Our Glorious Afghan Mission

scratch

Senate Member
May 20, 2008
5,658
22
38
Afghan pipeline raises security questions

By Travis Lupick

Global Research, July 21, 2008
straight.com

Afghanistan’s ambassador to Canada says NATO’s military mission has nothing to do with a proposed massive pipeline project that will bring natural gas to his country’s neighbours. In a phone interview with the Georgia Straight, Omar Samad said the $7.6-billion pipeline won’t be finished before Canadian troops are scheduled to leave Afghanistan in 2011.
“So I fail to see what the relationship of this pipeline is with the Canadian mission,” Samad said from Ottawa.
On June 19, the left-leaning Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives published a report questioning the feasibility of the pipeline project, given the strength of the Taliban insurgency. Samad, however, said that the Afghan army and local security forces would provide security for the pipeline. “If there is a need to do something different,” he continued, “we will discuss it with whomever will be interested to do so, down the road…beyond the Canadian mission.”
The proposed Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-India-Pakistan pipeline (TAPI) could generate as much as $300 million in annual revenue for the Afghan government, Samad said. Afghanistan’s National Development Strategy lists the country’s projected domestic revenue for March 21, 2008, to March 20, 2009, as $887 million.



Many of the contributors to this thread should rethink thier ideas of pipelines, us dumb Canadians have been saving a pipeline route and helping to neutralize the rightfull owners/stakeholders. Isn't that at odds with what our Dept of Sucking Bankers has been telling us. The Canadian public has been under the impression that we've been over there instructing Afghans about the wonders of the modern western consumer society and sending millions of children to schools not to mention Wal-Fart and Tim Snortins.

On the money, again dark.
 

Socrates the Greek

I Remember them....
Apr 15, 2006
4,968
36
48
Nothing but bull ****, the Afghanistan mission is most stupidest involvement Canada has ever been involved with globally. From the start all this mission was Harper kissing the American Bush ass. We lost men and women for nothing. Although it is belied that Canada has made a big change in Afghanistan’s law and order, reality will tell logical people Afghanistan is a loser mission for Canada.
 

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
Nothing but bull ****, the Afghanistan mission is most stupidest involvement Canada has ever been involved with globally. From the start all this mission was Harper kissing the American Bush ass. We lost men and women for nothing. Although it is belied that Canada has made a big change in Afghanistan’s law and order, reality will tell logical people Afghanistan is a loser mission for Canada.
I think you will find it was the liberals that got us there...
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
People have such short memories.

1.) Harper wasn't in power when this started
2.) When this started, we were INVITED in by the government of most of the country (Who were not the Taliban)
 

Socrates the Greek

I Remember them....
Apr 15, 2006
4,968
36
48
I think you will find it was the liberals that got us there...

Hey Risus you are correct the Libs did the wrong thing in Afganistan.
They should have never agreed to such involvment. Harper should have been smarter and never allow such stupidety, now Harper will have to answer down the road for the Afganistan failuer.
 

scratch

Senate Member
May 20, 2008
5,658
22
38
Hey Risus you are correct the Libs did the wrong thing in Afganistan.
They should have never agreed to such involvment. Harper should have been smarter and never allow such stupidety, now Harper will have to answer down the road for the Afganistan failuer.

Harpo couldn't answer what he had for breakfast. Yet now he's on his knees to POTUS.
 

dancing-loon

House Member
Oct 8, 2007
2,739
36
48
There were many Afghan recruits, to be sure, but the movement began in Pakistan.

Here's an excellent piece about them:

Thank you so much, JtF, it is indeed an impressive video. I feel sympathy for them. At one point it looked so cute, seeing a bunch of young boys looking into the camera, and the one holding up his fingers for the peace sign.

Tell me again, WHY are we there fighting them? Is it because we feel superior, our religion is superior, our governments are superior, our women are superior, our men anyway?
If it's not because of 9/11, or the oil and gas lines, nor the poppies... WHY are we there killing them?
 

scratch

Senate Member
May 20, 2008
5,658
22
38
Thank you so much, JtF, it is indeed an impressive video. I feel sympathy for them. At one point it looked so cute, seeing a bunch of young boys looking into the camera, and the one holding up his fingers for the peace sign.

Tell me again, WHY are we there fighting them? Is it because we feel superior, our religion is superior, our governments are superior, our women are superior, our men anyway?
If it's not because of 9/11, or the oil and gas lines, nor the poppies... WHY are we there killing them?

It's the imperial plan.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
Thank you so much, JtF, it is indeed an impressive video. I feel sympathy for them. At one point it looked so cute, seeing a bunch of young boys looking into the camera, and the one holding up his fingers for the peace sign.

Tell me again, WHY are we there fighting them? Is it because we feel superior, our religion is superior, our governments are superior, our women are superior, our men anyway?
If it's not because of 9/11, or the oil and gas lines, nor the poppies... WHY are we there killing them?

The same reason we kill people when we go on peacekeeping missions. To make the world a little bit better place or other equivalent sappy phrase.

The fighting is a bit more severe, but we were still asked there by the people there. We call it a warzone, but the only real difference between it and some other peacekeeping operations is that when our soldiers get shot at we don't weasel out of making them veterans.
 

scratch

Senate Member
May 20, 2008
5,658
22
38
The same reason we kill people when we go on peacekeeping missions. To make the world a little bit better place or other equivalent sappy phrase.

The fighting is a bit more severe, but we were still asked there by the people there. We call it a warzone, but the only real difference between it and some other peacekeeping operations is that when our soldiers get shot at we don't weasel out of making them veterans.

Could you be referring to the 'Roos?
Ever been to a V.A. institution, considered expensive soon to die trash....why bother?
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
The same reason we kill people when we go on peacekeeping missions. To make the world a little bit better place or other equivalent sappy phrase.

The fighting is a bit more severe, but we were still asked there by the people there. We call it a warzone, but the only real difference between it and some other peacekeeping operations is that when our soldiers get shot at we don't weasel out of making them veterans.

You will of course provide a link to the petition from the Afghan people requesting the invasion and occupation. It's not a war zone it's an oportunity, a challenge a new begining, a step on the road to the birth of a bright new democracy where millions of little girls can go to school for the first time and ordinary Afghans can take thier place in the neo-liberal economic tapestry that shines on before us liberating millions of humans in the purest altruistic endeavour every undertaken by the human race. My gods it makes my chest heave with emotion my voice quiver with uncontrolable joy at our benevolence.Surely we will instantly assend to heaven and sit on the right hand of god himself as soon as our mission is complete and the last gold brick laid in the last new road in Afghanistan.
 
Last edited:

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
petition from the Afghan people?

Seriously?

Now your grasping at straws. Apparently you have no problem with condeming the citizens of a western nation to die for the acts of their government (even if no petition was sent around asking for it), but the government of Afghanistan isn't allowed to make choices without a signed petition.

sheesh.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
petition from the Afghan people?

Seriously?

Now your grasping at straws. Apparently you have no problem with condeming the citizens of a western nation to die for the acts of their government (even if no petition was sent around asking for it), but the government of Afghanistan isn't allowed to make choices without a signed petition.

sheesh.

Your love of democracy is plain. The government of Afghanistan does not have the support or ear of the Afghans.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
petition from the Afghan people?

Seriously?

Now your grasping at straws. Apparently you have no problem with condeming the citizens of a western nation to die for the acts of their government (even if no petition was sent around asking for it), but the government of Afghanistan isn't allowed to make choices without a signed petition.

sheesh.

You exhibit a disturbing fascility to obfuscation. The western governments have no problem condemning it's citizens for crimes those governments have commited, how your twisted reason alocates that responsibility to a man who pretends to be a beaver defys all common logic.Are you suggesting my elimination will rectify that situation?
 

dancing-loon

House Member
Oct 8, 2007
2,739
36
48
The same reason we kill people when we go on peacekeeping missions. To make the world a little bit better place or other equivalent sappy phrase.

The fighting is a bit more severe, but we were still asked there by the people there. We call it a war zone, but the only real difference between it and some other peacekeeping operations is that when our soldiers get shot at we don't weasel out of making them veterans.
Thanks for your explanation, Zzarchov. I found a short reference to Canada being asked to stay and fight.
WHEREAS the government of Afghanistan has requested international assistance to protect its new administration and to ensure the country's peaceful transition to democracy,
That, of course, is after the invasion!!!!
Of interest is that we Canadian citizens were never asked, if we wanted to do combat in Afghanistan, it was forbidden even to discuss the issue in the House of Commons!
On Tuesday, Canada takes control of the NATO-led troops battling insurgents in the Kandahar region of southern Afghanistan. It's a war mission, not traditional peacekeeping.
But Parliament has never debated the deployment and the new Conservative government said Sunday it opposes a vote on the issue in the Commons. Jeff Sallot reports Defence Minister won't support vote on troops in Afghanistan
But we, the dumb sheep, are good enough to pay the bills!!!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060227.wxafghandebate0227/BNStory/Afghanistan/
 

Just the Facts

House Member
Oct 15, 2004
4,162
43
48
SW Ontario
Tell me again, WHY are we there fighting them? Is it because we feel superior, our religion is superior, our governments are superior, our women are superior, our men anyway?
If it's not because of 9/11, or the oil and gas lines, nor the poppies... WHY are we there killing them?

If only they were all cute kids giving peace signs. Wouldn't that be warm and fuzzy.

Who said it's not because of 9/11? It is because of 9/11 that we're there.
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
. I found a short reference to Canada being asked to stay and fight.That, of course, is after the invasion!!!!

That is also not the war we are in, that is a new government that was formed after the country was reclaimed. Since the country was out of Taliban hands, they felt the government now needed to hold a vote to be official.

The other reason, is that the northern alliance was a group almost as Shady as the Taliban, Almost. The Norther Alliance was literally an alliance made up of the Good, the Bad and the Ugly of Afghanistan. Anyone who wasn't Taliban. They were backed by Russia, Iran and India before America came in, and their leader occupied Afghanistans UN seat (hence they were the international government, not the Taliban).

So NATO decided an actual elected government would be their price for helping the Northern Alliance (afghanistans government) oust the taliban (edited for a hilarious typo)

This is what I can find that is the least Biased towards one view point or the other, its from the Human Rights Watch.

http://www.hrw.org/backgrounder/asia/afghan-bck1005.htm
 
Last edited:

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Thank you so much, JtF, it is indeed an impressive video. I feel sympathy for them. At one point it looked so cute, seeing a bunch of young boys looking into the camera, and the one holding up his fingers for the peace sign.

Tell me again, WHY are we there fighting them? Is it because we feel superior, our religion is superior, our governments are superior, our women are superior, our men anyway?
If it's not because of 9/11, or the oil and gas lines, nor the poppies... WHY are we there killing them?

You are softer than a sneaker full of ....

It isn't the peace sign to them. It means victory.
 

Risus

Genius
May 24, 2006
5,373
25
38
Toronto
Tell me again, WHY are we there fighting them? Is it because we feel superior, our religion is superior, our governments are superior, our women are superior, our men anyway?
If it's not because of 9/11, or the oil and gas lines, nor the poppies... WHY are we there killing them?
We are trying to clean up the mess the yankees left...