The ugly truth in Afghanistan

[Zzarchov]

No, not always, Bear. Sometimes it is wiser to throw in the towel. I'm thinking back to Germany in the 2WW. We fought until there was no room to fight anymore. We should have given up earlier, and could have saved millions of lives and wouldn't have had a Germany in ashes!

It is not always a sign of heroism and bravery to fight on and on - it is just as often unreasonableness and plain old stupidity and utter disregard for human life.

The same was said about Britain. Britain ended the war worse for wear than Germany. Quite frankly many people thought during the blitz "Its over, we've lost, we can't win, we are just prolonging the bloodshed".

If we get into fact, Germany was still in pretty good shaper come 1945 if not for an increasingly insane hitler trying to dictate tactics over generals and a shortage of Oil.

The motto being, it aint over till its over. Wars are almost always lost do to someone having a lack of resolve, much rarer is a war lost due to the damage inflicted.

 

[darkbeaver]

What has an American done to you? Has he kept you from living the high life like they do in the Sudan or wherever it is you wish it were like? Or it just the third hand stories on the conspiracy blogs that keeps your hatred revved?

There does not seem to be much empathy in you for the victims of the American empire Kreskin. You seem to easily excuse the supreme crimes that country has committed as long as it dosen't affect you directly. That's a revealing addmission Kreskin, if I were you I'd spend some time reflecting on my personal motivations and character. My hatred and your hatred are different only in the object. I'v explained many times why I hate America. For you I'll do it one more time. It's because they're a nation of stupid murdering pricks.

 

[darkbeaver]

There isn't enough tin foil on the planet to sheild you from what's wrong with your anti-social behavior Mulder.

It's aluminum foil dummy, tin foil hasn't been commercially available since 1908.What's anti-social about hateing evil?

 

[dancing-loon]

George Bush to NATO countries: 'contribute more'

U.S. President George Bush says he will push NATO countries to provide more troops for the war effort in Afghanistan.

He told reporters in Crawford, Texas, that he will go to the NATO summit in Hungary next month and make it "abundantly clear we expect people to carry a heavy burden if they are going to be in Afghanistan."

Canada has also been calling for NATO countries to provide more troops and equipment in the region. But many European leaders are facing tough opposition in their home countries, with critics unwilling to provide forces for combat roles. Instead, some countries are willing to help in a training capacity, but will not serve in volatile areas such as the south of Afghanistan.

A military analyst told CTV Newsnet Saturday afternoon that Bush is unlikely to sway some members.

More here: http://tinyurl.com/2vyx8t
​

------------------------------------------------
The US clearly is getting desperate! I don't understand why they don't put more of their own soldiers in there?
To have other countries fight their war...there must be something more to it than meets the first glance. I guess with time some plausible reason will expose itself.

 

[Kreskin]

George Bush to NATO countries: 'contribute more'

U.S. President George Bush says he will push NATO countries to provide more troops for the war effort in Afghanistan.

He told reporters in Crawford, Texas, that he will go to the NATO summit in Hungary next month and make it "abundantly clear we expect people to carry a heavy burden if they are going to be in Afghanistan."​

Canada has also been calling for NATO countries to provide more troops and equipment in the region. But many European leaders are facing tough opposition in their home countries, with critics unwilling to provide forces for combat roles. Instead, some countries are willing to help in a training capacity, but will not serve in volatile areas such as the south of Afghanistan.​

A military analyst told CTV Newsnet Saturday afternoon that Bush is unlikely to sway some members.​

More here: http://tinyurl.com/2vyx8t​

------------------------------------------------
The US clearly is getting desperate! I don't understand why they don't put more of their own soldiers in there?
To have other countries fight their war...there must be something more to it than meets the first glance. I guess with time some plausible reason will expose itself.

He's lucky if anyone shows up to listen to him, let alone sway anyone.

 

[dancing-loon]

The same was said about Britain. Britain ended the war worse for wear than Germany. Quite frankly many people thought during the blitz "Its over, we've lost, we can't win, we are just prolonging the bloodshed".

If we get into fact, Germany was still in pretty good shape come 1945 if not for an increasingly insane Hitler trying to dictate tactics over generals and a shortage of Oil.

The motto being, it aint over till its over. Wars are almost always lost do to someone having a lack of resolve, much rarer is a war lost due to the damage inflicted.

Hi, Zzarchov;
you are a guy(aren't you?) and therefore you look at wars differently than I do.

As to Britain being worse off than Germany, I'm not so sure!!! How many million British refugees left their island? How many shiploads of refugees sank? How many of their cities were leveled?
I don't want to now haggle over who suffered more deaths and more material loss. It's over!

But to say that Germany in 1945 was still in pretty good shape is laughable. It's obvious you weren't there at the time!! The German soldiers were completely surrounded except to the north to Denmark. And some convoys did flee that way, only to get mowed down along the highway by low-flying enemy aircraft.

Millions died while wasting away in most horrible mud conditions on the so called Rheinwiesen where they had been herded behind barbwire with no food or water for many weeks.

http://www.serendipity.li/hr/bacque01.htm

http://www.londonsocialisthistorians.org/messageboard/showthread.php?t=4

http://www.rheinwiesenlager.de/zustaende.htm

 

[I think not]

I thought it was Chinese bankers behind the pipeline?

Asian Development Bank

Sorry dude, they're not interested, it goes against their mantra, it's not popular to point fingers at the Asians.

 

[CDNBear]

Sorry dude, they're not interested, it goes against their mantra, it's not popular to point fingers at the Asians.

I hear ya, if it doesn't point the sh!tty end of the stick at the Yanks, it ain't worth investing time in.

btw, Thanx for that link.

 

[Zzarchov]

Hi, Zzarchov;
you are a guy(aren't you?) and therefore you look at wars differently than I do.

As to Britain being worse off than Germany, I'm not so sure!!! How many million British refugees left their island? How many shiploads of refugees sank? How many of their cities were leveled?
I don't want to now haggle over who suffered more deaths and more material loss. It's over!

But to say that Germany in 1945 was still in pretty good shape is laughable. It's obvious you weren't there at the time!! The German soldiers were completely surrounded except to the north to Denmark. And some convoys did flee that way, only to get mowed down along the highway by low-flying enemy aircraft.

Millions died while wasting away in most horrible mud conditions on the so called Rheinwiesen where they had been herded behind barbwire with no food or water for many weeks.

http://www.serendipity.li/hr/bacque01.htm

http://www.londonsocialisthistorians.org/messageboard/showthread.php?t=4

http://www.rheinwiesenlager.de/zustaende.htm

I think you have a distorted view on history. Germany didn't even enter war footing until 43 or 44. In 1945 it had its largest armoured might on record. While there were refugee's, so were there in every country in war.

Britain was a bombed out wreck suffering from starvation. In terms of demoralization, you have to remember Germany didn't quit fighting even when it had surrendered. It hadn't surrendered because it knew 2/3rds of the forces opposing it were on the brink of surrender themselves (The British, and the Soviets who only held on so long due to Stalin's tyranny).

German Territory in the early days of 45 was larger than it was when the war began. Its armoured forces were the largest they had been and they had reached technological superiority and most of its infrastructure (compared to the rest of europe) was largely untouched. Except fuel.

There were serious calls for allied surrender to Germany as late as the Battle of the Bulge (late 44, early 45). Both Britain and Russia had nearly surrendered to Germany during the course of the war due to the "impossibility" of victory (in Russia they would have if not for the policy of murdering "traitors" and "Cowards" who talked of surrender or retreat)

If you wanna do some research you will see that Germany received far less of a pounding than you are implying.

Wars are usually lost to the one who's resolve breaks first. Take Vietnam, during the Tet Offensive the US had broken the North Vietnamese armies spine, unified the south into a group that legitimately supported their government and turned the Black Pajama's into a ghost of their former self.

But they lost the will to fight, so they left, and lost. Media portrayal is more potent than any modern weapon.

 

[CDNBear]

Media portrayal is more potent than any modern weapon.

A more truthful and intelligent comment could not be made on this subject.

 

[Scott Free]

The Afghans had no freedom. The Taliban, supported by Islamo-fascists from outside the country, ruled with an iron fist.

The Taliban ruled the country as if it were the year 1000, not the year 2000. More to the point, they allowed it to become a training and staging area for acts of terrorism around the world..........that CAN NOT be allowed to happen again.

FULL STOP.

If NATO leaves Afghaninstan, the Islamist network from around the world will send fighters there to overthrow the current government, and it WILL happen. Then the training camps go up, with one BIG difference......Canada will be at the top of their list of targets.......

You can not appease a crocodile. Kill it. Whatever it takes.

The West needs to stand. Our civilization is busily committing suicide by jamming it's head up it's own arse and engaging in self-doubting navel-gazing from the INSIDE! It is disconcerting, to say the least..........

We lost 77 soldiers in about 7 years in Afghanistan, and we are about to run away.........our nation, with less than one half the population, lost 706 soldiers at Dieppe in about 7 HOURS, not counting the 2000 captured, with no after-thought of cut and run....

And Nazi Germany was no immediate threat to us.....

I am sickened at how weak, how ineffective, how insecure in herself Canada has become......

I guess I have a different understanding of freedom then you do. I don't think it can be forced through violence there are much better methods in my opinion. Every country must go through certain things on their own. Look how well it worked in Iraq: one million dead two million refugees; a clear example that freedom through imperialism is a misnomer.

Women got equal rights in Canada and not a single bomb was needed or an invader. I don't believe we are somehow inherently superior and that they are unpeople.

 

[CDNBear]

Women got equal rights in Canada and not a single bomb was needed or an invader.

That's a bit of a stretch. Women were not being stoned to death either. Women were not subjugated to the same levels as they have been under these barbaric religious regimes. The Salem witch trials have nothing on these clowns.

I don't believe we are somehow inherently superior and that they are unpeople.

I wouldn't say were 'inherently' superior to them either, but it would suffice to say that we are superior to them in so many ways.

 

[Scott Free]

That's a bit of a stretch. Women were not being stoned to death either. Women were not subjugated to the same levels as they have been under these barbaric religious regimes. The Salem witch trials have nothing on these clowns.

Not true. you should read up on how badly women were treated in the 19th century. In England it was illegal to beat your wife after 10:00 because it might disturb the neighbors.

In the 60s my dad had to sign me out of the hospital; my mom wasn't allowed to take me out, she needed a mans signature - any mans.

I wouldn't say were 'inherently' superior to them either, but it would suffice to say that we are superior to them in so many ways.

As Noam Chomsky says, the only way we can act so arrogantly is that we own the world.

 

[CDNBear]

Not true. you should read up on how badly women were treated in the 19th century. In England it was illegal to beat your wife after 10:00 because it might disturb the neighbors.

In the 60s my dad had to sign me out of the hospital; my mom wasn't allowed to take me out, she needed a mans signature - any mans.

:roll:

Ya, and the men were allowed to beat their wives to death because their vail fell off in public, women were not allowed to be in the company of other men, yadda yadda yadda. Women were treated as property here, yes, I get that. Yes I am aware of the cruel life of women in western civilisation. We can thank Christian thinking for that. We were never as severe and wide spread and consistent in numbers, as what is taking place in contemporary Middle East.

What does it tell you, when in two countries (that have but a fraction of the history and time in existence of Afghanistan or the bulk of Muslim nations), women managed to become equals (subjective), in such a short and tumultuous free timespan. Whereas in the country of choice in this conversation, in the year 2008. They are still subject to such egregious cruelty and subjugation?

As Noam Chomsky says, the only way we can't act so arrogantly is that we own the world.

I place little credence in what Noam has to say. I once followed Noam's every word with great respect and reverence. Now I relegate him to the intellectual fringe.

 

[Zzarchov]

Side note:

Women only gained equality in western civilization because of a great many bombs. So many bombs that all the menfolk were busy using them and that for survivals sake women had to made equal.

To act like women gained equal rights without the use of force is forgetting history. Had the threat of imminent death from an outside force (even if not for that reason) not forced the issue, the ball never would have started rolling, at least not anywhere near so fast.

 

[Avro]

It's aluminum foil dummy, tin foil hasn't been commercially available since 1908.What's anti-social about hateing evil?

That's hating dummy not hateing, that spelling has never been available.

 

[CDNBear]

Side note:

Women only gained equality in western civilization because of a great many bombs. So many bombs that all the menfolk were busy using them and that for survivals sake women had to made equal.

To act like women gained equal rights without the use of force is forgetting history. Had the threat of imminent death from an outside force (even if not for that reason) not forced the issue, the ball never would have started rolling, at least not anywhere near so fast.

That wasn't my intent. My position is that the level of abuses, was never so egregiously overwhelming that women feared wholesale slaughter if they spoke out. And as the western nations grew, and Charters and Constitutions passed, women found themselves with more and more rights. While other parts of the world seemed to be going nowhere and backwards, fast.

 

[Zzarchov]

I was refering to Scott Free

"Women got equal rights in Canada and not a single bomb was needed or an invader. I don't believe we are somehow inherently superior and that they are unpeople. "

I was responding that actually they needed many bombs and a big scary potential invader.