Should Iran be invited to join a UN-led co-alition to Afghanistan?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Then putting the Iranian government aside, would you support the Canadian government hiring more speakers of Persian, Pashta, Uzbek, and other local languages of Afghanistan, regardless of nationality, to train them as soldiers and police officers, etc. to replace Caandian troops on the front line, and relegate Canadian troops (except maybe the few who do know a local language) to support roles? Chances are, we'd lose fewer innocent lives that way too owing to different misunderstandings. I remember seeing a programme on CBC a few weeks ago where Canadian soldiers saw a local approaching with a knife in hand. They yelled (in English:roll
for him to drop the weapon. He didn't and so they shot him. Once they'd approached, they'd found that the knife was the only weapon he had on him. They were searching, telling each other how they'd told him to drop the weapon, etc. For all we know, he might have thought in his mind that Canadians are the enemy. Or maybe that Canadians torture people, etc. and that he'd be better dead than cought anyway. We don't know what was going through his mind, neither can the Canadian troops if they have no common language. With a common language, they could have communicated with him to figure out what the issue was. Certainly you'd agree that to save a few innocent lives, we should do all we can, even hire foreign nationals into our military if necessary, to ensure that our soldiers are qualified for the work they're doing. Or are you saying we can't trust furriners now?
Hale shoma che toure, Colpie?
Hmmm... Afghans aren't Arabs either. And as for dialct, it's not the same as a language. Persians speak Zaban-e-Farsi, while about 50% of Afghans speak Zaban-e-Dari, but they're both the same zaban. They're about as different as US English from British, or Austrian German from Berlin German (Hitler was Austrian too, remember, but his accent didn't stop him either). Yes, I do know some Fari too, by the way.
As for accusations, it's just that. Strange that, the CIA was supplying the Students too at one point. Don't you love double standards?
Now as for the government of Iran, what if we wiped it out of the equation and simply hired Persian-speakers directly into the Canadian army then? Since we'd have a shortage in Canada, we might have to create a new international force within the Canadian forces that would reserve the right to hire foreigners too. This force would comprise the Canadian Army's front lines, all being required to know the local language wherever they should go. If they don't know the local language, they'r immediately relegated to support roles, no compromise. Now that's something you could agree to, I'd assume?
In case you're wondering what 'the Students' are, its the direct English translation of the Arabic 'al-Taliban'
If Iran wants to help out, it can't hurt to listen. One of NATO's problems is access. Iran could help out by allowing NATO conveys to travel though Iranian territory to parts of Afghanistan which aren't easily accessible from Pakistan or the northern stans. A stable Afghanistan is also in Iran's interest. But its also in Iran's interest to see the US sinking in a quagmire... I'm not too sure they would be willing to offer more than a token gesture of humanitarian aid. But that's a start. Who knows maybe it could even lead to a trust relationship... That's another reason for opening the door a crack.
Trust but verify?
Trust but verify?
Seeing that there is much concern in this thread with the possible intentions of Iran in such a co-alition, I've decided to create a new thread that tries to deal with that problem while still tackling the dismally poor understanding of the local culture among NATO troops abroad. please feel free to indicate in this thread whether or not you think it could help to bipass IRan while still accessing its human resources:
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/i...should-nato-create-separate-multilingual.html
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/i...should-nato-create-separate-multilingual.html
Who said that? You are miss reading my post I never suggested that all Iranians are the same. Where do you get that?
OK, so would you think the thread linked to in the post above to be reasonable?
Just about everybody over there already knows how to pull a trigger, they need the personnel and equipment to establish public works (basic necessities which at present are pretty much in ruins)and projects that have a long-term positive benefits for the region. Irrigation some sort of manufacturing base (so they don't have to shop abroad for everything they need or desire, and a lot of money so none of those projects are put on hold. Now if that sound expensive wait till the bill for Iraq comes in, true it was a US led illegal invasion but the world can cough up some cash also since they did squat to reverse the invasion for years and years after it was very apparent it was based on nothing but lies, not misinformation, flat-out bald-faced lies. Again it is not the UN that should be deciding who replaces the US forces, that is a choice to be made only by the people who will be dealing with them on a day-to-day basis (the war-lords do not get the call since they will be subject to authority until things are stabilized), the UN's job is to tell the US to leave and have the ability to use force if there is any reluctance (that could be accomplished on US soil rather than in Afghan since stopping the gunfire is the objective in the area. The US should also be stripped of it's influence in the UN since they have abused it several times lately.
They need construction trades more than they need (more)men with guns. Simply review how it was working a few decades ago and let them rebuild that system.
That I can agree with. But as long as our troops are there, they do have to engage the public on a daily basis. If they can't communicate with the locals, then their only solution to any problem is through the barrel of a rifle.
I can agree with that for the most part. True, the US (and the UK and Poland, etc.) should never have set foot on Iraqi soil in the first place. As for Afghanistan, it's more debatable, but even then it should at least not have been NATo-led. And who knows, maybe you're right that we should never have gone into Afghanistan in the first place. THe main thrust of the thread is that as long as we insist on being there, right or wrong, at the very least, our troops should be equipped to communicate with the local population better than just by swinging a riffle barrel towards them. Not the best way to communicate on friendly terms, now is it. And that just increases animosity between the two sides and thus more death among the very people we're supposedly there to help.
Canada is part of the occupation force, no way in hell we should even have a say in how they want to go about undoing the damage we have done. Duct-tape the mouth and open the wallet is all Canada's role should be. When somebody is getting therapy for trauma caused by violence, it is seldom (if ever) that the violators are part of the recovery team.
It's quite different to support a cause because you believed a lie, it's quite another thing to keep supporting that cause once you know it is a lie. Once you know and do nothing you have become part of the lie itself, that deserves no rewards.
Local nations would be the best choice but that is only if it trust is already there. if it has to be built then aid can be from any Nation. A group doing good deed for the people are not likely to be attacked.
Last edited:
But yes, I fully agree that all countries shoudl be held up to international law, and clearly the INvasion of Iraq was illiegal, and was even officially declared so by the UN.
I can agree that perhaps we should never have gone into Afghanistan in the first place. And I can certainly agree that a NATO-led force just sent all the wrong connotations from the Cold War. But the premise of this thread is based on the supposition that we have to be there. If we don't have to be there (and I think you might be right there), that's a different matter. But as long as we are there, we should expect our troops to be able to engage the local population in their local language. A common language can dissipate many a potentially mortal conflict. It's amazing what the ability, often taken for granted, of being able to just talk through a conflict can do.
Pashtun
Any member of a Pashto-speaking people of southeastern Afghanistan and northwestern Pakistan. The Pashtun, who number about 7.5 million in Afghanistan and 14 million in Pakistan, constitute the majority of the population of Afghanistan. Their origins are unclear: Pashtun tradition asserts that they are descended from Afghana, grandson of King Saul of Israel, but most scholars believe that they arose from an intermingling of ancient Aryans from the north or west with subsequent invaders. Each Pashtun tribe is divided into clans, subclans, and patriarchal families. Disputes among the Pashtun over property, women, and personal injury often result in blood feuds between families and whole clans. Most tribal people are sedentary farmers; some are migratory herders and caravaners. Large numbers of the Pashtun have always been attracted to military service.
So while we can certainly argue about whether we should be in Afghanistan at all, I still think it's common senses that if we are going to be there, then at least ensure an ability to communicate with the locals in their own language. After all, let's not forget. Regardless of whether the war is legitimate or not, we are still the foreigners there.
I stand corrected. Then perhaps the Pakistani army could be of service. Again, we could debate whether a foreign force should be there in the first place. But for the purpose of this thread, if we are going to be there, then definitely people who speak the local language will be much more qualified than most Canadian troops.
Colpy --Have you heard of High German? It is the written language and the common German language. I agree that some dialects are so close to Yiddisch that those of us who speak it communicate readily in Yiddisch but have difficulty with say North Germans and can't understand the Swiss. Hitler spoke not in dialect.
You certainly are Hitler obsessed and a German hater. Very glad that Russians occupied the area I lived in rather than you and your kind.
Afghanistan, all the Muslim countries need to be controlled by who? All the blood spilled should be whose? All the smiling leaders should be under the control of the ALL seeing EYE pyramid on the USA $1.oo bill and at the Supreme court compound in Israel which the Rothschild Red Shield or Red Sign family costructed at their own expense.
savethemales.ca - Hitler Used Rothschild Banker's Typewriter
You certainly are Hitler obsessed and a German hater. Very glad that Russians occupied the area I lived in rather than you and your kind.
Afghanistan, all the Muslim countries need to be controlled by who? All the blood spilled should be whose? All the smiling leaders should be under the control of the ALL seeing EYE pyramid on the USA $1.oo bill and at the Supreme court compound in Israel which the Rothschild Red Shield or Red Sign family costructed at their own expense.
savethemales.ca - Hitler Used Rothschild Banker's Typewriter
As long as 5 have more say than the majority of members. Since it is only those 5 who are listened too it should be a club of 5, the rest might as well go home since they can never outvote ever 1 of the 5, let alone all 5. Give em all back their fees that they ever paid. The UN is a perfect place for Iraq and Afghan to get 'advice' from Nations (minus the big 5) They could study the constitutions of many countries and use that info to draft how theirs is written before taking it to their voters for ratification. The UN would also be a graet body to oversee how funds are moved about, in the theory that the accounting books are open to inspection from many rather than a few would result in a fairly honest process. All bids would be filtered through the UN, in that they could search the world for the best deal rather than who should be made richer while having an inferior and more expensive product.