What are we doing in Afghanistan?

[Mongul]

Lets go back even further then, US led sanctions against the civilian population, especially medicine for the children.

If you don't like the numbers why post the link?

i read the first few paragraphs because i was getting tired of reading.

i posted because the consensual figures were there, which was 200 000.

What about the number of people that died in saddam's torture chambers and the kurds he gassed?

arguing about death is moot anyways, People die in war, thats the reality

 

[MHz]

why am i defending the iraq war? i don't even support it.

That's good to hear, what you hear on FOXABCNBCCNN isn't always linked to any sort of truth, but then I also assume you know that.

 

[MHz]

i read the first few paragraphs because i was getting tired of reading.

i posted because the consensual figures were there, which was 200 000.

What about the number of people that died in saddam's torture chambers and the kurds he gassed?

arguing about death is moot anyways, People die in war, thats the reality

True but shouldn't it be the troops. I saw this just the other day, in WWI the split was 90/10 for troops vs civilians, now it is just the opposite.

Have you read that the gassing was a wartime act done by Iran? Who can blame them, the US was supplying Saddam with all sorts of **** like that to use against Iran. The US is still pissed at Fidel for ending their playground for the rich and famous. Afghan and Iraq will never give in. And it isn't about democracy, it is naked aggression for land and resources and the more of the Natives they can kill the better they like it.

In these cases the deaths are not meaningless since the US should not be there in the first place.

 

[Mongul]

Corruption Investigation Continues Against Former Venezuelan Governor Rosales


Author:
James Suggett - Venezuelanalysis.com


Mérida, December 3rd, 2008 (Venezuelanalysis.com) -- Venezuelan National Assembly (AN) Legislator Mario Isea, the president of a special commission to investigate corruption charges against former Zulia State Governor Manuel Rosales, presented a new round of evidence to Venezuelan Attorney General Luisa Ortega Díaz on Tuesday.

According to Isea, Rosales is guilty of several infractions of the Law Against Corruption, including the channeling of public funds into private accounts, hoarding land and capital in the name of front persons, and complicity with fraud when he allegedly re-contracted with a local lottery after this lottery was proven to have committed fraud.

When Rosales appeared in a hearing before the National Assambly last Friday, Isea presented a long list of properties owned by Rosales and employees of his governorship in the United States and in Zulia state, and asked rhetorically how public functionaries could have acquired so much wealth.

Isea also played tape recordings of phone conversations in which Rosales allegedly distributes public funds to his allies.

Rosales said he has nothing to do with the property accumulated by his colleagues and staff and that Isea had violated the constitution by playing the recordings.

Rosales, who lost the presidential election to Hugo Chavez in 2006, was elected mayor of Maracaibo, the capital city of Zulia, in the regional and local elections on November 23rd.

The national investigation into corruption charges against Rosales began in late October, when President Hugo Chavez said Rosales, a known supporter of the April 2002 coup against Chávez, should be sent to prison for corruption, drug-trafficking, links to paramilitary death squads, and plotting to assassinate him.

Rosales is due to appear before federal prosecutors on December 11th.

theres an election comming up, i wonder why these charges would be presented?

anyways heres more

censorship
Human Rights
Corruption
food lines

keep loving that Authoritarian populist

 

[Mongul]

True but shouldn't it be the troops. I saw this just the other day, in WWI the split was 90/10 for troops vs civilians, now it is just the opposite.

Have you read that the gassing was a wartime act done by Iran? Who can blame them, the US was supplying Saddam with all sorts of **** like that to use against Iran. The US is still pissed at Fidel for ending their playground for the rich and famous. Afghan and Iraq will never give in. And it isn't about democracy, it is naked aggression for land and resources and the more of the Natives they can kill the better they like it.

In these cases the deaths are not meaningless since the US should not be there in the first place.

i won't defend America's Interventionalist past, because they messed up bad, But its hardly an armed robbery like you make it out to be, Countries that have been previously occupied by the US tends to be better off than before. Germany, Japan, South Korea, Even the Phillipines are much better off than if America simply left and let them rot.

Wouldn't it make sense if America was looking for monetary gain, that they enlist iraqis to work for them, rather then spend money on bullets and smart bombs to kill them?

You have to let go of traditional concepts of war. Modern reality is that conflicts are now more likely to involve irregulars dressed in civilian clothing. It becomes a nightmare for conventional armies since they have to balance the geneva conventions and also ensure the safety of the troops. War is alot less glorious and conventional than in the past.

 

[MHz]

i won't defend America's Interventionalist past, because they messed up bad, But its hardly an armed robbery like you make it out to be, Countries that have been previously occupied by the US tends to be better off than before. Germany, Japan, South Korea, Even the Phillipines are much better off than if America simply left and let them rot.

Scroll down this list and let me know how each country has gained via US 'help'.
How can you 'mess up bad' and still cause other countries to be 'much better off'?
alrighty comrades

Lets look at this example, when the US was still 'playing the friend' to Venezuela their corporations got the 'no-bid' contract (in that it was only American companies that did any bidding) to install telecommunications hardware throughout the country. That stopped at about 20%, that was all the Americans needed in the way of that type of service. They didn't care about servicing the 'out-back' places. They not only got paid for the hardware but they also got a share of the profits that were made. (if you buy a lawn-mower to cut grass for wages do you pay the person you bought the mower from a percentage of your earnings). For the broadcast media they also made sure they had a say in how things were reported to the public.
If you hire somebody to do something and they stop at 20% can you fire them? The companies that got kicked out were compensated at fair market value. (if you run over a chicken in Mexico and you are not Mexican the value of that chicken rises from $2 to well over $200) That is where the stories of robbery come from, the companies were not allowed to set the price, same as the owner should not be allowed to set the price for the worth of the chicken.

Wouldn't it make sense if America was looking for monetary gain, that they enlist iraqis to work for them, rather then spend money on bullets and smart bombs to kill them?

Why would the Iraqis work for an invader, that is how the US is viewed. Their own neighbors would kill them. Why aren't Americans working for the companies, instead most employees are from foreign countries who work for very little money.
The money for those things end up in the pockets of US corporations who shell it out to the preferred stock-holders (compare the list of Govt officials to defense contractor shareholders and do you think you would find any of the same names?) Bush I is a good example.
Machines of war are Americas most profitable industry, the more the stuff is used the better it is for 'some' Americans. (going all the way down to include every worker).
They did that in Kuwait, why did they stop? Because there was very little money coming back to the shareholders.

You have to let go of traditional concepts of war. Modern reality is that conflicts are now more likely to involve irregulars dressed in civilian clothing. It becomes a nightmare for conventional armies since they have to balance the geneva conventions and also ensure the safety of the troops. War is alot less glorious and conventional than in the past.

Gorilla warfare is nothing new, that is how a poorly armed group takes on a much better armed group. With Iraq they even had people scouring the land for a decade before the final invasion to make sure they were almost unarmed, unbelievable. Now they are still crying because the resistance 'doesn't fight fair'.
There is nothing glorious about war, no matter what side you are on or if you are just an innocent who happens to be the same locale. That is something you would know if you had ever been close to one. (sitting behind a monitor is not close enough BTW). You have noticed that none of those conventions or treaties mean dick to the US haven't you?

 

[Tyr]

"Kuwait is a constitutional emirate, which is similar to a monarchy. The ruling emir is always chosen from the al-Sabah family, who chooses the prime minister. The prime minister appoints a cabinet with the emir’s consent. A 50-member unicameral National Assembly, or Majlis al-Umma, is popularly elected every four years. Strictly speaking political parties are banned,

Kuwait (and Bahrain, Saudia Arabia) is a dictatorship with no political say outside of the "ruler"

 

[Colpy]

Regretfully, three more Canadian soldiers died today in Afghanistan. That brings to 100 the number of Canadian troopers in Afghanistanwho have given their lives in service to our country.

 

[SonsOfWaldorf]

IMO,

Their lives were given for nothing other than the wants of their leaders.

In my opinion they didn't die for us they died for someone else's ideology.


In my opinion and observation.

Also their own ideology.

 

[Risus]

Regretfully, three more Canadian soldiers died today in Afghanistan. That brings to 100 the number of Canadian troopers in Afghanistanwho have given their lives in service to our country.

You beat me to this Colpy. Its unfortunate, but we have to be there...

 

[Risus]

Rs,
NATO or not. Not our fight.

My personal opinion and observation.

WW I and WW II weren't our fight, but we were there......

 

[Tyr]

Bull, they got the contracts because they were Americans. Don't you remember the selling of this war, join with us and you can have a piece of the 'reconstruction'. Five years on just what have they constructed other than military bases and a bunker called the 'green zone'.
No-Bid Contracts in Iraq News and Info

• WashingtonPost.com: Air Force Erred With No-Bid Iraq Contract, GAO Says (2005)
• NPR Audio: Pentagon to Change Bid Process for Iraq Contracts (2006)
• CBC.ca: 40% of military contracts non-competitive
• Live Search: No-bid military contracts

They are paid to do this because these Companies have the expertise and ability to do this job. It obtain the contract via a bidding system designed to ensure that the job is done as cheaply as possible.

Where, oh where do you get your info Mongol????

The vast majority of "scurity" and reconstruction jobs contracted to American companies are "sole sourced". They rarely (if ever) get an RFP/RFQ issued. Have you never heard of Haliburton and their Defence subsidiary?

Try reading some background before you post

Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers is a 2006 documentary by Robert Greenwald.

 

[Just the Facts]

Also their own ideology.

Good point. People tend to forget it's a 100% volunteer army.

 

[barney]

WW I and WW II weren't our fight, but we were there......

So you're saying that the justification for our involvement in the containment (and eventual destruction) of a awesome threat to Europe, that resulted in the most devastating and horrific conflict in the history of mankind is somehow ethically/militarily comparable to our involvement in the bombing and occupying of a rag-tag country (esp. considering that NATO was created on the premise of protecting Europe against similar large-scale aggression)?

 

[Colpy]

So you're saying that the justification for our involvement in the containment (and eventual destruction) of a awesome threat to Europe, that resulted in the most devastating and horrific conflict in the history of mankind is somehow ethically/militarily comparable to our involvement in the bombing and occupying of a rag-tag country (esp. considering that NATO was created on the premise of protecting Europe against similar large-scale aggression)?

The Second World War had less to do with Canada than 9-11/ Great Britain was not attacked, she declared war. North America was not attacked.

Canadians died on 9-11, and we were required by at least two agreements (NATO and our mutual defence pact with the USA) to respond with our allies.

Afghanistan is not Iraq.

Afghanistan, if allowed to fall back into the hands of the Taliban, will be a threat to Canada proper.

 

[barney]

The Second World War had less to do with Canada than 9-11/ Great Britain was not attacked, she declared war. North America was not attacked.

Poland was attacked. Britain was allied to Poland for mutual defence against an imminent German attack. So that means that in attacking Poland, Germany was also in effect attacking Britain (and France). Germany later attacked Britain directly. Close trade links existed between North America and Western Europe. Germany threatened that (if the reason must be purely technical).

Aside from economic considerations, Canada's involvement was technically out of obligation to Britain as part of the Empire. There was also the perceived potential of a Nazi-dominated Europe eventually posing a threat to North America. (If that's what Afghanistan threatened to do, then boy did I have those guys wrong.)

Of course this is focusing only on the basic, purely technical factors. The non-technical factors, like not wanting to see large chunks of the European population slaughtered, loyalty to the Crown, European family ties, etc. may be secondary but certainly formed a large part of the impetus to go to war.

In 9/11, the case was one of a few lunatics playing soldier-boy in some corner of a rag tag country who then managed to highjack some airliners and fly them into some buildings in the USA (all done with unusual ease), that resulted in the deaths of a couple thousand people (including some Canadians). An atrocious crime against humanity? Yes. A legitimate reason to make war on said rag tag country? No. Regardless of our feelings toward the backward regime that allowed for the running of training camps, which the 9/11 terrorists supposedly trained in, the answer is still no. Launching an investigation to determine who was involved and have special forces, mercenaries or whatever hunt them down or just plain bomb the camps is one thing but to actually go on a full military campaign for that reason alone? No comparison with WW2--Afghanistan doesn't even begin to rate as a threat equal to even the weakest of the Axis states.

Canadians died on 9-11, and we were required by at least two agreements (NATO and our mutual defence pact with the USA) to respond with our allies.

Ok so Canadians died in 9/11. The crime was one of mass slaughter. The terrorists wanted to show their power to frighten and cause damage in other ways. The Canadians were not personally targeted--their lives, as with the lives of all the other victims were just means to the above-stated end.

The menial threat posed by Afghanistan does not even begin to qualify as the kind of threat for which NATO was created (assuming NATO can even be considered legitimate following the end of the Cold War--that is, so long as the new masters of Russia behave themselves).

North American defence treaties are concerned with mostly territorial/airspace defence. Afghanistan isn't covered by them.

Afghanistan is not Iraq.

Who said it was? Although now that you mention it, both Afghanistan and Iraq have played out very similarly: US invades a broken country under pretext of extinguishing an international threat in the form of a ruthless regime, that it was on good terms with in the past and may even have helped into power. US replaces old regime with friendly regime and the proceeds to "rebuild" and create local security force that will keep things under control so US can move out and not have to spend any more military funds there.

Afghanistan, if allowed to fall back into the hands of the Taliban, will be a threat to Canada proper.

If by that you mean that more terrorists will be trained there and could perceivably pull an NY, London or Madrid in Toronto, then terrorists of this rag tag nature can be trained virtually anywhere (just give them a few AKs and an obstacle course and you've got a force to be reckoned with...if you're an incompetent Indian police force.). What are we supposed to attack every country that allows training camps? Well, since most of the likely candidates are dirt-poor...


Anyway, I really don't think the threat posed by Germany during WW2 and Canada's reaction then can be equated in any way with Canada's choice to involve itself in the Afghanistan mission.

 

[MHz]

..if you're an incompetent Indian police force.

Perhaps we can give you a WWI .303 and you can go over there and show them how it should be done, oh yeah, the 'terrorists' get to keep their AK's

 

[barney]

Perhaps we can give you a WWI .303 and you can go over there and show them how it should be done, oh yeah, the 'terrorists' get to keep their AK's

Considering that earlier variants of the AK—which is almost certainly what the terrorists were using—are quite inaccurate at longer ranges, give me the .303 anytime. Once I’d finished picking off those ten guys as they went from building to building, I’d then use its big butt to bludgeon the heads of those negligent officials that didn’t give a $hit about the lives of the victims.

[For those of with some empathy, I apologize for making light of killing—with perhaps the exception of the part about bludgeoning.]

Criticism of India’s security forces did not arise out of any lack of combat ability on their part; it arose out of the fact that they failed completely to take steps that are standard procedure in countries like ours (like sealing off the area, for instance), and that would have very likely resulted in many lives being saved.


Just one question MHz: why the quotes around the word, terrorists? Did I miss something?

As a fighting force we are pathetic.

I wouldn't go that far: aside from being ill-equipped, the training that our troops get is fairly effective as far as self-discipline, small-scale combat roles and technical skills are concerned. Our specialists, such as medics are probably among the best in the world and we have a reputation for proficiency in weapons skills. The problem lies in the archaic nature of the tactics used (i.e. like their US counterparts, our forces are ineffective at dealing with guerrilla-style warfare—the norm in places like Afghanistan).

What’s pathetic is that our role there is merely to support a US-run operation. Canada is not following its own separate policies concerning Afghanistan, we’re following US policy. Instead of functioning like an ally (putting aside whether it’s a legitimate alliance or not), we seem to be more of a subordinate.

 

[Tyr]

The Second World War had less to do with Canada than 9-11/ Great Britain was not attacked, she declared war. North America was not attacked.

Canadians died on 9-11, and we were required by at least two agreements (NATO and our mutual defence pact with the USA) to respond with our allies.

That statement is absolutely mind boggling and answering it would take pages and pages of rebuttal as there is so much out there to disqualify your point.

Are you really that blind to Ameripropaganda?

para two contradicts para one...

 

[Tyr]

As a fighting force we are pathetic.

Not going to make a great difference anyway.


imo/jao

r;s

I'll qualify that for you Scratch. As a fighting force we are one of the worlds best. As a world power we aren't much

Canadian soldiers' training is among the best if not the best in the world. Our equipment leaves alot to be desired

That being said, we constantly overreach our capabilities (Afghanistan) vis-a-vis logistics and equipment. We are "best" at being part of a peace keeping force, not leading an invasion