6 Canadian soldiers killed in roadside bombing in Afghanistan

[Curiosity]

SNAFU

Is that what you are getting from this?

Is that how the Afghan people were living when the Taliban had invaded them - what about the destruction the Taliban had already enacted on the people in Afghanistan.

They have barely recovered from being part of the failed soviet system and along come another
warlike group of invaders.

Would it be best to stay home and ignore the problem?

You complain but offer no solutions. Or have none to offer.

Google Taliban in Afghanistan.
As an example here is one article...http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0602/S00132.htm

 

[tracy]

What I am reading here from some folks is that there is an assumption that noone inside afghanistan was doing anything to change the way things were in that country. Well...that is false. There were organizations fighting for womens rights, education, against poverty and against extremism within afghanistan long before the west decided to heroically save the poor afghanis. It has not been all that long since russia pulled out of afghanistan leaving a power vaccum that led to the taliban taking power....these things take time. The idea that overnight the country would become this wonderful bastion of democracy and glad tidings is irrational and ludicrious. It takes time...and like I said, there were many inside afghanistan who were trying to make a difference...and were making a difference...and the future would bring an evolution of politics and social conditions. But, no, the west had to come in on it's bloody white horse and save the day. Oh goody.

If you assumed that about me, I'm surprised the mention of RAWA in my post didn't correct that assumption. That's sort of my point. SOME people in Afghanistan probably do want change pretty fast. Why are their goals less worthy than those who seek to remain in the stone age? Overnight change is perhaps unrealistic, but there is no reason women shouldn't be allowed out in public, allowed to work, allowed rights that they had before the Taliban took them away basically overnight. I don't see why I should tell them to be patient. They've been waiting for YEARS under brutal Taliban rule. I can't imagine those women thanking us for not helping them all those years, for telling them to simply change their society without any outside support because we don't think we should get involved.

 

[snfu73]

If you assumed that about me, I'm surprised the mention of RAWA in my post didn't correct that assumption. That's sort of my point. SOME people in Afghanistan probably do want change pretty fast. Why are their goals less worthy than those who seek to remain in the stone age? Overnight change is perhaps unrealistic, but there is no reason women shouldn't be allowed out in public, allowed to work, allowed rights that they had before the Taliban took them away basically overnight. I don't see why I should tell them to be patient. They've been waiting for YEARS under brutal Taliban rule. I can't imagine those women thanking us for not helping them all those years, for telling them to simply change their society without any outside support because we don't think we should get involved.

Although in many ways I agree...look at the otherside...what is forced change getting everyone? Dead soldiers, dead civilians, destroyed towns and villages and a lingering war. In many places, the situation has not improved for women, which is very unfortunate, and the worse part is that now a war is raging on around them. So, guess what, everyone STILL has to be patient. Forcing change doesn't seem to be working. In larger centres, sure, now some women may be able to go to school...but there lives are in danger, they live in fear, and everything has become unstable and unpredictable with no real end in sight. I don't think there are many who would like to see women and other groups treated better in a country like afghanistan...but is this REALLY the way? Are things REALLY getting better? Or for each thing that gets better, is something else equally important getting far worse? Of course, the best thing would be if everything COULD change overnight, peacefully. But, we know that isn't going to happen. But has the route that has been chosen really the best way to go?? And, the thing I ask again is, does the Canadian and American government REALLY care about the people of afghanistan? I mean, there are many parts of the world where horrible things are happening....why go to afghanistan? Well...because of Canadian and American interests. If there was no link to terrorism, and there was no link to oil, I don't believe for a second that any country would be in afghanistan. So, I don't buy the whole thing that Canada is there out of the good of it's heart...Canada is there for a reason...and it's for Canada's...and it's allies...best interests, not for afghans best interest.

 

[snfu73]

SNAFU

Is that what you are getting from this?

Is that how the Afghan people were living when the Taliban had invaded them - what about the destruction the Taliban had already enacted on the people in Afghanistan.

They have barely recovered from being part of the failed soviet system and along come another
warlike group of invaders.

Would it be best to stay home and ignore the problem?

You complain but offer no solutions. Or have none to offer.

Google Taliban in Afghanistan.
As an example here is one article...http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/HL0602/S00132.htm

Here is what I have to offer...I believe that legitimizing the poppy industry in Afghan will do wonders for that country. The west needs heroin dirivatives for medicinal purposes. There is even some what of a shortage. By having western countries, and encouraging western pharmaceutical companies to start investing in afghanistan and buying the poppy seeds to use for legitimate purposes, many of the rural folks who are keeping the taliban alive and strong because they know the taliban will help to protect their lucrative poppy crops, which are now ending up on western streets, will no longer need to rely on the taliban. It will provide a stable, profitable industry in a country where there currently is none, and allow people to start accumulating some wealth, which will allow individuals to start to rebuild their lives.

I also say that the west HAS to start talking to the people that it would just rather blow up. Start talking. Bush says he won't talk...he just wants to use weapons. Get everyone involved in one frickin' room and start a dialogue...it may not amount to much in the end...but at LEAST someone has to give it a shot...noone has done that yet.

Winning hearts and minds. That phrase has been used over and over and over. But, the western invaders have done little to win hearts and minds. But, I think if they actually stuck to the concept, they might get alot further. More dialogue with people on the street...stop looking at everyone as though they are a terrorist, start shedding the weaponry, start having parties, I dunno, just start actually winning hearts and minds instead of acting like occupiers. I believe that the Canadian army has proven to be better at this than our friends to the south, however, I think more can be done, and more creative approaches towards doing it safely are important to start looking at.

I think there are many things that can be done in afghanistan...I don't think what is being done now is exactly the best way to go...obviously. There does not seem to be an end in sight. How can you deliver hope and optimism, which is important when you are looking for support, if it appears that war will keep going on for as long as anyone can forsee? Alternative routes MUST be taken.

 

[tracy]

Although in many ways I agree...look at the otherside...what is forced change getting everyone? Dead soldiers, dead civilians, destroyed towns and villages and a lingering war. In many places, the situation has not improved for women, which is very unfortunate, and the worse part is that now a war is raging on around them. So, guess what, everyone STILL has to be patient. Forcing change doesn't seem to be working. In larger centres, sure, now some women may be able to go to school...but there lives are in danger, they live in fear, and everything has become unstable and unpredictable with no real end in sight. I don't think there are many who would like to see women and other groups treated better in a country like afghanistan...but is this REALLY the way? Are things REALLY getting better? Or for each thing that gets better, is something else equally important getting far worse? Of course, the best thing would be if everything COULD change overnight, peacefully. But, we know that isn't going to happen. But has the route that has been chosen really the best way to go?? And, the thing I ask again is, does the Canadian and American government REALLY care about the people of afghanistan? I mean, there are many parts of the world where horrible things are happening....why go to afghanistan? Well...because of Canadian and American interests. If there was no link to terrorism, and there was no link to oil, I don't believe for a second that any country would be in afghanistan. So, I don't buy the whole thing that Canada is there out of the good of it's heart...Canada is there for a reason...and it's for Canada's...and it's allies...best interests, not for afghans best interest.

OK, just like you tell me it's unfair to expect immediate change there, I'd say it's unfair to expect immediate succes in rebuilding efforts. We've been there a couple of years, not a really long time to rebuild a country that has been through decades of strife. Yet, things have improved for a lot of people, women and children in particular. Is it perfect yet? No. Doesn't mean we should pack up and leave them to slide back into brutal chaos. I'd say we have a responsibility to stay there until things are stable since we chose to invade. As for are things getting better.... It is better to be able to go to school than not. It is better to be able to work than not. It is better to be able to speak than not. It is better to have government recognized rights than not. Those are all true regardless of the fear that exists because before they were still in fear and didn't have those rights. At least today their government won't stone them for exercising their basic rights as human beings. I'm a woman, and I can't see how anyone could tell me that women in Afghanistan were better off under the Taliban. I can't imagine a more mysogynistic government.

Your second point.... why are we there... sure, the government made a decision to invade based on self interest because of terrorism. That's pretty clear, and justified btw. Why shouldn't self interest be a consideration in where we send our troops? Should they ONLY be allowed to be deployed to places where their work will have no benefit for us? That makes no sense to me. And the arguments that there are other places that are just as bad as Afghanistan... well first off, I'd disagree with that. I can't think of a more repressive regime. But even if there are, are you suggesting that if we don't help them all equally that we can't help any of them? Cause that means paralysis. That means we just have to watch them suffer and do nothing.

 

[snfu73]

OK, just like you tell me it's unfair to expect immediate change there, I'd say it's unfair to expect immediate succes in rebuilding efforts. We've been there a couple of years, not a really long time to rebuild a country that has been through decades of strife. Yet, things have improved for a lot of people, women and children in particular. Is it perfect yet? No. Doesn't mean we should pack up and leave them to slide back into brutal chaos. I'd say we have a responsibility to stay there until things are stable since we chose to invade. As for are things getting better.... It is better to be able to go to school than not. It is better to be able to work than not. It is better to be able to speak than not. It is better to have government recognized rights than not. Those are all true regardless of the fear that exists because before they were still in fear and didn't have those rights. At least today their government won't stone them for exercising their basic rights as human beings. I'm a woman, and I can't see how anyone could tell me that women in Afghanistan were better off under the Taliban. I can't imagine a more mysogynistic government.

Your second point.... why are we there... sure, the government made a decision to invade based on self interest because of terrorism. That's pretty clear, and justified btw. Why shouldn't self interest be a consideration in where we send our troops? Should they ONLY be allowed to be deployed to places where their work will have no benefit for us? That makes no sense to me. And the arguments that there are other places that are just as bad as Afghanistan... well first off, I'd disagree with that. I can't think of a more repressive regime. But even if there are, are you suggesting that if we don't help them all equally that we can't help any of them? Cause that means paralysis. That means we just have to watch them suffer and do nothing.

I pretty much agree with everything you say, HOWEVER, is the way that things are being done now really the best way to go? Is a never ending war really the solution? Is an ongoing armed conflict the best we can do? In the post above, I suggested some ways that this issue could be dealt with that did not involve violence. Whether they would work or not, who knows, but I feel that if they were tried at least, maybe a few THOUSAND lives could be spared.

 

[snfu73]

Further more...if change is forced, is it going to be as affective as evolved change? Creating resentment and anger doesn't do alot to help change. And, so, the laws change in land overnight, but that doesn't mean the attitudes and opinions of people will necessarily change along with it...that will take time.

There is no doubt, there were many groups who suffered under the taliban...definitly. However, now these folks have a torn up country, installed westernization, foreigners driving down the streets in tanks, people busting down doors looking for terrorists, and a seemingly never ending war on their hands. Change is needed...but was this REALLY the best way to do it?? The idea that just going in with tanks has made things a whole lot better is false...it has improved some parts of society and been brutal to other parts.

I say that what is needed is a completely new, creative approach...again, some of the ideas I offered earlier I feel are decent ideas at least, and places to start.

 

[tracy]

I pretty much agree with everything you say, HOWEVER, is the way that things are being done now really the best way to go? Is a never ending war really the solution? Is an ongoing armed conflict the best we can do? In the post above, I suggested some ways that this issue could be dealt with that did not involve violence. Whether they would work or not, who knows, but I feel that if they were tried at least, maybe a few THOUSAND lives could be spared.

I'm all for practical alternatives. I just don't think it's practical to negotiate with the Taliban.

 

[tracy]

Further more...if change is forced, is it going to be as affective as evolved change? Creating resentment and anger doesn't do alot to help change. And, so, the laws change in land overnight, but that doesn't mean the attitudes and opinions of people will necessarily change along with it...that will take time.

There is no doubt, there were many groups who suffered under the taliban...definitly. However, now these folks have a torn up country, installed westernization, foreigners driving down the streets in tanks, people busting down doors looking for terrorists, and a seemingly never ending war on their hands. Change is needed...but was this REALLY the best way to do it?? The idea that just going in with tanks has made things a whole lot better is false...it has improved some parts of society and been brutal to other parts.

I say that what is needed is a completely new, creative approach...again, some of the ideas I offered earlier I feel are decent ideas at least, and places to start.

Forced change isn't ideal, but in this case I think it was better than the alternative. There have been times in history when change has had to be forced with violence. We don't look back on the civil war and say "Damn Northerners... what a bunch of cultural imperialists. They should have let the southerners decide when they'd stop owning slaves in their own time..." even though everything you said about Afghanistan would apply there. We don't criticize Churchill because he didn't negotiate with Hitler enough even though that war resulted in over 10 million deaths since we know it couldn't really be avoided.

You might not think it was necessary in Afghanistan to force change with military intervention. I do. I don't think the Taliban were going to leave without a fight, and I don't have patience for regimes like that. I don't ever want to develop that kind of patience. It's too close to indifference to me. I don't buy the arguments that because it's a different culture it was ok to allow it to continue. It wasn't.

 

[snfu73]

I'm all for practical alternatives. I just don't think it's practical to negotiate with the Taliban.

Why? I think dialogue, no matter who the parties involved are is valuable...it's a must. Why not at least attempt to talk?? What harm would that do???

 

[snfu73]

Forced change isn't ideal, but in this case I think it was better than the alternative. There have been times in history when change has had to be forced with violence. We don't look back on the civil war and say "Damn Northerners... what a bunch of cultural imperialists. They should have let the southerners decide when they'd stop owning slaves in their own time..." even though everything you said about Afghanistan would apply there. We don't criticize Churchill because he didn't negotiate with Hitler enough even though that war resulted in over 10 million deaths since we know it couldn't really be avoided.

You might not think it was necessary in Afghanistan to force change with military intervention. I do. I don't think the Taliban were going to leave without a fight, and I don't have patience for regimes like that. I don't ever want to develop that kind of patience. It's too close to indifference to me. I don't buy the arguments that because it's a different culture it was ok to allow it to continue. It wasn't.

No...the taliban is not going to leave...but, if alternatives are given for members of society who support the taliban, and then support for the taliban decreases, so does their power...and so does their membership numbers. Why not take this route as opposed to just going in and shooting up the place, where innocent civilians keep getting caught up in the whole battle and end up dying?

 

[snfu73]

Forced change isn't ideal, but in this case I think it was better than the alternative. There have been times in history when change has had to be forced with violence. We don't look back on the civil war and say "Damn Northerners... what a bunch of cultural imperialists. They should have let the southerners decide when they'd stop owning slaves in their own time..." even though everything you said about Afghanistan would apply there. We don't criticize Churchill because he didn't negotiate with Hitler enough even though that war resulted in over 10 million deaths since we know it couldn't really be avoided.

You might not think it was necessary in Afghanistan to force change with military intervention. I do. I don't think the Taliban were going to leave without a fight, and I don't have patience for regimes like that. I don't ever want to develop that kind of patience. It's too close to indifference to me. I don't buy the arguments that because it's a different culture it was ok to allow it to continue. It wasn't.

Oh yeahhhh...there is hardly any tension between the north and the south in the US anymore...and you bet, culturally, they are completely inline...and that is how long after the civil war?? People don't own slaves anymore, but it is far from a secret that racism is still a huge issue in the southern US, compared with the northern US....so, the laws changed...but the attitudes didn't. There is a lesson in that.

Real change comes through education, showing by example, support and encouragement, dialogue, understanding, hard work. It does not come through blowing stuff up...it cannot come by driving tanks through city streets.

 

[tracy]

Why? I think dialogue, no matter who the parties involved are is valuable...it's a must. Why not at least attempt to talk?? What harm would that do???

Dialogue to be useful has to be with those willing to compromise. Does that seem like the Taliban to you?

 

[tracy]

No...the taliban is not going to leave...but, if alternatives are given for members of society who support the taliban, and then support for the taliban decreases, so does their power...and so does their membership numbers. Why not take this route as opposed to just going in and shooting up the place, where innocent civilians keep getting caught up in the whole battle and end up dying?

A lot of their power comes from fear. That isn't going to be solved unless we take away their guns and bombs. That takes fighting unfortunately. I don't think anyone is saying that's ALL we should do. Of course rebuilding and offering people new opportunities are important. We're working on that too. The number of troops we have actually fighting is much smaller than our total force. You just can't do that without security and you can't have security as long as armed Taliban fighters are roaming around. Ever hear of Maslow's hierarchy of needs? The basic theory is that you have to meet the most basic needs you have first.

Your specific mention of poppy farmers interested me. I thought the Taliban wasn't too friendly to them in the first place.

 

[tracy]

Oh yeahhhh...there is hardly any tension between the north and the south in the US anymore...and you bet, culturally, they are completely inline...and that is how long after the civil war?? People don't own slaves anymore, but it is far from a secret that racism is still a huge issue in the southern US, compared with the northern US....so, the laws changed...but the attitudes didn't. There is a lesson in that.

Real change comes through education, showing by example, support and encouragement, dialogue, understanding, hard work. It does not come through blowing stuff up...it cannot come by driving tanks through city streets.

Things aren't perfect in the South, but if you think attitudes in the South haven't changed, you've obviously never been there. My friend from Alabama is married to a black man. Think that would have happened 40 years ago? I doubt they would have gotten married if slavery hadn't been ended and black people hadn't demanded their rights by force. I work with a lot of Southerners because nursing pays a lot better out here, and not one of them is a racist. I doubt that would be the case had their grandparents and parents continued to own slaves.

They didn't create a utopian society there through the war, that's true. That's impossible to do, so it's an unrealistic measure of success. They made the conditions such that the people there COULD improve their society. Bottom line is they don't get to own people anymore. Blacks in the south have the same legal rights that whites do. Would things be better for them if the civil war never happened and we allowed whites to own them for decades more? The undeniable truth is that it took violence to guarantee them the rights they needed to pursue equality and opportunities. It's easy to say they should be patient and remain completely non-violent when you aren't the one living in bondage. Ghandi was an inspiration, but his philosophy doesn't work everywhere.

 

[darkbeaver]

A lot of their power comes from fear. That isn't going to be solved unless we take away their guns and bombs. That takes fighting unfortunately. I don't think anyone is saying that's ALL we should do. Of course rebuilding and offering people new opportunities are important. We're working on that too. The number of troops we have actually fighting is much smaller than our total force. You just can't do that without security and you can't have security as long as armed Taliban fighters are roaming around. Ever hear of Maslow's hierarchy of needs? The basic theory is that you have to meet the most basic needs you have first.

Your specific mention of poppy farmers interested me. I thought the Taliban wasn't too friendly to them in the first place.

You are applying a double standard I think. Why do you feel we in the west have the right or obligation to intervene in a soverign nations internal bussiness and will you support taking away the guns and bombs of the United States a country who has murdered many millions more than the Taliban. The Sovietization of Afghanistan did not fail rather it was destroyed by Uncle Sam and many thousands of Afghans with it, and it was about hydro-carbons then as it is now.

 

[tracy]

You are applying a double standard I think. Why do you feel we in the west have the right or obligation to intervene in a soverign nations internal bussiness.

This is the heart of the issue I think.
Here's why I don't think it's right to stand by and look the other way when people are living in absolute misery in general, though I realize we can't always get involved:
Because that's worse than the alternative.
Because if I was a woman in Afghanistan I'd rather risk whatever I had to risk for the chance at a better society than spend my life in those conditions or condemn my daughters to live like that. Because some man telling me to be patient with that life is unacceptable to me.
Because I'm a realist. I know that sometimes talk isn't enough.
Because I am not so blinded by my hatred of the US as to make them the moral equivalent of the Taliban.
Because the danger in saying it's none of our business and we shouldn't judge other cultures is that no one ever will. That's such a racist view of things IMO. They don't deserve basic rights because they aren't like us? Bull.
When it comes to Afghanistan in particular, they gave us the right to interfere by sheltering those who attacked us. The Taliban and Mullah Omar brought this war on themselves. The only question was what would we do after the main fighting was done? Leave them to fend for themselves or try to work with them to build a better society...

 

[darkbeaver]

This is the heart of the issue I think.
Here's why I don't think it's right to stand by and look the other way when people are living in absolute misery in general, though I realize we can't always get involved:
Because that's worse than the alternative.
Because if I was a woman in Afghanistan I'd rather risk whatever I had to risk for the chance at a better society than spend my life in those conditions or condemn my daughters to live like that. Because some man telling me to be patient with that life is unacceptable to me.
Because I'm a realist. I know that sometimes talk isn't enough.
Because I am not so blinded by my hatred of the US as to make them the moral equivalent of the Taliban.
Because the danger in saying it's none of our business and we shouldn't judge other cultures is that no one ever will. That's such a racist view of things IMO. They don't deserve basic rights because they aren't like us? Bull.
When it comes to Afghanistan in particular, they gave us the right to interfere by sheltering those who attacked us. The Taliban and Mullah Omar brought this war on themselves. The only question was what would we do after the main fighting was done? Leave them to fend for themselves or try to work with them to build a better society...

You can be blinded by love as effectivly as by hate Tracy. You have only the word of prooven liars for the supposed terrorist attack. Afghans do deserve human rights the first I think would be self determination. That cannot be delivered by bombing. The Soviets had made some good headway in nation building but that was destroyed because it interferred with the wishes of big oil/money. Had that development been allowed to continue we would never have heard of the Taliban. So in reality the Americans are responsible for the success of the Taliban in the first place. Work with them to build a better society? Like where has that ever happened in the last few decades? The women of Afghanistan are just as bad off right now as they were under the Taliban as a matter of fact they are in worse shape because of starvation and poverty.

 

[tracy]

. Afghans do deserve human rights the first I think would be self determination. .

Self determination... what exactly do you mean by that? Do you mean that large numbers of society should be oppressed because the minority has more power? That was the situation before and I don't see how that could be called self determination.

 

[tracy]

Work with them to build a better society? Like where has that ever happened in the last few decades?

I guess Germany and Japan would be too far back for you... How about the former Yugoslavia? I've been to Croatia and it's lovely. They needed some help and some international meddling, but it's a great vacation spot today. Dubrovnik is pretty much rebuilt. Even Serbia is a lot better than it used to be. It's not a utopia but muslims aren't being dragged off and murdered en masse either. It took a lot of NATO troops to accomplish that, working with the people of those countries.

Now, do you want to discuss some examples of where our not meddling has turned out really well in the last few decades? Rwanda? The Sudan? In the end, none of that matters. Afghanistan is Afghanistan. It's unique.