Manley panel gets it wrong

[Avro]

Report on Afghanistan the latest example of Ottawa hiding the truth from Canadians

By ERIC MARGOLIS

The report on Afghanistan delivered Monday by the Manley panel was deeply disappointing. Its totally predictable findings could have been written without the panel of instant Afghan experts wasting millions of tax dollars.
This whitewash was designed to provide political cover for the Harper government, which has hung its hat on the failing war in Afghanistan, and provide it an escape hatch if the kabob hits the fan. It's the latest example of the Liberals pathetic failure to demand Ottawa answer tough questions about the mess in Afghanistan.
Most disturbing, the report claimed continued military operations in Afghanistan, which has so far cost 79 Canadians dead and untold billions, were necessary to "enhance" Canada's international influence. Two days later, another Canadian soldier died in action.
As one who spends half his time abroad, I can attest that Canada's military role in Afghanistan is virtually unknown to Americans, save occasional pats on the back to the Harper government from Bush administration officials. Many Americans can't find Canada, never mind Afghanistan, on the map.
In Europe and Asia, most people regard the Afghanistan conflict as a 19th century-style colonial war over future oil pipeline routes, and NATO's role there the result of severe arms-twisting by Washington. That's why most NATO troops are kept out of combat.
Canada's position as one of the world's most respected, admired nations has nothing to do with its military role in Afghanistan. Quite the contrary.
RASH BLUNDER
Ottawa's rash blunder into a tribal civil war in Afghanistan, and one-sided policy in the Mideast, have put Canada squarely in the gun sights of violent anti-western groups, and make it appear an eager spear carrier in the Bush/Cheney wars in the Muslim world. Every bombed Afghan village breeds new enemies for Canada.
Ottawa is hiding the full truth about Afghanistan from Canadians. Our flag-waving media has further obscured the facts.
When did we last see a report filed from the side of the Taliban and its growing number of allies?
The report's claim that Afghanistan's U.S.-imposed regime is "democratic" is absurd. CIA "asset" Hamid Karzai was installed by Washington and is kept in power by U.S. troops and a stream of cash payoffs to drug-dealing tribal chiefs. His rigged "election" was supervised by U.S. troops and bought with $100 bills.
Afghanistan's so-called "national army" is made up of U.S.-paid mercenaries. The "army" does not need more training, as Manley claims. It needs loyalty to a legitimate national government -- which does not exist.
Half of Afghanistan's population, the Pashtun tribes (source of Taliban), has been largely excluded from political power. Until included, there will be no stability, never mind democracy.
Ominously, the war is spreading into Pakistan. Canada is backing Musharraf's dictatorship in Pakistan while claiming to be fighting for "democracy" in Afghanistan.
The report soft-soaped government corruption. It ignored the 800-lb. gorilla in Kabul: Senior government officials up to their turbans in the heroin trade. Canada, the U.S. and NATO find themselves patrons of the world's leading narcostate, which supplies 90% of the world's heroin and runs on drug money.
The drugs are exported through Pakistan, another key western ally. Taliban eliminated the drug trade before being overthrown.
Most important, Manley's report completely ignored the biggest problem of all. Canada has no political objective in this aimless war beyond making high-ranking Ottawa officials feel self-important at NATO meetings.
The Karzai regime, which rules only Kabul, would not last a week without western troops. There is no prospect of national political consensus until the Taliban and its allies are brought into the process. The reborn Afghan Communist Party is again a dominant influence in Kabul, including running torture prisons to which Canada had, until recently, been sending captives.
Canada is not being ennobled by this sordid, ugly, drug-fueled war. Its honour and reputation are being injured, its security endangered.
The Manley report is the political equivalent of a subprime mortgage. It does the nation a disservice.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2008/01/27/4796414-sun.php

 

[darkbeaver]

Quoting Margolin
"The report soft-soaped government corruption. It ignored the 800-lb. gorilla in Kabul: Senior government officials up to their turbans in the heroin trade. Canada, the U.S. and NATO find themselves patrons of the world's leading narcostate, which supplies 90% of the world's heroin and runs on drug money.
The drugs are exported through Pakistan, another key western ally. Taliban eliminated the drug trade before being overthrown.
Most important, Manley's report completely ignored the biggest problem of all."

The drugs are the meat in the stew of Afghanistan that fuels much of the conflict, that's why the Taleban got rid of them, and that's why Uncle Scam got rid of the Taleban. Junkies are a more important part of the western economy than Afghan civilians can ever be, there's quite a bit of new found oil and gas growing under them poppys as well.

 

[gerryh]

I thought it was all about oil.

 

[darkbeaver]

I thought it was all about oil.

Ya right, like you can think, jeezus if you're going to lie, try something believable.:roll:

 

[dancing-loon]

I thought it was all about oil.

It's called Crude, dude!!!

 

[gerryh]

Ya right, like you can think, jeezus if you're going to lie, try something believable.:roll:

Oil is what you've been whining about.....so which is it? Oil or drugs? Or is it both now? Taking lessons from gw?

 

[darkbeaver]

Oil is what you've been whining about.....so which is it? Oil or drugs? Or is it both now? Taking lessons from gw?

It's about a lot of things gerry.Why trouble yourself with stuff that's hard on your brain cell.I CAN SMELL THE RUBBER BAND THAT RUNS IT SMOKIN FROM HERE.

 

[gerryh]

It's about a lot of things gerry.Why trouble yourself with stuff that's hard on your brain cell.I CAN SMELL THE RUBBER BAND THAT RUNS IT SMOKIN FROM HERE.

Yup...taking lessons from gw.

 

[darkbeaver]

Yup...taking lessons from gw.

Right gerry, I see after five posts you've exhausted your vocabulary with four pitiful tiny meaningless squeaky words and a pair of lower case letters. Why don't you get someone to read you a story book about doggys and catch some sleep. Don't you have to fire the boss tommorow?

 

[gerryh]

Why would I need to elaborate? I've already made my point....for years Afghanistan was all about the oil...... now it's about the drugs......... just like gw bushy baby with iraq....always a new and convenient reason..... have ya's started dreaming up a 3rd option yet, or will that come to ya later?

 

[#juan]

The whole, stupid war is about oil, and Unocol, and Haliburton, and it's high time we woke up and noticed.

http://tinyurl.com/bpkmt

 

[MikeyDB]

Even if a review of the relative "success" of Canadian troops in Afghanistan could be shaped by the powers that be to indicate progress is being made, further participation in this dog-and-pony-show should have been made on a contingent basis. Canadians would honor our committment if and only if the poppy fields were destroyed. As the lever by which warlords and the Taliban secure funds for purchasing weapons and maintaining field-strength in the region, it makes sense that this loophole be closed. Similarly, Afghanistan would be permitted to cut a deal with whomever might be interested in building a pipeline contingent on that interested nation supplying sufficient security to maintain the Afghani security against the Taliban and anyone else interested in fomenting turmoil in the region. Again, any arrangement should have required that Pakistan (under the auspices of the United States) secure the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. With an "agreement" to continue fighting without some basic contingencies like these as part of the deal permits the open-ended brainlessness of the American model of "regime-change" that's the example of failed policies in Iraq. Luckily the government of the Canadian people don't have the cajones nor the temperament to state unequivocal conditions that would need to be met or seen to be in process before Canadians continue to waste the blood of our children on this ridiculous circus of stealth imperialism conducted by the United States.

 

[darkbeaver]

Even if a review of the relative "success" of Canadian troops in Afghanistan could be shaped by the powers that be to indicate progress is being made, further participation in this dog-and-pony-show should have been made on a contingent basis. Canadians would honor our committment if and only if the poppy fields were destroyed. As the lever by which warlords and the Taliban secure funds for purchasing weapons and maintaining field-strength in the region, it makes sense that this loophole be closed. Similarly, Afghanistan would be permitted to cut a deal with whomever might be interested in building a pipeline contingent on that interested nation supplying sufficient security to maintain the Afghani security against the Taliban and anyone else interested in fomenting turmoil in the region. Again, any arrangement should have required that Pakistan (under the auspices of the United States) secure the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. With an "agreement" to continue fighting without some basic contingencies like these as part of the deal permits the open-ended brainlessness of the American model of "regime-change" that's the example of failed policies in Iraq. Luckily the government of the Canadian people don't have the cajones nor the temperament to state unequivocal conditions that would need to be met or seen to be in process before Canadians continue to waste the blood of our children on this ridiculous circus of stealth imperialism conducted by the United States.

It's not just the Warlords and the Taleban mickey, it's the west itself that ships anf distributes the heroine on government planes through government lines, the laundered money runs the clandestine covert arms bussiness predominantly for western bankers.

 

[Avro]

The whole, stupid war is about oil, and Unocol, and Haliburton, and it's high time we woke up and noticed.

http://tinyurl.com/bpkmt

There is no oil in Afghanistan worth anything and to believe it is for oil you would have to believe the planes flew into the WTC under GWB's orders and that my friend is glue sniffing fodder.

Remember....the X-files was a fictional program.:lol::roll::lol::roll:

 

[#juan]

There is no oil in Afghanistan worth anything and to believe it is for oil you would have to believe the planes flew into the WTC under GWB's orders and that my friend is glue sniffing fodder.

Remember....the X-files was a fictional program.:lol::roll::lol::roll:

There may be no oil but there is an oil pipeline. The pipeline to bring crude across the bloody desert is not any kind of a pipedream. While Afghanistan has no oil, it does have a route for a pipeline which is the sole reason we are there. That, and to prop up the puppet government. The war on terror went away a long time ago.

 

[Praxius]

Report on Afghanistan the latest example of Ottawa hiding the truth from Canadians

By ERIC MARGOLIS

The report on Afghanistan delivered Monday by the Manley panel was deeply disappointing. Its totally predictable findings could have been written without the panel of instant Afghan experts wasting millions of tax dollars.

Oh wow, predictable was it? Either they suggested we pull out or stay... flip of the coin there, therefore predictable no matter what they said...... moving on.....

This whitewash was designed to provide political cover for the Harper government, which has hung its hat on the failing war in Afghanistan, and provide it an escape hatch if the kabob hits the fan.

And yet, he doesn't explain how. And how would this person seem to know more about the overall big picture compared to the people who made this report? This guy is bitching and moaning all for the sake that he didn't hear what he wanted.... get used to it.

It's the latest example of the Liberals pathetic failure to demand Ottawa answer tough questions about the mess in Afghanistan.

First this was Harper's nugget.... now it's the Liberal's nugget? All in the same paragraph? WTF is this guy smoking?

Most disturbing, the report claimed continued military operations in Afghanistan, which has so far cost 79 Canadians dead and untold billions, were necessary to "enhance" Canada's international influence.

Such a narrow view of things. Oooo.... some of our soldiers are dying? Wow... last I checked, that's what happens in a War, people die..... usually soldiers.

Two days later, another Canadian soldier died in action.

So? Once again.... War? Does he expect the Taliban to switch to Paintball Guns after this report? Does he even think this report would have delayed the future deaths of our soldiers while the country mulls this over?

As one who spends half his time abroad, I can attest that Canada's military role in Afghanistan is virtually unknown to Americans, save occasional pats on the back to the Harper government from Bush administration officials. Many Americans can't find Canada, never mind Afghanistan, on the map.

So? Most people in the US don't even realize they're still fighting in Afghanistan either. Ask the soldiers why they are there. They're not there to please our government or the US for that matter... Regardless if the sole original reasons for invasion were for oil and profit, our soldiers are there now, and the reasons why they still go over tour after tour and people are still joining the military to go over to fight, are far above and beyond trivial crap such as oil and profit.

From an unjust invasion our forces have created justifiable reasons to be there and to stay there, and it's for the people... the villagers, etc....

Oh, but I guess that's all irrelevent I suppose. If you think it is, then you seemed to have forgotten what our military has and always will represent.

It makes no difference what the US thinks or knows, because they know very little to begin with. What matters is Afghanistan and its people. If they don't want us there, then by all means leave. But they want us there, our troops want to be there, my family who's already been over there want to be there.... so I think they have a better understanding of the overall picture and their own personal reasons of heading over..... which I won't question.

If Afghanistan was like Iraq, then I'd be all for getting our troops out of there.... but it's not, so I don't.

In Europe and Asia, most people regard the Afghanistan conflict as a 19th century-style colonial war over future oil pipeline routes, and NATO's role there the result of severe arms-twisting by Washington. That's why most NATO troops are kept out of combat.

Canada's position as one of the world's most respected, admired nations has nothing to do with its military role in Afghanistan. Quite the contrary.

I think this guy requires further research into what's truly going on over there. The details about the oil pipeline, the arm twisting by the US to get NATO into the situation are all true and valid, but our involvement has not gone as what the US has wished, and they are not all that near getting this pipline going to begin with, if ever.

Regardless of the intentions of the US, Our involvement as NATO in Afghanistan has allowed us more control over what occurs there then in comparison to what the US has been able to get away with in Iraq. Our sole involvement as NATO and not under the rule of the US forces has allowed us to divert from what just the US wants, but rather what Afghanistan wants. Once they are able to get back on their feet as a nation and be able to defend itself, they will no longer require our help as they presently do.

That's the US's biggest mistake was to get NATO involved. Their original intentions have been modified by the other various nations in the country, such as Canada. This is why the US decided to bicker and moan about us not getting the job done as they want, because it's taken them forever to get their scam of a pipline completed and we're diverting our goals and requirements to what NATO and those nations feel it should be, not what the US wants.

I'm glad we're in Afghanistan because we're screwing up the US's plans. Take what the US started and turn it against their original intentions.

RASH BLUNDER

Ottawa's rash blunder into a tribal civil war in Afghanistan, and one-sided policy in the Mideast, have put Canada squarely in the gun sights of violent anti-western groups, and make it appear an eager spear carrier in the Bush/Cheney wars in the Muslim world. Every bombed Afghan village breeds new enemies for Canada.

Once again, this tool got his facts screwed up. The only NATO country who's been rampant on the bombings and air strikes, is the US, not Canada. Canada's track record for Civilian Casualties is far less then most other NATO countries, esspecially the US. Considdering we're doing most of the fighting, I'd say we're doing a great job. And most of our Civlian Casualties have been open and explained how they occured.

Second, it's not a Tribal Civil War. If anything, Iraq is. Afghanistan is the People of Afghanistan vs. The Taliban whom controlled the country's affairs for so many years. If this was a Tribal Civil War, then the situation over there would be far worse and far more out of control then it currently is.

Ottawa is hiding the full truth about Afghanistan from Canadians. Our flag-waving media has further obscured the facts.
When did we last see a report filed from the side of the Taliban and its growing number of allies?

Gee... Check out CBC's The National, or perhaps Global's National News, or perhaps even CTV, where they have had numerous reports and interviews with various current and former members of the Taliban. Check some of the threads I have started in these forums alone..... There's also countless sites online where one can get the above information.

Get a friggin clue and also, while you're at it, get some real education on what's truly going on there.

The report's claim that Afghanistan's U.S.-imposed regime is "democratic" is absurd. CIA "asset" Hamid Karzai was installed by Washington and is kept in power by U.S. troops and a stream of cash payoffs to drug-dealing tribal chiefs. His rigged "election" was supervised by U.S. troops and bought with $100 bills.

Oh no... Drug Dealing Tribal Chiefs? Apparently this guy is also clearly ignorant as to why the drug trade is still currently active there.

#1 - It's not illegal in their country.
#2 - These drug exports and development are usually the only forms of income to many remote and poor villages. Corn, Wheat, and other products they were given to grow instead not only cost too much to develop for these people, but they're not getting enough profit to make ends meet, as other countries and areas are selling for far less then what they can sell for.

Hince they go back to growing and exporting drugs so they can still have food on their tables for their families. Even NATO nations have confirmed that if they attempted to restrict their growing and selling of these drugs, they would hinder the Afghan people even further and cause more to side with the Taliban so they can get money and food.

And that's what the true balance is in winning in Afghanistan is all about.... making sure you can provide a better way of life then the other guy (ie: The Taliban)

Afghanistan's so-called "national army" is made up of U.S.-paid mercenaries. The "army" does not need more training, as Manley claims. It needs loyalty to a legitimate national government -- which does not exist.

Wrong yet again. I won't even bother to explain where he screwed up here.

Half of Afghanistan's population, the Pashtun tribes (source of Taliban), has been largely excluded from political power. Until included, there will be no stability, never mind democracy.

Not exactly, yet true none the less. This conflict will not end easily until negotiations occur with the Taliban and a sharing of Power occurs in Afghanistan. Karzai has said this, the people of Afghanistan are saying this, and many NATO nations have said this as well.

One would think that if Karzai was a US hincemen in power and doing what they wanted, he wouldn't be promoting talks with the Taliban..... oh, and forget the fact that recent polls say most Afghans are pleased with Karzai and how he is trying to keep Afghanistan's interests.

Ominously, the war is spreading into Pakistan. Canada is backing Musharraf's dictatorship in Pakistan while claiming to be fighting for "democracy" in Afghanistan.

Half Truth yet again.

The report soft-soaped government corruption. It ignored the 800-lb. gorilla in Kabul: Senior government officials up to their turbans in the heroin trade. Canada, the U.S. and NATO find themselves patrons of the world's leading narcostate, which supplies 90% of the world's heroin and runs on drug money.

Duh... and as explained above, currently nessicary. Do some friggin research as to why, rather then to just point the finger and say no. What a tool.

The drugs are exported through Pakistan, another key western ally. Taliban eliminated the drug trade before being overthrown.

True... however there's more to it then just the above explination:

"....Another source claims opium production was cut back by the Taliban not to prevent its use but to shore up its price, and thus increase the income of poppy farmers and revenue of Afghan tax collectors."

Most important, Manley's report completely ignored the biggest problem of all. Canada has no political objective in this aimless war beyond making high-ranking Ottawa officials feel self-important at NATO meetings.

Wrong yet again.... apparently this ignorant fool needs to read more then he types. There are various objectives, both political and non for why they remain there.

The Karzai regime, which rules only Kabul, would not last a week without western troops. There is no prospect of national political consensus until the Taliban and its allies are brought into the process. The reborn Afghan Communist Party is again a dominant influence in Kabul, including running torture prisons to which Canada had, until recently, been sending captives.

Canada is not being ennobled by this sordid, ugly, drug-fueled war. Its honour and reputation are being injured, its security endangered.
The Manley report is the political equivalent of a subprime mortgage. It does the nation a disservice.

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/Margolis_Eric/2008/01/27/4796414-sun.php

What a moron this guy is. Instead of this fool continually being stuck back in 2001-02 with the same rantings without updating his information available at his disposal, perhaps he should go over and ask the soldiers why they stay there and risk their lives.

Perhaps he should then go and ask the people of Afghanistan whether they want us there or not and why.

Perhaps he should just do what everybody else should do and ignore the US and do what feels right in principle. The US is in there for their stupid Pipeline and to pin blame for 9/11... I see us there as making sure this doesn't occur.

Just because we're so-called allies with the US, doesn't mean we have to bend over backwards for them, nor will we.

Canada entered Afghanistan based on our agreements under the NATO organization and our obligations we promised we would uphold. Our government/military choose the Kandahar Provience, it was not picked for us.

We knew it would be a hard place to be, our forces knew what they were getting into, and they still do.

This Report goes in two directions.

It suggests we stay, but only if the following is met:

Switch gradually to training/reconstruction, rather then combat.

Get the Afghan Army trained more to take our positions.

Get more Nato Forces to help in Kandahar (Besides Canada adding more.... it says nothing about us needing to add more of our own troops.)

Get Helicopters for our troops.

Among other reasons.... but it does not state we should stay there regardless.... it states, that unless these things are met, we will not win.... if we do not have a chance at winning, then why stay?

Basically I see this report as a good thing. We either get what we need in order to meet those demands, or we don't.... hince we then pull out.

It doesn't say that, but it is very clear that option is still out on the table.

I have great admiration for our forces and their principles as to why they are there and continue to go back after their tours are over. Just because other NATO nations have bogus intentions for being there, doesn't mean we do, let alone follow to suit those intentions.

I believe this report was about as clear, logical and accurate to what is required to win, or at least to meet the requirements of getting Afghanistan able to defend their own country. Either we meet these demands of the report, or we loose..... if we're going to loose, then we might as well pull out.

It meets pretty much what both sides want.

We logically can not just cut, run and hope for the best, nor can we just logically keep fighting the way we are.

We're smack dab in the middle of this crap, and Canada has never been known to cut and run, ever, regardless of how difficult the mission or battle. We're not known for taking the dainty missions.... Vimy Ridge is a prime example of this, as no other allied nation could take it. It's what we do.

Afghans were polled last year and the majority considder the US as doing most of the combat, and they still see Canadians as doing most of the Reconstruction and other various assistance for villages and their people (Even though we're still mostly combat)

Afghanistan is clearly not a black and white situation and I feel this guy requires more reading before he shoots his mouth off on things he doesn't fully understand.

Do I want us there forever? No.

Did I want us to go over in the first place? No.

But we're there now, and the only logical solution out of this has been clearly explained in the report..... which for the most part, I agree with.

 

[earth_as_one]

Canadians should read the report for themselves and make up their mind. You can read it here:

http://www3.thestar.com/static/PDF/080122_afghan_report.pdf

Its 94 pages long, but the main text of the report is only about 40 pages. Worthwhile reading if you want to be able to talk about this subject intellgently. Its not a hard read.

So far Canada's mission to Afghanistan has brought order to chaos. Its still a dangerous country, but people have started returning home. Afghans are taking more responsibility for running their own affairs. On the whole, Canada's presence is welcomed by the majority of Afghans.

I know people who have served in Afghanistan and at least one person due to ship out. They know the risk and they choose to go. The report mentions a shortage of helicopters and unmanned surveillance drones. Our politicians should address these and other shortcomings mentioned in the report.

Regarding the opium trade:
According to this article, most of the world's poor suffer from lack of pain medication:
http://www.senliscouncil.net/module...dy/global_opium_for_medicine_market_exec_summ

The Afghan report makes this statement:

...Fully 90 per cent of the world’s illicit opium supply originates in Afghanistan. Opium profits flow to the Taliban, to criminal elements and to corrupt provincial and central-government officials. The Panel found that different and in some cases contradictory Afghan government and foreign counter-narcotics policies and practices have been working at cross-purposes. Coherent counter-narcotics strategies need to be adopted by all relevant authorities. These approaches must include justice-sector reforms to tighten the prosecution of traffickers. And they must offer effective economic provisions to induce would-be poppy farmers and middlemen to prefer and find alternative lines of work. As one possibility, a limited poppy-formedicine project might be worth pursuing. Any good strategy will take time to yield results...

I'm in favor of turning Afghan's criminal drug lords into respectable businessmen. Also I see no evidence that western governments are involved in this illicit trade.

As far as the Taliban is concerned, we don't need to fight them. This war was not supposed to be about liberation, freedom of religion or turning Afghans into westerners. It was mainly about eliminating safe havens for people that attack the west. Afghanistan was invaded because the Taliban refused to hand over the people allegedly responsible for 9/11. Too bad they didn't cut a deal back then, but its not too late now. I don't believe Canada has a responsibilty or the right to impose social and cultural change on these people, beyond what is required to eliminate Afghanistan as a safe haven for anti-west militants. A properous and literate Afghanistan contributes to that goal. The Taliban should have the freedom to present their views to the Afghan people and let the Afghans decide democratically what type of country they want.

 

[Walter]

It's not just the Warlords and the Taleban mickey, it's the west itself that ships anf distributes the heroine on government planes through government lines, the laundered money runs the clandestine covert arms bussiness predominantly for western bankers.

It's all supervised by the guy who's always in the shadows chain smoking.

 

[Avro]

There may be no oil but there is an oil pipeline. The pipeline to bring crude across the bloody desert is not any kind of a pipedream. While Afghanistan has no oil, it does have a route for a pipeline which is the sole reason we are there. That, and to prop up the puppet government. The war on terror went away a long time ago.

So either you think GWB made 9/11 happen through the dirty tricks department or you think Bin Laden did GWB a favor in giving him and excuse to invade.

Or perhaps you think Bin Laden and Bush are drinking buddies and came up with the pllt over some beers a falafels.:roll:

Of course this also implies that U.S. relies on middle east oil when it dosen't at all.:roll:

 

[Avro]

Oh wow, predictable was it? Either they suggested we pull out or stay... flip of the coin there, therefore predictable no matter what they said...... moving on.....

The Manley report gave a thumbs up to stay the course past 2009 the key date for this mission and one that is no surprise.

And yet, he doesn't explain how. And how would this person seem to know more about the overall big picture compared to the people who made this report? This guy is bitching and moaning all for the sake that he didn't hear what he wanted.... get used to it.

How would the panel know more than this person who btw has studies this region his whole life.

First this was Harper's nugget.... now it's the Liberal's nugget? All in the same paragraph? WTF is this guy smoking?

Simple, he blames both of them, what are you smoking?

Such a narrow view of things. Oooo.... some of our soldiers are dying? Wow... last I checked, that's what happens in a War, people die..... usually soldiers.

Shame to see ou have such a glib attitude on our sodliers dying.:roll:

So? Once again.... War? Does he expect the Taliban to switch to Paintball Guns after this report? Does he even think this report would have delayed the future deaths of our soldiers while the country mulls this over?

No, where does he say that?

So? Most people in the US don't even realize they're still fighting in Afghanistan either. Ask the soldiers why they are there. They're not there to please our government or the US for that matter... Regardless if the sole original reasons for invasion were for oil and profit, our soldiers are there now, and the reasons why they still go over tour after tour and people are still joining the military to go over to fight, are far above and beyond trivial crap such as oil and profit.

From an unjust invasion our forces have created justifiable reasons to be there and to stay there, and it's for the people... the villagers, etc....

Oh, but I guess that's all irrelevent I suppose. If you think it is, then you seemed to have forgotten what our military has and always will represent.

It makes no difference what the US thinks or knows, because they know very little to begin with. What matters is Afghanistan and its people. If they don't want us there, then by all means leave. But they want us there, our troops want to be there, my family who's already been over there want to be there.... so I think they have a better understanding of the overall picture and their own personal reasons of heading over..... which I won't question.

If Afghanistan was like Iraq, then I'd be all for getting our troops out of there.... but it's not, so I don't.

So what you say is that because our soldiers will do their duty we should send them into conflicts without thought of the dangers for them? It contradicts what you aid about Iraq.

Also, if we are there for freedom why if they wanted it did the Afghans not do it on their own? They clearly out number the Taliban.

I think this guy requires further research into what's truly going on over there. The details about the oil pipeline, the arm twisting by the US to get NATO into the situation are all true and valid, but our involvement has not gone as what the US has wished, and they are not all that near getting this pipline going to begin with, if ever.

Regardless of the intentions of the US, Our involvement as NATO in Afghanistan has allowed us more control over what occurs there then in comparison to what the US has been able to get away with in Iraq. Our sole involvement as NATO and not under the rule of the US forces has allowed us to divert from what just the US wants, but rather what Afghanistan wants. Once they are able to get back on their feet as a nation and be able to defend itself, they will no longer require our help as they presently do.

That's the US's biggest mistake was to get NATO involved. Their original intentions have been modified by the other various nations in the country, such as Canada. This is why the US decided to bicker and moan about us not getting the job done as they want, because it's taken them forever to get their scam of a pipline completed and we're diverting our goals and requirements to what NATO and those nations feel it should be, not what the US wants.

I'm glad we're in Afghanistan because we're screwing up the US's plans. Take what the US started and turn it against their original intentions.

What a pile of nonsense, the U.S. didn't need NATO for this mission and any conspiracy you may have as well as the author is nothing more than and acid induced fantasy. Oh yeah, we rescued the Afghans for the Americans.....:lol:

Once again, this tool got his facts screwed up. The only NATO country who's been rampant on the bombings and air strikes, is the US, not Canada. Canada's track record for Civilian Casualties is far less then most other NATO countries, esspecially the US. Considdering we're doing most of the fighting, I'd say we're doing a great job. And most of our Civlian Casualties have been open and explained how they occured.

Second, it's not a Tribal Civil War. If anything, Iraq is. Afghanistan is the People of Afghanistan vs. The Taliban whom controlled the country's affairs for so many years. If this was a Tribal Civil War, then the situation over there would be far worse and far more out of control then it currently is.

Wow, grab a clue, what the U.S. does will affect all it's NATO allies....speaking of tools.

Gee... Check out CBC's The National, or perhaps Global's National News, or perhaps even CTV, where they have had numerous reports and interviews with various current and former members of the Taliban. Check some of the threads I have started in these forums alone..... There's also countless sites online where one can get the above information.

Get a friggin clue and also, while you're at it, get some real education on what's truly going on there.

He actually goes to these places and dosen't judge it from the comfort of his living room like you do. It's a typical ad hominem attack, i don't agree with him so I'll say he dosen't do his research.....pathetic.:roll:

Oh no... Drug Dealing Tribal Chiefs? Apparently this guy is also clearly ignorant as to why the drug trade is still currently active there.

#1 - It's not illegal in their country.
#2 - These drug exports and development are usually the only forms of income to many remote and poor villages. Corn, Wheat, and other products they were given to grow instead not only cost too much to develop for these people, but they're not getting enough profit to make ends meet, as other countries and areas are selling for far less then what they can sell for.

Hince they go back to growing and exporting drugs so they can still have food on their tables for their families. Even NATO nations have confirmed that if they attempted to restrict their growing and selling of these drugs, they would hinder the Afghan people even further and cause more to side with the Taliban so they can get money and food.

And that's what the true balance is in winning in Afghanistan is all about.... making sure you can provide a better way of life then the other guy (ie: The Taliban)

Actually what they would do is lose the support of the drug lords and tribal chiefs.

Wrong yet again. I won't even bother to explain where he screwed up here.

That's because you don't know.

Not exactly, yet true none the less. This conflict will not end easily until negotiations occur with the Taliban and a sharing of Power occurs in Afghanistan. Karzai has said this, the people of Afghanistan are saying this, and many NATO nations have said this as well.

One would think that if Karzai was a US hincemen in power and doing what they wanted, he wouldn't be promoting talks with the Taliban..... oh, and forget the fact that recent polls say most Afghans are pleased with Karzai and how he is trying to keep Afghanistan's interests.

This conflict will last for decades and it's time Canadians were told this.

Karzari's job is to try and make everyone happy and I don't blame because he has alot to lose.....his head one way or another. No wonder he has done nothing to clamp down on corruption in his government.

Half Truth yet again.

Which half?

Duh... and as explained above, currently nessicary. Do some friggin research as to why, rather then to just point the finger and say no. What a tool.

Yep, and your research trumps his alright.:lol::roll:

Wrong yet again.... apparently this ignorant fool needs to read more then he types. There are various objectives, both political and non for why they remain there.

Another ad hominem.

What a moron this guy is

.

Ad Hominem yet again....

Instead of this fool continually being stuck back in 2001-02 with the same rantings without updating his information available at his disposal, perhaps he should go over and ask the soldiers why they stay there and risk their lives.

Like I said, just because they want to do there duty doesn't mean we have to ask them of it.

Perhaps he should then go and ask the people of Afghanistan whether they want us there or not and why.

That would be irrelevant and how do you know he hasn't?

Perhaps he should just do what everybody else should do and ignore the US and do what feels right in principle. The US is in there for their stupid Pipeline and to pin blame for 9/11... I see us there as making sure this doesn't occur.

I don't think the U.S. is there for a pipeline they don't need, I think they are there because of....duh....9/11.

Just because we're so-called allies with the US, doesn't mean we have to bend over backwards for them, nor will we.

That depends on who is in charge.

Canada entered Afghanistan based on our agreements under the NATO organization and our obligations we promised we would uphold. Our government/military choose the Kandahar Provience, it was not picked for us.

We went in to help our ally and were asked by the americans and Afghans to stay.

We knew it would be a hard place to be, our forces knew what they were getting into, and they still do.

We did not know and niether did our soldiers but that is something you have to ask them they just do it.

This Report goes in two directions.

It suggests we stay, but only if the following is met:

Switch gradually to training/reconstruction, rather then combat.

Get the Afghan Army trained more to take our positions.

Get more Nato Forces to help in Kandahar (Besides Canada adding more.... it says nothing about us needing to add more of our own troops.)

Get Helicopters for our troops.

Among other reasons.... but it does not state we should stay there regardless.... it states, that unless these things are met, we will not win.... if we do not have a chance at winning, then why stay?

Basically I see this report as a good thing. We either get what we need in order to meet those demands, or we don't.... hince we then pull out.

It doesn't say that, but it is very clear that option is still out on the table.

It also syas we are stuck for another 2 years regardless of what happens.

I have great admiration for our forces and their principles as to why they are there and continue to go back after their tours are over. Just because other NATO nations have bogus intentions for being there, doesn't mean we do, let alone follow to suit those intentions.

No need to hide behind the bravery of our soldiers again and again I get your point and it still makes no argument for a conflict.

I believe this report was about as clear, logical and accurate to what is required to win, or at least to meet the requirements of getting Afghanistan able to defend their own country. Either we meet these demands of the report, or we loose..... if we're going to loose, then we might as well pull out.

If the report isn't followed it dosen't mean we lose or loose as you put it.

It meets pretty much what both sides want.

More than two sides to this friendo.

We logically can not just cut, run and hope for the best, nor can we just logically keep fighting the way we are.

Ah yes the old cut and run speech made for American tv and coming to CTV this spring.:lol:

We're smack dab in the middle of this crap, and Canada has never been known to cut and run, ever, regardless of how difficult the mission or battle. We're not known for taking the dainty missions.... Vimy Ridge is a prime example of this, as no other allied nation could take it. It's what we do.

We have never been in a conflict that will last a decade or two.

Afghans were polled last year and the majority considder the US as doing most of the combat, and they still see Canadians as doing most of the Reconstruction and other various assistance for villages and their people (Even though we're still mostly combat)

Afghanistan is clearly not a black and white situation and I feel this guy requires more reading before he shoots his mouth off on things he doesn't fully understand.

Yeah the worldly journalist who has studied this region for a long time needs more reading, perhaps he should give you call since you have the whole thing figured out because you watch a show once.:lol:

Do I want us there forever? No.

So you want to cut and run....interesting.

Did I want us to go over in the first place? No.

Why not, do we not help out ally and combat those who would attack the West. Do we not fight for the Canadians killed on 9/11?

But we're there now, and the only logical solution out of this has been clearly explained in the report..... which for the most part, I agree with

.


It's not the only logical solution but it does deserve some consideration. We have a simple choice as Canadians....stay til the end or get out now.

Not an easy decision but one that must be made.