehensive economical sanctions imposed on Iraqi during the nineties. In 2003, the invasion of Iraq by the USA and its allies resulted in the descent of the rights of women just like other elements in Iraqi society, infrastructure and the general quality of life.
AFGHANISTAN
RAWA: U.S. and Her Fundamentalist Stooges are the Main Human Rights Violators In Afghanistan Written by RAWA Saturday, 15 December 2007 The US and her allies tried to legitimize their military occupation of Afghanistan under the banner of "bringing freedom and democracy for the Afghan people". But as we have experienced in the past three decades, in regard to the fate of our people, the US government first of all considers her own political and economic interests and has empowered and equipped the most traitorous, anti-democratic, misogynist and corrupt fundamentalist gangs in Afghanistan.
In the past few years, for a thousand times the lies of US claims in the so-called "War on terror" were uncovered. By relying on the criminal bands of the Northern Alliance, the US made a game of values like democracy, human rights, women’s rights etc. thus disgracing our mournful nation. The US created a government from those people responsible for massacres in Pul-e-Charkhi, Dasht-e-Chamtala, Kapisa, Karala, Dasht-e-Lieli, 65,000 Kabulis and tens of mass graves across the country. Now the US tries to include infamous killers like Mullah Omer and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar into the government, which will be another big hypocrisy in the "war against terror".
The reinstatement of the Northern Alliance to power crushed the hopes of our people for freedom and prosperity into desperation and proved that for the Bush administration, defeating terrorism so that our people can be happy, have no significance at all. The US administration plays a funny anti-Taliban game and pretends that a super power is unable to defeat a small, marginalized and medieval-minded gang which is actually her own product. But our people found by experience in the past few years that the US doesn’t want to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, because then they will have no excuse to stay in Afghanistan and work towards the realization of its economical, political and strategic interests in the region.
http://www.activistmagazine.com/inde...795&Itemid=143
Try and understand that the Taleban was a western conception from the beginning funded and trained by the ISI/CIA. Canadians are dying to defeat our own invention.
T
Deterioration of Iraqi Women's Rights and Living Conditions Under Occupation
by Souad N. Al-Azzawi
Global Research, January 13, 2008
brusselstribunal.org/
Abstract:
For centuries, Iraqi women struggled for their human rights. It wasn't until the 1960's that some improvements in constitutional women's rights were implemented. During the seventies and eighties, women's rights improved significantly, providing better educational opportunities, political involvement, equal job opportunities, health care and development of laws and regulations to ensure a better life for Iraqi women and girls.
Deterioration of women's rights in Iraq began during the US-UN comprehensive economical sanctions imposed on Iraqi during the nineties. In 2003, the invasion of Iraq by the USA and its allies resulted in the descent of the rights of women just like other elements in Iraqi society, infrastructure and the general quality of life.
AFGHANISTAN
RAWA: U.S. and Her Fundamentalist Stooges are the Main Human Rights Violators In Afghanistan Written by RAWA Saturday, 15 December 2007 The US and her allies tried to legitimize their military occupation of Afghanistan under the banner of "bringing freedom and democracy for the Afghan people". But as we have experienced in the past three decades, in regard to the fate of our people, the US government first of all considers her own political and economic interests and has empowered and equipped the most traitorous, anti-democratic, misogynist and corrupt fundamentalist gangs in Afghanistan.
In the past few years, for a thousand times the lies of US claims in the so-called "War on terror" were uncovered. By relying on the criminal bands of the Northern Alliance, the US made a game of values like democracy, human rights, women’s rights etc. thus disgracing our mournful nation. The US created a government from those people responsible for massacres in Pul-e-Charkhi, Dasht-e-Chamtala, Kapisa, Karala, Dasht-e-Lieli, 65,000 Kabulis and tens of mass graves across the country. Now the US tries to include infamous killers like Mullah Omer and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar into the government, which will be another big hypocrisy in the "war against terror".
The reinstatement of the Northern Alliance to power crushed the hopes of our people for freedom and prosperity into desperation and proved that for the Bush administration, defeating terrorism so that our people can be happy, have no significance at all. The US administration plays a funny anti-Taliban game and pretends that a super power is unable to defeat a small, marginalized and medieval-minded gang which is actually her own product. But our people found by experience in the past few years that the US doesn’t want to defeat the Taliban and Al-Qaeda, because then they will have no excuse to stay in Afghanistan and work towards the realization of its economical, political and strategic interests in the region.
http://www.activistmagazine.com/inde...795&Itemid=143
Try and understand that the Taleban was a western conception from the beginning funded and trained by the ISI/CIA. Canadians are dying to defeat our own invention.
T
January 22nd, 2008, 11:57 AM
Quoting darkbeaver
Try and understand that the Taleban was a western conception from the beginning funded and trained by the ISI/CIA. Canadians are dying to defeat our own invention.
If that's true, then perhaps it's right that we stay and clean up our mess.
Try and understand that the Taleban was a western conception from the beginning funded and trained by the ISI/CIA. Canadians are dying to defeat our own invention.
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,898
Location: in town
Location: in town
January 22nd, 2008, 12:11 PM
Beaver, again you are so right!
Listening to Manley earlier gave me the impression that Canada, as a Nato Force, is continuing what Lester Pearson started, what Trudeau endorsed and supported, what Martin got us into and Harper is continuing.
All that is correct as I know it, BUT that is not the whole story. Canadians know, just as my humble self does, that we are there to support and to finish a war the Americans started. They didn't start it because they wanted the Afghan people to have a better and more modern life, No...they started it under the false pretense of getting Osama bin Laden, because they say he is responsible for the 9/11 attack. Yet, before the start of the war the Americans were asked to provide proof that he did it, before handing him over, they couldn't provide any proof and flatly dismissed the request by saying,... "we don't negotiate on that matter... hand him over or face the consequences"! And so the Americans, not the Canadians, went to war against Afghanistan.
Now, after more than six years of fighting and all sorts of countries gotten involved as well, the war is no longer about bin Laden and 9/11.... it wqas changed to a humanitarian war. Let's help the poor people in Afghanistan to free themselves from the Islamic fundamentalists, the Taliban. I have never heard the Afghan people asking us to come and help them, they were simply confronted with the Western Generosity.
It is the same situation in Iraq! Saddam had WMD and was a threat to USRAEL. It was imperative, to go in there and destroy those weapons. As it turned out, there were none! Therefore, the reason for the war against Iraq was change to a humanitarian one... let's free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein, the brutal dictator.
All sorts of countries were asked to join in that war, and many heeded the threat = if you are not with us then you are against us! Then you are a terrorist supporter.
Our PM at the time, Jean Chretien, had the guts to refuse; so did Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
The US is simply too powerful and will make any country that refuses to participate in their efforts for global supremacy, suffer dearly through economic manipulations. Canada, as a next-door neighbor, got a taste of it during the Chretien years. Finally, after Mulroony, the Conservatists are back in the saddle and we are brought in line again with the wishes of the Americans. As soon as we are not behaving, like not pulling our weight in Afghanistan or putting the US and Israel on a list with the worlds tortures, we get sternly reprimanded. Of course, our Harper Government retracts immediately any "misteps" to keep us compliant with the wishes of our dear neighbor.
The larger picture, I find, was missing in Manley's report. He does mention, though, how important it is that Canadians know and understand the situation and our commitment, but he avoided the crucial points completely.
I wonder how many Canadians will now be convinced that we should and must continue the mission, because we are tough and don't shy away from a tough job... we are leaders and play an important role on the world stage, we are also a rich country? Is he playing on our pride and national Ego, I wonder?
On the other hand, folks, what else are we to do? Although we are a big country, we simply don't have the power to defend ourselves against any serious aggressor, leave alone a big one! So, can't fight them ...join them!
Beaver, again you are so right!
Listening to Manley earlier gave me the impression that Canada, as a Nato Force, is continuing what Lester Pearson started, what Trudeau endorsed and supported, what Martin got us into and Harper is continuing.
All that is correct as I know it, BUT that is not the whole story. Canadians know, just as my humble self does, that we are there to support and to finish a war the Americans started. They didn't start it because they wanted the Afghan people to have a better and more modern life, No...they started it under the false pretense of getting Osama bin Laden, because they say he is responsible for the 9/11 attack. Yet, before the start of the war the Americans were asked to provide proof that he did it, before handing him over, they couldn't provide any proof and flatly dismissed the request by saying,... "we don't negotiate on that matter... hand him over or face the consequences"! And so the Americans, not the Canadians, went to war against Afghanistan.
Now, after more than six years of fighting and all sorts of countries gotten involved as well, the war is no longer about bin Laden and 9/11.... it wqas changed to a humanitarian war. Let's help the poor people in Afghanistan to free themselves from the Islamic fundamentalists, the Taliban. I have never heard the Afghan people asking us to come and help them, they were simply confronted with the Western Generosity.
It is the same situation in Iraq! Saddam had WMD and was a threat to USRAEL. It was imperative, to go in there and destroy those weapons. As it turned out, there were none! Therefore, the reason for the war against Iraq was change to a humanitarian one... let's free the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein, the brutal dictator.
All sorts of countries were asked to join in that war, and many heeded the threat = if you are not with us then you are against us! Then you are a terrorist supporter.
Our PM at the time, Jean Chretien, had the guts to refuse; so did Germany's Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
The US is simply too powerful and will make any country that refuses to participate in their efforts for global supremacy, suffer dearly through economic manipulations. Canada, as a next-door neighbor, got a taste of it during the Chretien years. Finally, after Mulroony, the Conservatists are back in the saddle and we are brought in line again with the wishes of the Americans. As soon as we are not behaving, like not pulling our weight in Afghanistan or putting the US and Israel on a list with the worlds tortures, we get sternly reprimanded. Of course, our Harper Government retracts immediately any "misteps" to keep us compliant with the wishes of our dear neighbor.
The larger picture, I find, was missing in Manley's report. He does mention, though, how important it is that Canadians know and understand the situation and our commitment, but he avoided the crucial points completely.
I wonder how many Canadians will now be convinced that we should and must continue the mission, because we are tough and don't shy away from a tough job... we are leaders and play an important role on the world stage, we are also a rich country? Is he playing on our pride and national Ego, I wonder?
On the other hand, folks, what else are we to do? Although we are a big country, we simply don't have the power to defend ourselves against any serious aggressor, leave alone a big one! So, can't fight them ...join them!
January 22nd, 2008, 12:14 PM
As for the rest of your posted material, something doesn't bode well with me when I read what people call journalism these days when it contains words like stooges...seems the bias is set from the get go, but I would expect anything less from the like of some people.
Though the foundation was laid as weaponry against Russian Imperialism, the Taliban, Pushtan for 'student' was not a western conception.
The blame, as is the creation of such, is not to be put squarely on the west as you continuously attempt to do, in contrary to historic documented fact.
Quoting darkbeaver
That's great, Canada has nothing to do with Iraq, but hey, why not drag it up as the left often does to make some conveluded point.
Deterioration of Iraqi Women's Rights and Living Conditions Under Occupation
As for the rest of your posted material, something doesn't bode well with me when I read what people call journalism these days when it contains words like stooges...seems the bias is set from the get go, but I would expect anything less from the like of some people.
Quote:
BS... Try and understand that the Taleban was a western conception from the beginning funded and trained by the ISI/CIA. Canadians are dying to defeat our own invention.
T
T
Though the foundation was laid as weaponry against Russian Imperialism, the Taliban, Pushtan for 'student' was not a western conception.
Quote:
Link
In 1994, a new group, the Taliban (Pashtun for "students"), emerged on the scene. Its members came from madrassas set up by the Pakistani government along the border and funded by the U.S., Britain, and the Saudis, where they had received theological indoctrination and military training. Thousands of young men-refugees and orphans from the war in Afghanistan-became the foot soldiers of this movement:
***
They were literally the orphans of war, the rootless and restless, the jobless and the economically deprived with little self-knowledge. They admired war because it was the only occupation they could possibly adapt to. Their simple belief in a messianic, puritan Islam which had been drummed into them by simple village mullahs was the only prop they could hold on to and which gave their lives some meaning. Untrained for anything, even the traditional occupations of their forefathers such as farming, herding or the making of handicrafts, they were what Karl Marx would have termed Afghanistan's lumpen proletariat.
***
The Taliban's brand of extreme Islam had no historical roots in Afghanistan. The roots of the Taliban's success lay in 20 years of "jihad" against the Russians and further devastation wrought by years of internal fighting between the warlord factions. Initially, villagers-especially the majority Pashtuns in the south who shared the Taliban's ethnicity-welcomed them as a force that might end the warfare and bring some order and peace to Afghanistan. Their lack of a social base within Afghanistan made them appear untainted by the factional warfare, and their moral purism made them appear above compromise. Before launching their war to conquer power, they first won some public support by appearing as the avenger against the warlords' raping of women and boys. Of course, they could not have risen so far and so fast without the financial and military backing of Pakistan.
***
They were literally the orphans of war, the rootless and restless, the jobless and the economically deprived with little self-knowledge. They admired war because it was the only occupation they could possibly adapt to. Their simple belief in a messianic, puritan Islam which had been drummed into them by simple village mullahs was the only prop they could hold on to and which gave their lives some meaning. Untrained for anything, even the traditional occupations of their forefathers such as farming, herding or the making of handicrafts, they were what Karl Marx would have termed Afghanistan's lumpen proletariat.
***
The Taliban's brand of extreme Islam had no historical roots in Afghanistan. The roots of the Taliban's success lay in 20 years of "jihad" against the Russians and further devastation wrought by years of internal fighting between the warlord factions. Initially, villagers-especially the majority Pashtuns in the south who shared the Taliban's ethnicity-welcomed them as a force that might end the warfare and bring some order and peace to Afghanistan. Their lack of a social base within Afghanistan made them appear untainted by the factional warfare, and their moral purism made them appear above compromise. Before launching their war to conquer power, they first won some public support by appearing as the avenger against the warlords' raping of women and boys. Of course, they could not have risen so far and so fast without the financial and military backing of Pakistan.
The blame, as is the creation of such, is not to be put squarely on the west as you continuously attempt to do, in contrary to historic documented fact.
Quoting karrie
It isn't, but your asertion is still alid.
If that's true, then perhaps it's right that we stay and clean up our mess.
Mighty Intellect
Posts: 1,898
Location: in town
Location: in town
January 22nd, 2008, 12:18 PM
I tested the link and it works fine for me. I will go back and give you the long original link.
http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/Top...y_panel_080121
Quoting Zan
Sorry, Zan...
DL, your link isn't working for me, but I was hoping to read the article - watching The National last night, I didn't see the one option I was hoping for mentioned in the piece that outlined what options are likely going to be looked at in the report... that being the option to remain in Afghanistan in a non-combat role. Perhaps your link could shed some light on that for me, if I could read it...
I tested the link and it works fine for me. I will go back and give you the long original link.
http://news.sympatico.msn.ctv.ca/Top...y_panel_080121
