Canada debates pullout from Afgnaistan

[Cobalt_Kid]

No one has the high moral ground in Afghanastan. U.S. forces there have killed over 50 people during interrogation, one of them a taxi driver who had his legs beaten so badly it appeared as if "a truck had run him over".

Indescriminite bombing has killed many civilians(and friendly forces including Canadians) and turned potential allies into enemies. Anybody who has spent a little time studying the Vietnam war understands the limits of firepower in fighting an insurgency. It's estimated that the U.S. and it's allies killed close to 1,000,000 VC/NVA in that conflict and still lost. One thing the Afghans have in common with the Vietnamese is their long(and successful) history of resisting outsiders.

Majical thinking that if we just believe hard enough we'll win doesn't cut it. There aren't even any clear objectives in Afghanastan and that's a recipe for disaster in one of the most challenging battlefields in the world.

And Vietnam also showed you don't win "Hearts and Minds" with bombs and bullets. Canadians should get a chance to make their feelings heard on this issue through their elected representatives. The Harper government has a weak minority and should stop acting like they represent the majority position of Canadians.

 

[tamarin]

How can we possibly win in Afghanistan? And why are Canadian kids being sent to fight for something that can't be achieved? It must be incredibly frustrating for those Canadians most intimately involved.
I see in the paper today that Pakistani barbers in towns bordering the primitive enclave have had their families, homes and livelihoods threatened if they cut even an inch off a customer's beard. The Taliban are determined that all males will follow protocol. Their cruelty and persistence will win in the end.

 

[talloola]

If we are going to have a debate then here's something for Colpy to cut his teeth on:


-- Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, a former commander of mujahedeen fighters combatting the Soviet occupation in the 1980s, who now heads a pro-Karzai faction in parliament. In 1993, a former Sayyaf lieutenant told one of the report's authors that before a massacre of Shiite civilians in west Kabul, Sayyaf ordered his officers: "Don't leave anyone alive -- kill all of them."

-- Uzbek warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum, who ran unsuccessfully for president in 1993, is currently Karzai's military chief of staff. His forces captured hundreds of Taliban fighters after they fled U.S. aerial bombing in 2001. At least 200 subsequently died inside overcrowded containers and were buried in mass graves. A full investigation into the incident has never taken place, the U.N. report says.

In that part of the world, including saudi arabia, and the rest of the muslim world, it is the norm
for them to brutally mistreat "each other", it is their way, and it's about time we stopped being horrified by that, as they are not going to change their style,they're not going to be like us.
It IS THE WAY THEY DO THINGS, and have for hundreds of years, as horrible as it is. They get
to the point very quickly, no democracy, no such thing as "innocent till proven guilty", and if
anyone is expecting them to "lighten up" forget it.

 

[lieexpsr]

talloola- It sounds to me that you are just parroting propaganda. Don't think for a minute that other people are any different from us because if you do you will lose your own humanity.

You wouldn't be one of the people who write off those people for considering the norm to be brutality, but at the same time you object to their choices for their women or their choice of punishment for certain crimes?

I don't aggre with their choices either but that doesn't give me the right to take action against the U.S. because it still believes in capital punishment while the rest of the civilized world have abandoned that kind of practice.

WE have no business being in Afghanistan because all the justifications are false. We have been taken in again by the U.S. in their campaign to further their own economic and political interests.

 

[lieexpsr]

Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.

 

[CDNBear]

Please click one of the Quick Reply icons in the posts above to activate Quick Reply.

That is without a doubt the most objective and brightest thing you have ever posted!!!

Great post!!!

Check your rep points!!!

 

[Sparrow]

I have read all your posts and they are all interesting but I have a few questions.

1. The government in Afghanistan, somewhere I read that it was put in by the US after the Russians were kicked out?

2. Were not the warlords hired by the US to fight the Russians and in the void left after the fighting the Taliban took over?

3. Didn't the people have said they had peace and better security with the Taliban than with NATO and also that the drug trade had been stopped?

 

[darkbeaver]

There's oil in Afghanistan?
Two docs were National Geographic. I cannot remember the others.
So it's a tiny part of what's going on in Afghanistan. It is still a start, isn't it? You are trying to tell me it absolutely will not get any better? How could you know this?
Perhaps we should just not even give a c4rap about anything or anyone but ourselves as you seem to suggest. Having been a firefighter, I guess I wasted a lot of my life and effort when I could have been pursuing my personal pleasures. Canada could have been doing the same for all of these years, too. What a revelation.
Um, I didn't make the conclusion about Afghan's relative freedom, it is blatant for one thing, and some of the Afghan women were saying that they enjoyed freedom. Quit assuming things about me and quit telling me what I think and say.

I comment on what you write, if you write what you don't think or you think what you don't write then I'll have to assume your a chimpansy who's gotten lucky with a keyboard. And yes there is oil in Afghanistan and next door in Iran, and if you think we're in Afghanistan to save the people your crazy.:wave:

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

"In that part of the world, including saudi arabia, and the rest of the muslim world, it is the norm
for them to brutally mistreat "each other", it is their way, and it's about time we stopped being horrified by that, as they are not going to change their style,they're not going to be like us.
It IS THE WAY THEY DO THINGS, and have for hundreds of years, as horrible as it is. They get
to the point very quickly, no democracy, no such thing as "innocent till proven guilty", and if
anyone is expecting them to "lighten up" forget it."

I agree, we're not going to be able to impose our way of life on the Afghanis. So why are spending millions of dollars and much more importantly the lives of Canadians in an attempt to do so?

The Canadian(and NATO) mission in Afghanastan makes no sense in the same way the Vietnam war didn't. We're on the other side of the world trying to impose western values on people who could care less and are also armed to the teeth. As they get more and more tired of our presence in their country they're going to get more and more violent.

 

[talloola]

talloola- It sounds to me that you are just parroting propaganda. Don't think for a minute that other people are any different from us because if you do you will lose your own humanity.
I am not parroting propaganda, I follow the news reports, and throughout history, it is well known
that the arab/muslim/countries behave in a cruel fashion (in our eyes) when dealing with each
other, it is just reality, and if we "just" expect them to stop and do as we wish, "good luck"

You wouldn't be one of the people who write off those people for considering the norm to be brutality, but at the same time you object to their choices for their women or their choice of punishment for certain crimes?
I understand what they do in their own countries, is their ancient practices and male dominance,
and why they behave in such a brutal way, I don't know. They seem so ignorant and primitive and
have no tolerance whatsoever, and are slaves to their religion, so in my eyes it is "fruitless" to ever
expect them to change, and in their eyes, why should they.
You protest the action of anyone entering their country in a forcefull way, but you believe that they
should be forced to change their behavior, so which is it.

I don't aggre with their choices either but that doesn't give me the right to take action against the U.S. because it still believes in capital punishment while the rest of the civilized world have abandoned that kind of practice.
Only parts of the U.S. still practice capital punishment, and many areas in the world still do as well.

WE have no business being in Afghanistan because all the justifications are false. We have been taken in again by the U.S.
I do not agree with you on this matter. If the Taliban had of handed over Osama Bin Laden when
they were asked to, right after 911, noone would have gone into Afghanistan to "root" him out.
They were defiant, and above all, they didn't want anyone coming into Afghanistan, as they would
lose their stranglehold they had on the Afghan people, and the slavery and cruelty over the women.
And, the longer we /NATO, stay and assist, the stronger the people will become, and the women
will slowly become a little stronger, hopefully, and gain a little more freedom.

 

[Colpy]

If we are going to have a debate then here's something for Colpy to cut his teeth on:


-- Abdul Rasul Sayyaf, a former commander of mujahedeen fighters combatting the Soviet occupation in the 1980s, who now heads a pro-Karzai faction in parliament. In 1993, a former Sayyaf lieutenant told one of the report's authors that before a massacre of Shiite civilians in west Kabul, Sayyaf ordered his officers: "Don't leave anyone alive -- kill all of them."

-- Uzbek warlord Abdul Rashid Dostum, who ran unsuccessfully for president in 1993, is currently Karzai's military chief of staff. His forces captured hundreds of Taliban fighters after they fled U.S. aerial bombing in 2001. At least 200 subsequently died inside overcrowded containers and were buried in mass graves. A full investigation into the incident has never taken place, the U.N. report says.

-- Syed Muhammad Gulabzoi, a member of parliament from the southern Khost province, had been the interior minister under a puppet regime during Soviet occupation. According to the report, he oversaw an Afghan intelligence service notorious for torturing and killing civilians.

I don't doubt that some of these things you list happened......or if not, worse things have happened. I know the Karzai gov't includes some very unsavoury characters, and I don't like murderers or tyrants.

BUT the things you listed above are incidents, born out of chaos and war.

If NATO leaves, chaos rules, and acts such as those listed become the norm once again.

One would prefer not to deal with the authors of such things, but there is little choice if Afghanistan is to be stabilized. This is NOT a place were the usual rules of war are followed........when chaos rules, these things happen. The only way to still tribal warfare that has gone on for centuries is to pull the warlords together and make them deal with each other inside gov't institutions............

As Sir John A. Macdonald once said about anti-Confederation MPs in the House of Commons......"I'd rather have them inside the tent pissing out than outside the tent pissing in."

As for the Taliban, they prevented the education of women in any way, were generally against any learning outside the Koran, they used daily public executions to terrorize the people into compliance, they were so fixed on Islamist idiocy that they prevented the hundreds of thousands of widows in Afghanistan from appearing in public to work or beg, thus sentencing them and their children to slow starvation. They destroyed ancient wonders, they used rape as a weapon, they provided aid, comfort, and training areas to those that attacked us............they were a pariah among nations.

In short, they were much, much worse...........

 

[talloola]

"In that part of the world, including saudi arabia, and the rest of the muslim world, it is the norm
for them to brutally mistreat "each other", it is their way, and it's about time we stopped being horrified by that, as they are not going to change their style,they're not going to be like us.
It IS THE WAY THEY DO THINGS, and have for hundreds of years, as horrible as it is. They get
to the point very quickly, no democracy, no such thing as "innocent till proven guilty", and if
anyone is expecting them to "lighten up" forget it."

I agree, we're not going to be able to impose our way of life on the Afghanis. So why are spending millions of dollars and much more importantly the lives of Canadians in an attempt to do so?

The Canadian(and NATO) mission in Afghanastan makes no sense in the same way the Vietnam war didn't. We're on the other side of the world trying to impose western values on people who could care less and are also armed to the teeth. As they get more and more tired of our presence in their country they're going to get more and more violent.

Nato is not trying to impose our democracy, or anything else in Afghanistan, they are there to help
root out taliban and reconstruct some hospitals/schools and such. They have had an election where
there was a democratic "vote', but that is about it.

 

[talloola]

@talloola

The Karzi governement and the Northern Alliance has always been corrupt, that's one of the reasons it got thrown out of power by the Taliban in the first place.
I'm sure no matter what government is in power in most of those countries, there is much corruption,
but to "hint" that the Taliban was something "good" to kick them out is outragious, as they were
brutal and controlling, and only think of themselves. They have murdured many of the men in
Afghanistan, leaving women and children without a "head" of household. A woman with no husband
in her home, is so vulnerable and poor, and on top of that, she isn't allowed to go out without
a male family member in tow.

It was also guilty of warcrimes in the 1990s. All the western money flooding into Afghanstan has made that corruption worse not better.
a\
If you mean the war with Iran, I'm sure the Iranian military weren't "pussy cats", that whole area
is "brutal" when in conflict with oneanother, all of their ways are brutal.

If the U.S. had been serious about changing things in Afghanastan there may have been hope, but instead Bush decided to invade Iraq and both countries are now mess.
I agree 100%, he has made a huge mess of the Afghanistan situation, and now, Iraq as well, he is
a "menace".

There's little hope in depending on the Afghan army to be effective, most of it's power base is in the north and only Kabul can be considered to be secure and that's relative. The power in Afghanstan is with the warlords and tribal leaders. The warlords will go with whoever offers them the best chance of maintaining their power and the tribal leaders tend to hate foreign forces in the country.
I agree, that is the way of that country, but if NATO are completing the construction of schools and
hospitals etc., that has to be a positive move, as there was much devastation when the coalition
moved in there after 911, and I would wonder where any money would come from to reconstruct
parts of that country, certainly the Taliban won't give any, nor the warlords, so that just leaves
the Karzi government.

The aid the west is offering isn't even necessarily welcome.
I'm sure the "women" welcome schools for their children and hospitals as well, if some of the
"arrogant" religious driven men don't want help, "so what".

These are people with a very old culture that they're proud of. They see outside influences as a threat to their culture.
they are not all like that, as they walk around and see the mess left from the war, they
can't be so "primitive" and "stupid" that they would turn their back to "basic" needs being supplied,
such as schools/hospitals.

Sending more money and troops may be the worst thing we could do in Afghanstan.
I know it is not easy, and, of course, somewhere along the way, we will have to pull out, but if we
are making some headway with "construction", and it seems we are, then there has to be something
positive about our/NATO presence there. The U.S. is sending more troops there, and they should
be ashamed of themselves for pulling out earlier, as most of the problems "at present" are caused
from them "leaving" much to soon.

BUSH IS AN IDIOT and has done so much harm, now it will take years and years to turn that around.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

"Nato is not trying to impose our democracy, or anything else in Afghanistan, they are there to help
root out taliban and reconstruct some hospitals/schools and such. They have had an election where
there was a democratic "vote', but that is about it."

Most of our effort there now is military since the move to Kandahar.

Say what you want about the Taliban, it's locally based and as I said before you don't win hearts and minds with bombs and bullets. Every mission we carry out that kills a local, whether they're Taliban or civilian, creates more enemies.

And you're right about the NATO mission, it's not about bringing a representational government to Afghanastan. It's about proping up a government that has already been rejected by the people of Afghanastan before because of it's behaviour. I don't think the Taliban is a desirable government, but that's a choice the people of Afghanastan are going to make whether we want them to or not. Killing thousands of them before we give up and move on is immoral.

 

[mabudon]

EXCELLENT post Cobalt Kid, damn, that's one well-put paragraph

 

[talloola]

"Nato is not trying to impose our democracy, or anything else in Afghanistan, they are there to help
root out taliban and reconstruct some hospitals/schools and such. They have had an election where
there was a democratic "vote', but that is about it."

Most of our effort there now is military since the move to Kandahar.
Our military is armed to "defend", we have workers doing construction, and they don't need to be
shot dead every day, while trying to build schools etc. We have workers, who have our military
standing by "armed" to defend, makes sense to me, and if we weren't there the Taliban would
march back in, and undo anything "good" that has happened so far.

Say what you want about the Taliban, it's locally based and as I said before you don't win hearts and minds with bombs and bullets.
The Taliban haven't won the hearts and minds of anyone but themselves.

Every mission we carry out that kills a local, whether they're Taliban or civilian, creates more enemies.
I am not going to believe that everyone in Afghanistan is of that mindset, there are bright
thinking people there who can see for themselves "people" who actually have "their needs" first
and formost in mind.

And you're right about the NATO mission, it's not about bringing a representational government to Afghanastan. It's about proping up a government that has already been rejected by the people of Afghanastan before because of it's behaviour.
Well, the people did have a democratic vote to elect Karzi in office, twice, so, seems like the
people have differing views, just like we do about our governments.
If the Taliban can be kept at bay long enough for the government to gain more "power" and help
stabilize the country a little more, perhaps things will improve. It might be a choice between two
"not so good" groups, but what other choices are there, if noone helps, the Taliban will take over
and Bin Laden and his cronies will waltz back in there and set up housekeeping again, and they
will be back to square one, I think what is happening today is "better" than that.

I don't think the Taliban is a desirable government, but that's a choice the people of Afghanastan are going to make whether we want them to or not.
If the Taliban gain power again, it will not be the "choice" of the people, but the aggression of the
Taliban, who have the ruling prehistoric religious leaders, who instill unfavourable laws on the
people, and render them helpless.

Killing thousands of them before we give up and move on is immoral
That has allready happened in the war after 911, as the Taliban would not "cooperate" in surrendering
Bin Laden, it was a choice they made, so, they are also responsible for the devastation in that
country. NATO is not there is kill thousands of people, but will take out Taliban and defend "our"
own positions. Taliban and Afghan citizens are "not" one in the same, in my estimation.

 

[lieexpsr]

It's interesting folks, talloola appears to claim that we are in Afghanistan because the Taliban refused to hand over Bin Laden. I have a lot of difficulty believing in that justification because the search for Bin Laden has almost been abandoned. Popular opinion is that he is in Pakistan and the U.S. is not intent in rooting him out because they need Pakistan to continue to pretend to be their ally in the war. Sort of beside the point but the people of Pakistan regard Bin Laden as a hero, but nevertheless.... Could it be that the U.S. is intent on expanding their influence and is in fact doing that in the Stans and surrounding territories which were once part of the Soviet Union? Could it be that the U.S. is intent in diminishing Russia's influence and thereby enabling themselves to sit on the oil resources of the M.E. and far East?

Then Colpy is of a different opinion. He seems to suggest that we are in Afghanistan to save the people from Taliban rule. I wonder if Colpy thinks that if 9/11 had never happened we would still be in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban for the U.S. Or if he doesn't think we would be there if not for 9/11, would he think we should be there fighting evil anyway? I don't think so! In fact I believe that Colpy's priorities would not be to send Canadian troops anywhere for strictly humanitarian reasons. I think this because Colpy's thinking seems to be in line with the U.S. agenda and the U.S. agenda is to send their troops to where it will serve the national interest.

Which leads to the question, why are we fighting in Afghanistan? Could it be because we have been sold on the U.S. agenda of political and economic gains which come with controlling the M.E. in their own interests? Could it be that the LIberals made a mistake by supporting the war and are not courageous enough to admit the mistake. Could it be that we were conned again in the same manner that we were conned to support their Kosovo war?

Just some questions in the interest of getting some people to really start thinking about the whole matter a little more honestly.

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

@ talloola

Canada joined the "War on Terror" when it moved to Kandahar and the mission is counter-insurgency now. Any aid is secondary and any good will we build from it is quickly destroyed when we kill locals.

I

 

[Colpy]

Then Colpy is of a different opinion. He seems to suggest that we are in Afghanistan to save the people from Taliban rule. I wonder if Colpy thinks that if 9/11 had never happened we would still be in Afghanistan fighting the Taliban for the U.S. Or if he doesn't think we would be there if not for 9/11, would he think we should be there fighting evil anyway? I don't think so! In fact I believe that Colpy's priorities would not be to send Canadian troops anywhere for strictly humanitarian reasons. I think this because Colpy's thinking seems to be in line with the U.S. agenda and the U.S. agenda is to send their troops to where it will serve the national interest.

Well, you are more or less correct.

I hope we can stabilize Afghanistan for purely humanitarian reasons, but our NATO "partners" seem to be unwilling to hold up their end (except for the USA and UK). I love seeing Afghan girls off to school, etc.

BUT, that said, our main reason for being there is absolutely self-interest......if you are going to allow people to organize and train for attacks on us or our close allies on your soil, with your aid, then you die. That is how it should be.

Ever hear of self-defense?

 

[Cobalt_Kid]

Well, you are more or less correct.

I hope we can stabilize Afghanistan for purely humanitarian reasons, but our NATO "partners" seem to be unwilling to hold up their end (except for the USA and UK). I love seeing Afghan girls off to school, etc.

BUT, that said, our main reason for being there is absolutely self-interest......if you are going to allow people to organize and train for attacks on us or our close allies on your soil, with your aid, then you die. That is how it should be.

Ever hear of self-defense?

Under international law I think the U.S. was justified in attacking Afghanistan. The attacks by Al-Queda where planned and launched from there. There was an opportunity for the U.S. and it's allies to turn things around in the country but it was lost when Iraq was invaded. All the resources and troops that could have stabilized and rebuilt the country were wasted.

Now all that's going on is this stupid "War on Terror". There's a reason the other NATO members won't get involved in the fighting in the south. They know a quagmire when they see it and they don't want to top the Al-Queda hit list. Harper may be making brownie points with the Bush admin, but he's putting Canadians in jeopardy both in Afghanistan and here at home.