Our Glorious Afghan Mission

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
I believe what goes around comes around. We cannot compromise when it comes to being just or fair. That means respecting human dignity.

Your argument is???? Be grateful we haven't killed more innocent people.

I doubt its possible to win anyone's hearts or minds while we keep forcing them to bury their relatives and friends or what we call collateral damage. Not killing Afghanistan civilians is also about our own protection. If we don't value their lives, why should they value ours?


They didn't value our lives in the fist place.

Hugs and love is a nice ideal, but it isn't the way the world works. It isn't the way any single country in the world works. Every society works on the basis that if you keep going against the grain, and refuse to submit long enough, men with guns will kill you.

Go to any country and break the law, refuse to acknowledge police, and fend them off when they come to you. Keep at it, and the result is they shoot you.

Its how humanity functions.

Drawing imaginary lines in the sand doesn't change human nature.



People there want us dead. The only way to stop them from killing us is to station soldiers their to stop them. They instead kill the soldiers. Telling people to sit there and let themselves be killed (ie Our soldiers) won't work. Its not like they will listen, would you listen if you were told to commit suicide? So the soldiers need to be able to act with reasonable measures to protect themselves.

You want to critisize someone? Critisize the fighters who refuse to obey the laws of war, if you hide amongst civilians and dress like them, it becomes legitimate to shoot civilians. And the fault lies at the hands of those who broke the rules of war.

The rules of war are constraining to protect your civilians. It is your duty to protect your citizens by obeying them. It is not your opponents job to protect your citizens for you.

People have a responsibility to run their own affairs. This is not a privelage, it is a duty, a burden. If you fail live up to your burden, and make your problems spill into another country then they have every right to solve your problem for you as they see fit. Whether or not Afghanis love us is unimportant. That they don't need to involve us is the point. The easiest way, the EASIEST way Afghanis could have us leave?

Stop shooting us, take our FREE MONEY, let us build things YOU WANT and go. Afghanistan is how it is because its people choose it to be that way.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
They didn't value our lives in the fist place.

Hugs and love is a nice ideal, but it isn't the way the world works. It isn't the way any single country in the world works. Every society works on the basis that if you keep going against the grain, and refuse to submit long enough, men with guns will kill you.

Go to any country and break the law, refuse to acknowledge police, and fend them off when they come to you. Keep at it, and the result is they shoot you.

Its how humanity functions.

Drawing imaginary lines in the sand doesn't change human nature.



People there want us dead. The only way to stop them from killing us is to station soldiers their to stop them. They instead kill the soldiers. Telling people to sit there and let themselves be killed (ie Our soldiers) won't work. Its not like they will listen, would you listen if you were told to commit suicide? So the soldiers need to be able to act with reasonable measures to protect themselves.

You want to critisize someone? Critisize the fighters who refuse to obey the laws of war, if you hide amongst civilians and dress like them, it becomes legitimate to shoot civilians. And the fault lies at the hands of those who broke the rules of war.

The rules of war are constraining to protect your civilians. It is your duty to protect your citizens by obeying them. It is not your opponents job to protect your citizens for you.

People have a responsibility to run their own affairs. This is not a privelage, it is a duty, a burden. If you fail live up to your burden, and make your problems spill into another country then they have every right to solve your problem for you as they see fit. Whether or not Afghanis love us is unimportant. That they don't need to involve us is the point. The easiest way, the EASIEST way Afghanis could have us leave?

Stop shooting us, take our FREE MONEY, let us build things YOU WANT and go. Afghanistan is how it is because its people choose it to be that way.


What do you mean by your opening statement? "(They didn't value our lives in the fist place.)"



Hugs and love is a nice ideal, but it isn't the way the world works. It isn't the way any single country in the world works. Every society works on the basis that if you keep going against the grain, and refuse to submit long enough, men with guns will kill you.

Do you expect to live by those rules, or are they just for the underclass of non Americans?

People have a responsibility to run their own affairs. This is not a privelage, it is a duty, a burden. If you fail live up to your burden, and make your problems spill into another country then they have every right to solve your problem for you as they see fit. Whether or not Afghanis love us is unimportant. That they don't need to involve us is the point. The easiest way, the EASIEST way Afghanis could have us leave?

America has a long record of intervention in the affairs of others. This is a privilage reserved for Americans by virtue of might is right, conquest and occupation. Americans involved themselves in Afghanistan, no one ask for your involvement. There is no way to get you to leave while the question of regional strategic domination remains paramount.


Go to any country and break the law, refuse to acknowledge police, and fend them off when they come to you. Keep at it, and the result is they shoot you.

You break the law consistantly with every invasion and occupation, you bomb, poison,murder,
and steal whereever you go.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia

International News / Peace News
Date: Mar 04, 2007 - 09:56 PM . Afghanistan and Operation Medusa: Fog of War
NATO's Failure and Afghanistan's Future

ZNet - Dave Markland - Seven Oaks - February 05, 2007 - it is useful to review Operation Medusa, as it is that campaign, rather than Baaz Tsuka, that is most likely to set the tone for the war's future. That battle was the culmination of NATO efforts versus the Taliban's new tactics. Throughout 2006, the insurgents chose to dig in and defend their positions rather than melting away as before - a strategy they will likely return to when the fighting recommences in earnest in the spring.

www.vanparecon.blogspot.com


Early in the new year, NATO officials in Afghanistan declared success in Operation Baaz Tsuka in the troubled districts of Panjwai and Zhari outside of Kandahar City. The campaign itself may have caused for many a sense of deja vu, as the announced objectives of Baaz Tsuka (pronounced 'bazooka') were nearly identical to those of September's Canadian-led Operation Medusa, which was also declared a success. The goal of both operations was to clear Taliban fighters from several villages in the Arghandab Valley about 30km west of Kandahar. The area is the birthplace of Taliban leader Mullah Omar and boasts the distinction of having kept out the Russians for all the years of their occupation and hence holds great symbolic value for insurgents. Thus, NATO officials were understandably self-proud in January when they were able to declare victory, allowing the return of some of the 90,000 civilians who had fled in advance of Medusa's airstrikes.
But beneath NATO's boastful triumph is a perennial truth of the Afghan winter: Wars in this region have always paused for the winter months as military supply lines are cut off by snow and freezing temperatures. And with no crops in the ground, insurgents cannot take cover in lush fields nor pose as hard-working farmers should they be spotted by police or soldiers. So as NATO troops produced a show of force in the early stages of the operation, many Taliban commanders opted to return to bases over the border in Pakistan in order to cut their losses (see Maclean's, Jan 15/07).
Thus it is hardly surprising that despite pronouncements of easy victory, senior American military officials are preparing for escalated Taliban attacks in the spring, while Secretary of Defense Robert Gates hopes to add troops in Afghanistan to combat the expected upsurge. Yet still the war is expected to drag on. Leading defense analyst John Pike predicts that the war in Afghanistan is "going to last for decades" (Toronto Star, Sept 19/06, A1).
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Afghanistan: The Canadian mission



The basic questions remained to be addressed. What were we doing in this bloody conflict on the other side of the world? What interests did we have in the fight?

James Laxer​
>by James Laxer
March 15, 2007
(Mission of folly: Part three) Canada's military mission in Afghanistan began a few weeks after the terror attacks on New York and Washington on September 11, 2001.
Immediately following the September 11 attacks, Liberal Defence Minister Art Eggleton announced that Canadian soldiers operating within U.S. military units would participate in any actions taken by the United States to retaliate against Al Qaeda and the Taliban. Beginning with this first gesture, the Liberal government quickly moved to lend support to the U.S. assault on Afghanistan.
On October 2, 2001, in response to the September 11 terror attacks, the members of NATO invoked Article 5, for the first time ever. Article 5 declares the alliance's commitment to regard an attack on one member state as an attack on all. The Chrétien government supported this step which was advocated by the Bush administration and the Blair government.
On October 7, when the U.S. and the U.K. launched their initial attacks on Afghanistan, Prime Minister Jean Chrétien announced that Canada would provide military support for the War on Terror. The following day, Canadian ships left Halifax en route to the Persian Gulf, where they were to join the U.S. fleet. On October 14, Chrétien declared that Canada would offer “unqualified support” for the U.S. military operations in Afghanistan.
Following the rout of Taliban forces in the autumn of 2001 and the establishment of an interim Afghan government in Bonn, the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) was authorized by the passage of a United Nations Security Council resolution on December 20. The resolution was passed under the authority of Chapter Seven of the UN Charter.
The ISAF was not funded by the United Nations. Participating member states paid for their individual missions and mobilized their own forces to serve in them. In this sense, the ISAF was not a customary UN mission. Initially, the ISAF operation was led by Britain. In August 2003, NATO formally took over command of the ISAF forces.
The operations of the United States and its ISAF allies were initially organized as two separate missions. The American mission, Operation Enduring Freedom, was completely controlled by t
http://www.rabble.ca/politics.shmtl?x=57983
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
The following is rumor;


The dead soldier from stellarton had his friend call his mother in the minutes before he died, it is said another soldier (capebretoner) from his unit murdered him with a handgun. The caller was repremanded for overstepping protocal. That info is three times removed from the phone-call.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
What do you mean by your opening statement? "(They didn't value our lives in the fist place.)"

-- Pretty Self Explanitory

Hugs and love is a nice ideal, but it isn't the way the world works. It isn't the way any single country in the world works. Every society works on the basis that if you keep going against the grain, and refuse to submit long enough, men with guns will kill you.

Do you expect to live by those rules, or are they just for the underclass of non Americans?

-- I believe I said any country, which includes ours and yours too. Don't believe me? Do something as simple as peeing on the steps of town hall. Hey, everybody pees and you aren't harming anyone. If a police officers give you a ticket , rip it up in front of him. If he tries to arrest you, fend him off, continue this path and the simple act of peeing will get you killed, because you refused to submit.

People have a responsibility to run their own affairs. This is not a privelage, it is a duty, a burden. If you fail live up to your burden, and make your problems spill into another country then they have every right to solve your problem for you as they see fit. Whether or not Afghanis love us is unimportant. That they don't need to involve us is the point. The easiest way, the EASIEST way Afghanis could have us leave?

America has a long record of intervention in the affairs of others. This is a privilage reserved for Americans by virtue of might is right, conquest and occupation. Americans involved themselves in Afghanistan, no one ask for your involvement. There is no way to get you to leave while the question of regional strategic domination remains paramount.

-- And so too have other countries involved themselves in American affairs when it was weak. All countries meddle in the affairs of other countries when it impacts them. From france bombing new zealand in the 80's to Iraq attempting to Assasinate a US president in the 90's to America in Iraq now.

Go to any country and break the law, refuse to acknowledge police, and fend them off when they come to you. Keep at it, and the result is they shoot you.

You break the law consistantly with every invasion and occupation, you bomb, poison,murder,
and steal whereever you go.
-- No, Im afraid not. A law is only a law when it is enforced, by men with guns. There is no world governing body. At the international level, it is still anarchy. No country is innocent, every one which has ever been in a position to abuse another nation or people has. Every, single, one.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
International News / Peace News
Date: Mar 20, 2007 - 12:05 AM . Afghan Instability: A Deliberate Scorched-Earth Strategy

PEJ News
- Success in Afghanistan (from a Russian perspective) means an important blow to the US’s Central Asia adventure and a competitive advantage in the energy wars. Russia with the support of General Dostum, Fahim and groups once related to Northern Alliance, may try to regain previously lost opportunities. The US is aware if this and is leading the region in to new instabilities. Foremost sources of instability are the disputes between Afghanistan-Pakistan, Pakistan-Iran. Consequently by stirring up “controlled crises”, US is continuing its existence in the region and showing her intention of taking initiatives in the regional sense.

www.PEJ.org
http://afghaniblog.livejournal.com/61791.html


AFGHANIBLOG COMMENT:
This article outlines a US orchestrated scorched-earth policy: Better to destroy an asset, than to let it fall into the hands of an enemy.
From the perspective of Brzezinski’s “Grand Chessboard” – a logical choice.
From the perspective of an Afghan citizen – a genocidal choice.
-------------------------------------------
ARTICLE SUMMARY:
(condensed text at above link – with link to original)

Questions posed:
“Why has the Trans-Afghan project not been realized yet?”
“Why has Afghanistan’s security and stabiliy not been achieved?”
“How long this situation will last?”

Success in Afghanistan (from a Russian perspective) means an important blow to the US’s Central Asia adventure and a competitive advantage in the energy wars. Russia with the support of General Dostum, Fahim and groups once related to Northern Alliance, may try to regain previously lost opportunities.

The US is aware if this and is leading the region in to new instabilities.

Foremost sources of instability are the disputes between Afghanistan-Pakistan, Pakistan-Iran. Consequently by stirring up “controlled crises”, US is continuing its existence in the region and showing her intention of taking initiatives in the regional sense.

Within this framework, and under US initiative, the realisation of a Trans-Afghan Project is less probable, with some experts claiming that the whole project is “dead”.

It is almost apparent that the US has been trying to freeze the project for some time. So to achieve this goal, the US is acting in a manner that is helping to inflate of problems between Pakistan and its neighbours Afghanistan, Iran and India.

Some of the possible reasons for US’s wish to suspend the project (through instability) are as follows:
1- governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan are risky countries for US energy security
2- instability is the “justification” of US existence in the region
3- instability impedes regional cooperation projects
4- instability will continue regional “energy security” problems and maintain Indian and regional dependence on US
5- instability will sustain the high energy costs and so, slow development in the region
6- the Iran problem has not been solved yet

Until US achieves success in its own plans for the political and geographical framework of the region - , the future of the “Afghan problem” and Trans-Afghan Pipeline Project will not improve in the foreseeable future.

The countries participating in both the pipeline project and those dealing with “the Afghan problem” are well aware of this situation.
-------------------------

BRZEZINSKI- The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and its Geostrategic Imperatives.
The central argument of the book is that while the United States dominates most of the world and has significant influence on the three peripheries of Eurasia (Western Europe, South West Asia, and the Far East), it is from the heartland of Eurasia that a potential rival may emerge.
He argues that the United States must therefore identify those states that may have the potential to shift the international balance-of power and once identified to formulate policies to counter or co-opt these state, so as to preserve American interests (pp. 39-40).
He identifies several "geostrategic players" (Germany, France, Russia, China and to a lesser extent Japan) as potential rivals for Eurasian hegemony.
He also identifies several "geopolitical pivots" that would be critical for the rise of these potential hegemonic challengers. Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Turkey and Iran he argues are crucial for any revival of Russian dominance in Eurasia (pp. 40-48).
-------------------------

AFGHANIBLOG COMMENT:
By failing to pay for police – you insure a criminal police force.

By refusing to provide the basics of existence (food) – you create the opportunity for criminal enterprise.

By transferring “development money” to your own national corporations – you starve real development (while truthfully claiming that money is being spent.)

By failing to divert poppy monies from druglords – you ensure the Taliban is a viable entity.

By doing this for decades – you create a scorched-earth society.

Mission Accomplished







 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Beve

Why are you conveniently ignoring the truth?

It was Afghanis that tried to blow up the WTC years before 9/11...

It was Afghanis who hid all of Saddams WMD that every "good" American believes were spirited out of the country before the "necessary" application of "shock and awe" rained down on those ragheads...

These people are as guilty as hell..... Imagine letting the Taliban...an export from Pakistan take over your land and allow terrorists to set up training camps....

Imagine the glee of the Afghani people as they used their American supplied weaponry to repel the Soviet pipeline builders....

Get things in perspective here Beve before you're dismissed as a radical extremist...;)
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
The truth, the truth, I can't handle the truth.
I would like to thank Jack Nickholeson and the academy.


The correct term is radical leftist extremist. Which ITN is fond of pointing out.:lol:

 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
No place for critique when it comes to what America does anywhere Beve you know that!
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia


International News / Peace News
Date: Mar 26, 2007 - 10:15 PM . Afghans Now Rejecting NATO Troops - For Taliban

Senlis Council’s Norine MacDonald QC. said: ...... “The results from the survey are extremely alarming because they indicate that the international community is in serious trouble in Afghanistan . A return of the Taliban into power would have grave consequences for both the people of Afghanistan and for global security.”


Afghan civilians are increasingly turning against Canadian troops and their country's government and toward support of the Taliban.

...... Afghan men in the Canadian-controlled areas of Kandahar say they support the Taliban because of disillusionment with the NATO military effort and poverty created by the continuing conflict.
......The report notes that the military effort to defeat the Taliban has eclipsed, and often undermined, the effort to improve living conditions for Afghans and rebuild their government and civil society.

THE POLLIING

A team of 50 researchers polled 17,000 Afghan men in randomly selected districts in the Kandahar , Helmand and Nangarhar provinces of southeastern Afghanistan between March 3 and March 12. The Senlis Council is a Brussels-based think tank that began as a European drug-policy organization.

THE RESULTS 27% openly admitted to supporting the Taliban

...3% supported Taliban in Dec/05
......The real figure the researchers suspect may be even higher than the survey indicates - Taliban supporters are wary of discussing the Taliban with Westerners.
48% were confident Afghan and NATO troops would be able to defeat the insurgents.
......It notes that when U.S. troops first arrived at the end of 2001 and deposed the Taliban government, most Afghans believed the Taliban had been eliminated from the country.
......Report: "[Local] populations' belief in one side's capacity for victory is just one step behind actually supporting that side. Who locals believe is going to win is often an important factor in that side's eventual victory."
49% thought NATO would lose to the Taliban
...... “This is extremely disturbing – people are evenly split on this issue. Counter-insurgency theory shows us that local populations’ belief in one side’s capacity for victory is just one step behind actually supporting that side. Immediate steps must be taken to reverse this deadly trend.”
19% said foreign troops were helping them personally
......In U.S. controlled regions it was only 6.5 per cent
71 % believed the Afghan government was also unhelpful.
80% were worried about feeding their families.
72 % of men in the region know how to fire a weapon

......This makes them potential Taliban recruits - who are paid six times the average income.
...... “This is of particular concern because our research has shown that much of the support for the Taliban insurgency in southern Afghanistan is poverty driven.”
......"People are hungry and angry, and when bombing campaigns level villages, it's not difficult to see how those facts come together."
......The informal refugee camps of internally displaced people provide easy recruitment grounds for the Taliban. “The men in these camps are looking for work; they are desperate to feed their families. They are easy recruits for the Taliban. “

INTEGRITY WATCH AFGHANISTAN POLL

60 % believed it was the most corrupt government in two decades.

...... Since the fall of the Taliban – "corruption has soared to levels not seen in previous administrations."
...... Under Karzai, money "can buy government appointments, bypass justice or evade police" with impunity. Weak law enforcement was mainly to blame, said the group's executive director, Lorenzo Delesgues.
...... "Corruption has undermined the legitimacy of the state," he said yesterday in Kabul .

POLLING IN US-CONTROLLED AREA 52% wanted NATO to leave the country

88% believed the U.S. response to insurgent attacks was wrong.
6.5% said foreign troops were helping them personally

SENLIS REPORT COMMENTARY

......"Across the south, the majority of survey respondents both worry about being able to feed their families, and do not believe that the Afghan government and the international troops are helping them.
“Afghanis in southern Afghanistan are increasingly prepared to admit their support for the Taliban, and the belief that the government and the international community will not be able to defeat the Taliban is widespread in the southern provinces."
...... "The widespread perception of locals is that the international community is not helping to improve their lives. The Taliban has been able to easily and effectively capitalize on this by providing protection from forced eradication [of poppy crops] and employment to many."
......"It is clear that the Taliban are winning the propaganda war. This victory is now having a direct effect on the war itself, through people's perceptions of who is going to win."
......Norine MacDonald, Senlis's Canadian founder: "The military forces are doing a remarkable job in extremely difficult circumstances. But woefully inadequate aid and development, and misguided counter-narcotics policies, are turning people against them and making their work much more dangerous."

MILITARY INSTITUTE AGREES

The conclusions echo those of the Canadian Defence and Foreign Affairs Institute, a more hawkish counterpart based in Calgary .
......Both organizations have said the military component of the mission is falling behind because of inadequate humatarian efforts.

ESPRIT D’CORPS EDITOR AGREES

Maclean's Magazines Scott Taylor, who travelled with the Senlis Council in Kandahar earlier this year, says it's time for a comprehensive re-assessment of the Afghanistan mission's goals.
...... "The fact is, the military can't win this. Can they defeat the Taliban in every single engagement? If you go by body count, yes. But we've had our own [Major-General Andrew] Leslie say: Each time we kill one it makes a martyr and that makes 15 more recruits. "The longer we're there, the more that we kill, the more it becomes us versus them."
...... According to Taylor , even the reconstruction efforts have been somewhat misguided. By trying to re-shape Afghan society as quickly as possible, he said, Canadian efforts have often proven incompatible with local customs and been rejected outright.

SENLIS RECOMMENDATIONS:

“We have made a series of recommendations which we believe could help reverse this trend and we are urging the international community to immediately rebalance its tactics in Afghanistan . The main role of the international community in Afghanistan is to provide support for President Karzai’s government and many of the approaches being used mean our own policies are empowering our enemies. ”

1) Development has been sorely under funded; (Military spending 2002-2006 outpaces development spending by 900%) An aid surge is needed;

2) Eradication must stop Forced poppy-crop eradication has robbed many of their only means of survival.

3) Replace current counter-productive drug policies with pragmatic initiatives such as poppy for medicine projects. An approach to poppy cultivation that takes ordinary farmers’ needs into account by licensing opium production for medicinal purposes would help boost support for President Karzai and to trigger economic diversification;

4) Implement pilot poppy for medicine projects at the next planting season. Licenses for existing poppy crops for medicine should be issued to those farms that embrace and demonstrate a transition to crop diversification. This long-term counter-narcotics strategy has to be developed locally in order to have the ownership required for success

5) Military interventions have caused many civilian casualties. Avoiding civilian injury must be a priority in all military action in Afghanistan.

-----------------------------------------

Better Formatting at: > AfghaniBlog

SOURCES: Senlis Council News Release MACLEANS: Not welcome - Survey suggests Afghanis are wary of NATO troops GLOBE & MAIL: Afghans rejecting Canadian troops for Taliban, survey finds

TOR STAR: Losing Afghan hearts, minds

----------------------------------------- RECALL: Cdn Def &For'n Aff Inst report: Work with -not against- Taliban
One of the experts that we asked about how many troops would be needed for a military victory said, 'Oh, maybe half a million.' So adding a couple of thousand is wonderful but it doesn't do anything."

Privy Council: Vast majority of Afghanis struggle for the "bare essentials of survival" The bleak forecast of the heavily censored report is at odds with recent claims by other Canadian officials
......It says the vast majority of the population still struggles for the "bare essentials of survival," just as they did in the days of the Taliban

Excerpted: Senate Report on Afghanistan
The Committee was impressed by the optimism of Canadian troops and their leaders ... but ... we found it hard to square that with reality.

......CIDA has a number of projects underway, but no one was able to show us. Journalists say they have seen some evidence of useful programs, but these appear to be limited.
......If our only mission is to distract the Taliban while our allies make progress on other fronts ... this hasn’t been properly explained to Canadians.
......Where Canada is trying to have its biggest impact – in Kandahar – life is clearly more perilous because we are there.
......Afghan government officials are notoriously corrupt at all levels. It is a pipe dream to believe that this deep-seated tradition will go away overnight.
......Anyone expecting to see the emergence in Afghanistan within the next several decades of a recognizable modern democracy ... is dreaming in Technicolor.
......Our former former Ambassador to Afghanistan , Chris Alexander, said it would take 5 generations of effort to make a difference in Afghanistan .

US State Dept: Sickening Abuse by Afghan Gov Officials [BRACEWELL: This extract focuses on the action of government officials – an evil read.]

A Soldier Reflects: We're Still Dying in Afghanistan
[BRACEWELL: This is a letter by a Canadian related to a dead soldier – who fought as a Soviet in Afghanistan . Supplemental material here is very much worth reading.]

Afghan Instability: A Deliberate Scorched-Earth Strategy

[BRACEWELL: The author of the article is discussing the reason a trans-Afghan pipeline has not been built.]
Some of the possible reasons for US’s wish continued instability, are as follows:
......1- governments of Turkmenistan and Pakistan are risky countries for US energy security
......2- instability is the “justification” of US existence in the region
......3- instability impedes regional cooperation projects
......4- instability will continue regional “energy security” problems and maintain Indian and regional dependence on US
......5- instability will sustain the high energy costs and so, slow development in the region
......6- the Iran problem has not been solved yet





This article comes from PEJ News
http://pej.org

The URL for this story is:
http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=6703
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Hey Beve...

Doryman is looking for answers...not opinions...

I'll give you an answer Doryman...

The United States government who's elected to embrace Pakistan as an ally...where the Taliban originate and where a great many of the combatants come from...can pressure Pakistan to do something more than pay lip service to controlling radical extremists from joining the fray. The Canadian troops killing in the arena of practice that's been established under the rubric of "stopping the Taliban"...which began with the Americans arming the mahujadeen...should be withdrawn and the poppy fields destroyed before our troops leave....

There are more "answers" Doryman but Israel through its manipulated idiot child the United States of America prefers to have a "necessity" close at hand to act as dynamic in Israels continuing machinations to keep the Moslem world the "enemy"...

A more basic answer still is for the United States to curtail its support of the Israeli regime and bring its troops home. What "right" does the United States and Canada have in interfering in the geopolitics of that region of the planet? There is no "reason" other than the pressure that comes from Israel onto the United States then onto Canada and the whole coalition of the "willing". You'll never find Canadians or Americans willing to entertain that possibility however....
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
You seem to be mistaking our mission in afghanistan.

Don't let Semantics fool you. We don't put people in harms way to help other people out of their mess they made, themselves (Afghanistan Civilians)

We do it, because they made it our problem.

If they don't want us there, they can sit down and handle their own affairs. If you keep shooting at us, we will only stay longer.

And seriously, you guys got a real paranoia complex. You are not dangerous extremists, as comforting as that is to your ego..to feel important, the truth is you are not. No offence, but nobody truly cares about any of our opinions, Including yours.

You aren't a "dangerous extremist", your just one cog amonst millions in a big machine called civilization.
 

BitWhys

what green dots?
Apr 5, 2006
3,157
15
38
There's rumours some of the NATO countries are considering pushing for legalizing the poppy trade. Its about ****ing time. Not that it won't meet with resistance from the Northern Alliance power brokers. or the morphine oligarchy.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
The Taliban did the "bad" thing Zzarchov....not the people of Afghanistan...

You seem to think that simply becuase the Taliban held public executions with beheading and the seeding of terror throughout the people of Afghanistan...that its the people of Afghanistan who are to blame...thus it's perfectly acceptable to exterminate them...

How many people in Canada and the United States got to choose whether the U.S. invaded Iraq? How many Canadians were asked if we felt goooooood about sending our kids off to die in America's petroleum war?

If the Afghani people deserve to die because we decided that was the thing to do...why should we get so upset when the Taliban or Osama decide for us that we should die...?
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
>by James Laxer
April 3, 2007
(Mission of Folly: Part five) Unlike Canada, most NATO member countries are not enthusiastic about the Afghan mission.
At the end of 2006, under NATO command, there were about 33,000 troops in Afghanistan, about one third of them American. In principle, the alliance's mission in Afghanistan is the key priority for NATO members. In reality, while this is a NATO mission, the major partners engaged in serious combat have been the United States, the United Kingdom and Canada.
The International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF) were first deployed to Afghanistan under a UN Mandate. They were placed under NATO command in 2003. From then until 2006, the ISAF units were mostly charged with providing security in Kabul and in the relatively peaceful north and west of the country.
In October 2006, NATO took command of most of the foreign forces in Afghanistan including 12,000 of the American troops. Another 8,000 U.S. soldiers remained under American command and were charged with training the Afghan National Army and hunting for Al Qaeda members and Taliban leaders.
Here is a list of NATO countries and the number of military personnel they have deployed in Afghanistan (in October 2006):
  • Belgium, 300, whose main task is to secure the airport at Kabul;
  • Bulgaria, 150, in 2007, Bulgaria plans to send 200 more soldiers;
  • Canada, 2500, 44 have died;
  • Czech Republic, 100, this force is to rise to 150 when Czech forces assume control of Kabul Airport;
  • Denmark, 389, three have died;
  • Estonia, 79, Estonia plans to increase this force to 120;
  • France, 1700, French forces are deployed in Kabul, nine French soldiers have been killed since the start of the mission;
  • Germany, 3000, German forces are deployed in the north, 18 German soldiers have died since the start of the mission, the German mandate does not allow German troops to be used in the south and east in fighting against the Taliban insurgency;
  • Greece, 171;
  • Hungary, 159;
  • Iceland, 20;
  • Italy, 1800, nine have died during the mission;
  • Latvia, nine;
  • Lithuania, 115;
  • Luxembourg, 10;
  • Netherlands, 1907, Netherlands forces have been deployed in various missions including some operations in the south, four soldiers have died;
  • Norway, 450, one has died;
  • Poland 100, Poland plans to send an additional 1200 troops;
  • Portugal, 156, one has died;
  • Romania, 72, four have died, Romania plans to send an additional battalion;
  • Slovakia, 57;
  • Slovenia, 49;
  • Spain, 800, 18 died in a helicopter crash in 2005, 62 died in a plane crash in Turkey in 2003 en route to Spain, one other soldier was killed;
  • Turkey, 825;
  • United Kingdom, 5,800, 44 have died;
  • United States, 12,000 under NATO command, an additional 8,000 under American command, 296 Americans have died during the mission.
In addition to these official NATO forces, there are small units from so-called Partner Nations, including Albania, Austria, Azerbaijan, Croatia, Finland, Macedonia, Ireland, Sweden (the largest of these with 220 soldiers, two of whom have been killed); and Switzerland.
There are also 120 Australian soldiers, one of whom has died and 50 soldiers from New Zealand. The Afghan National Army is involved in the fight, deploying 28,600 troops and there are as well 30,200 Afghan policemen.
While this is a long list of countries participating in the mission, a quick glance reveals how uneven the levels of engagement have actually been. In terms of the numbers of troops deployed, and particularly the number of participating soldiers killed, the efforts have varied enormously, with only a few assuming the main weight of the fighting.
As of December 30, 2006, there had been 455 coalition deaths in Afghanistan: United States, 296; Canada, 44; United Kingdom, 44; Spain, 19; Germany, 18; France, nine; Italy, nine; Netherlands, four; Romania, four; Denmark, three; Sweden, two; Australia, one; Norway, one; Portugal, one. (Of significant note as well were the 62 Spanish soldiers killed outside Afghanistan in a plane crash in Turkey in 2003.)
In absolute numbers, the United States dominates the list. Looked at it more closely, it is significant that the U.S., Canada and the United Kingdom accounted for nearly 84 per cent of personnel killed. Looking at the whole list, including the U.S. and the UK, in terms of the size of the populations of the countries participating, Canada has suffered the most casualties.
Other important NATO countries, including Germany, France and Italy, respectively with 18, nine, and nine killed are involved in the mission, but are much less fully engaged than the U.S., Canada and the UK whose forces have done most of the fighting.
Because of strong political opposition at home to participation in the Afghan war, and the view of the governments in Berlin, Paris and Rome that the mission will be long and unrewarding, these NATO countries have mostly kept their forces in the safer regions of the north and have placed restrictions on their forces operating in zones of conflict. Some of their forces are not even permitted to go on patrols at night.
At a NATO summit in Latvia in November 2006, the issue of the disproportionate involvement in combat, by some countries as compared with others, came to a head. Under pressure from the Americans and the British, a few allies agreed to ease restrictions on the use of their troops in missions against the insurgents.
Those agreeing to do so included the Netherlands, Romania, Slovenia and Luxembourg. Far more important, however, were the decisions of France, Germany, Italy and Spain to allow their forces to be deployed in combat situations only in emergencies. In plain language, this meant these large NATO countries refused to shift their positions in any meaningful way.
Explaining the decision, Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi told journalists that “this has been our clear position from the beginning.” He added: “That also goes for the French President, the German Chancellor, and the Spanish.”
Cynicism has surrounded the Afghanistan mission from the very beginning. The Bush administration launched the invasion of the country for broad geo-political reasons at a time when the key members of the administration had already made up their minds that the place they really wanted a military showdown was in Iraq. The British have also seen the Afghan theatre as secondary to that in Iraq.
From the British, at least, there has been some willingness to speak plainly about the conflict — British officers have warned publicly that the war is not being won — while in the U.S. the conflict has been so wrapped in ideological bunting that little reality has shone through.
Among Canada's other NATO allies in Afghanistan, doubt has been pervasive. The continental European countries have sent forces to Afghanistan but have ensured that casualties remain relatively low. Public opinion would not allow them to do otherwise. These countries entered the conflict under overwhelming pressure from Washington. They are there largely to show that they are loyal members of the western alliance. When it comes to doing serious fighting against the insurgency, they have not done it, nor will they in the future.
Were Canada to withdraw from the mission, it would not jeopardize Canada's relationship with most other NATO countries, since for most of our allies involvement in Afghanistan has been no more than pro forma.
James Laxer is a Professor of Political Science at York University in Toronto. This is part of a much longer work which will run regularly in rabble.ca.



 

snfu73

disturber of the peace
You seem to be mistaking our mission in afghanistan.

Don't let Semantics fool you. We don't put people in harms way to help other people out of their mess they made, themselves (Afghanistan Civilians)

We do it, because they made it our problem.

If they don't want us there, they can sit down and handle their own affairs. If you keep shooting at us, we will only stay longer.

And seriously, you guys got a real paranoia complex. You are not dangerous extremists, as comforting as that is to your ego..to feel important, the truth is you are not. No offence, but nobody truly cares about any of our opinions, Including yours.

You aren't a "dangerous extremist", your just one cog amonst millions in a big machine called civilization.
Huh?

Who cares if you don't care about others opinons. These are public forums. What exactly are they for if they are not for expressing opinions? If you don't like the fact that others are expressing opinions, you can always choose to do something else with your time.

In terms of the war and canada's involvement...I don't get exactly what is going on. This thing just seems to be going and going and going with seemingly little progress. How long can things go on like this? People just keep dying...and it's been that way for decades now. Endless war is going to **** up a country and the people within it. War doesn't seem to be working.
 

Sparrow

Council Member
Nov 12, 2006
1,202
23
38
Quebec
This is not a war that will be won primarily with bombs, guns and destroying the poppy fields. They need a fighting army to help repel the Taliban but they also need help to build a life for themselves. These people have been ruled by invaders for many centuries, they have never learned to rule their own country.
History of Afghanistan: http://www.afghangovernment.com/briefhistory.htm

We need to interact more with the people, not destroy their livelihood and that is what is happening with the destruction of the poppy fields. Our pharmaceutical companies are in short supply of drugs like this to make painkillers, why not sell the poppies to them enabling the Afghan farmers to earn a living.
Canada in Afghanistan: Is it working? http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Canada in Afghanistan Is it Working.pdf
There are many questions to be answered about this war but it is obvious that so far we are getting no where fast.
 

snfu73

disturber of the peace
This is not a war that will be won primarily with bombs, guns and destroying the poppy fields. They need a fighting army to help repel the Taliban but they also need help to build a life for themselves. These people have been ruled by invaders for many centuries, they have never learned to rule their own country.
History of Afghanistan: http://www.afghangovernment.com/briefhistory.htm

We need to interact more with the people, not destroy their livelihood and that is what is happening with the destruction of the poppy fields. Our pharmaceutical companies are in short supply of drugs like this to make painkillers, why not sell the poppies to them enabling the Afghan farmers to earn a living.
Canada in Afghanistan: Is it working? http://www.cdfai.org/PDF/Canada in Afghanistan Is it Working.pdf
There are many questions to be answered about this war but it is obvious that so far we are getting no where fast.
I completely agree with the idea of legitimizing poppy production in afghanistan. I think that would prove to be a fatal blow to the taliban. Right now, much of their support is within the poppy fields...the only profitable industry in afghanistan at the moment, next to, maybe, the funeral business. The taliban have firm support from poppy growers. If the west can attract the poppy growers to them, it would be most helpful.
 

crit13

Electoral Member
Mar 28, 2005
301
4
18
Whitby, Ontario
Before NATO arrived in Afghanistan, women were being hanged in soccer stadiums for showing their ankles. Girls were forbidden from going to school.

I remember when Canadians used to take pride in helping out the disadvantaged. Now, all we have is whiners and complainers.

This weekend we will recognise a valliant battle that was won by Canada. The battle of Vimy where 3,600 Canadian soldiers died in a single day.

Today one soldier dies and there are those screaming to cut and run.

What happened to Canada?