The Afghan people will win - Part 10
August 25, 2009 - 5:08pm
Kandahar blast kills dozens; 4 more U.S. soldiers killed
A large blast made by five car bombs strung together rocked Kandahar city Tuesday night, killing at least 41 people, wounding 66 and damaging dozens of buildings, officials said. [...]
Earlier Tuesday, four U.S. soldiers were killed in another bomb blast in southern Afghanistan, bringing the death toll of foreign forces in 2009 to 295 — the most in a single year since the start of the war.
Comments
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Syndicate
Who Are the Taliban?
http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/22295
"...the tougher truth is that the Taliban, almost exclusively composed of the Pashtun tribes who comprise at least %40 of the country's population, are an integral part of the Afghan people...Supposing thousands of Afghans had invaded your country and bombed your villages and killed your wives and children, what would you do?
So let's see: Canadians are fighting and killing Indigneous people for control of their lands and resources while putting in place puppet government to make all this go easier and demonizing their resistance. Same old same old..
US wants 20,000 more troops to fight Taliban
General McChrystal, tasked with turning the tide in the battle against the insurgency on the ground, has given a presentation of his draft report to senior Afghan government figures in which he also proposes raising the size of the Afghan army and police force.
But the request for troop reinforcements will come at a time of intensifying public debate about the role of the Nato mission....For the first time, the American public now views the fight against the Taliban as unwinnable, according to the most recent opinion polls.
The conduct of the Afghan government has not helped the mood on either side of the Atlantic. While US, British and other foreign troops are dying in what is supposedly a mission to rid Afghanistan of al-Qa'ida militants and make the country safe for democracy, the incumbent President stands accused of forging alliances with brutal warlords and overseeing outright fraud in an attempt to "steal" the national elections, the results of which are still being counted....
According to General McChrystal's draft plan, the number of Afghan troops would rise from 88,000 to 250,000, and the police force from 82,000 to 160,000 by 2012.
...
The US commander will, however, ask other Nato countries to send further reinforcements and will travel shortly to European capitals to discuss the issue. It is widely expected that the UK will send up to 1,500 more troops. At the same time, a force of 700 sent to help provide security for the Afghan elections last week on a temporary basis will become a permanent presence.
...
As part of an initial troop surge overseen by General McChrystal, the US has already committed to boosting its forces from 31,000 to 68,000 this year. However Richard Holbrooke, President Obama's envoy to Afghanistan and Pakistan was told by commanders in Afghanistan last week that those numbers would not be enough for what is being viewed as defining months of fighting to come....
Other Nato nations have the option of focusing on the training of Afghan security forces. However, say American officials, failure by Nato countries to "step up to the plate" would mean the shortfall would be covered by the US.
Diplomatic sources have also revealed that plans are being drawn up to sign a "compact" between Afghanistan and the US which will reiterate Washington's commitment to the security of Afghanistan while the Afghan government pledges to combat corruption and reinforce governance. Unlike previous international agreements over Afghanistan, the compact will be bilateral, without any other governments being involved. The timing of the agreement is due to coincide with a visit by Mr Karzai to New York, if, as expected, he emerges the election winner.
Friendly fire wounds Canadian soldier in Kandahar
A Canadian soldier was found bleeding profusely from a gunshot wound outside the housing section of the main NATO base in Kandahar, the military said Friday.
Soldiers passing by found the man at about 9:30 a.m. local time on Thursday.
It appeared the injury was caused by the soldier's own weapon, Maj. Mario Couture said.
Would that be friendly fire? You think someone took his weapon and shot him with it?
Maybe attempted suicide.
Uhhhh, that's what I meant - the ultimate friendly fire.
I usually stay out of these threads, but I thought some might find this interesting.
I was to a fascinating, if somewhat weird speech, by a former American Air Force Lt Col sponsored by our local peace group. He commanded a squadron or something like that in Vietnam and then went on to play a role in government. Anyway he is now a Christian based non-violence peace activist.
He was saying quite clearly that no one can ever win a war of occupation. Because you are fighting against the people who live there from away. The tighter you try to control the more 'enemies' you have. He also spoke about things from a pretty military point of view in ways that made it clear the 'war' can not possibly ever be won, ever. It was really interesting to hear from a former American military man how the 'strategy' being employed in Afganistan, and Iraq is comptely and totally unwinnable and that the military people in charge have to know it. He also went after a bunch of other involvements and how Canada is beingled down what he called the primrose path.
Well he is likely right and I believe you can make oil out of primrose.
Uhhhh, that's what I meant - the ultimate friendly fire.
LOL oh sorry.
I wasn't suggesting it was wrong. It was just really interesting hearing this stuff from a guy that in any other circumstance would have pretty solid right-wing, religious credentials. He even descirbed himself at one point as a conservative, and spoke a lot about the Christian underpinnings of his views. It mostly confirmed what a lot of us feel, but coming from a place that was pretty unexpected on paper.
One thing he said was that if all the Christians followed the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth instead of the teachings of the men at the front of their church there wouldn't be very many people in America to fight the wars for corporate America.
As I said, fascinating to hear from that perspective. And I finally get the reference to primrose - thanks!
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/08/28/gen-mcchrystal-seeks-more-troops-for-...
"At the same time, three high profile polls show that the American public, long supportive of the military effort in Afghanistan, has had enough and is now firmly opposed to the conflict's continuation. Though the war seems far from foremost in the minds of many voters right now, a further escalation could have political consequences down the road.
Likewise, the ability of the military to provide yet another 20,000 troops even as it continues to keep over 130,000 troops on the ground in Iraq is very much in doubt. Though the US may be able to coax a few thousand more troops out of the virtually lame duck Brown Administration in Britain, the vast majority would have to come from the US,..."
The Taliban is taking over Kandahar:
http://www.texarkanagazette.com/news/WireHeadlines/2009/08/28/afghans-wo...
"'The Taliban are inside the city. They are very active. They can do anything they want,' said an Afghan employee of an international aid organization..."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/margolis/margolis161.html
"The US and NATO can't solve Afghanistan's social or political problems by continuing to wage a cruel and apparently endless war. American and NATO soldiers will never be able to change Afghanistan's social behavior or end tribal customs that go back thousands of years. They are too busy defending their own bases from angry Afghans.
The Western powers have added to the bloody mess in Afghanistan. Time for them to go home."
When you think about it, it is not so surprising. Who are going to be the greatest despisers of war and lovers of peace: The victims of war - civilians and soldiers, or amateur armchair military wannabes/never were/never will be types like Stephen Harper, Peter MacKay and their pro war supporters - those who voted Conservative?
If you have the opportunity, watch the documentary DVD "Sir! No Sir!"
"Nato will remain committed to Afghanistan and must step up its effort there regardless of the outcome of contested presidential elections, the alliance's secretary-general [Anders Fogh Rasmussen] said on Wednesday."
It seems the insanity in Afghanistan isn't going to end soon.
http://dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2009%5C09%5C03%5Cstory_3-9-200...
Obama's Meaningless War:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20090901_obamas_meaningless_war/
Russia wants in on NATO planning sessions on Afghanistan:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601085&sid=aj3SBV9.sFog
Obama is Leading the US into a Hellish Quagmire
http://www.alternet.org/world/142388/obama_is_leading_the_u.s._into_a_he...
"America now has more military personnel in Afghanistan than the Red Army had at the peak of the Soviet invasion and occupation of that country."
I just read an article in a news paper two days ago. (Standard freeholder, Cornwall) and I don't know what to think.
There was an Afghan man who had his ears cut off and his nose cut off because he was caught by the Taliban carrying a voters card.
There was a picture of him, it was quite sad. Is that actually a common occurance?
NATO war criminals kill another 90 victims
"villagers heard jets before the tankers exploded, but that some of them thought the tankers had been hit by rocket-propelled grenades. He said most of the bodies were badly burned"
There was an Afghan man who had his ears cut off and his nose cut off because he was caught by the Taliban carrying a voters card.
There was a picture of him, it was quite sad. Is that actually a common occurance?
You mean, they wouldn't let him vote because he didn't look like his photo?
8 years too long! End the occupation of Afghanistan!
While the leaders of the world turn a blind eye to human rights abuses, the majority of people in Australia, Britain and the US are opposed to the war.
A poll in March 2009 found that 51% of Australians oppose our involvement in the war and two thirds oppose an increase in troops. These figures are mirrored in Britain and the United States.
It is time for the Australian Government to listen to the Australian and Afghan people and end our support for this brutal war.
On her recent visit to Australia, Afghan women's rights activist Malalai Joya said the only way the Afghan people can fight their internal enemy, the Taliban and "fundamentalist warlords", is if the external enemy (the US and coalition forces) leave.
Unforturnately US President Obama has ordered a further 21,000 troops to go to Afghanistan, bringing the total number of US troops to 68,000. A further 33,000 foreign troops make up the occupying forces.
Australia's federal government has given clear signals that it is likely to increase troop numbers as well.
Action
An action has been called for the Saturday, October 10, following the anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan (October 7).
Organising meeting
Details of the rally are will be finalised at a meeting on Tuesday 8 September, 6.30pm at Trades Hall.
Initial proposal
The initial proposal is for the rally to start at 12noon, at either City Square or GPO and march to the Victorian Army Barracks where we are planning to display photos of the victims of the war on Afghanistan.
Refugee rights activist Pamela Curr, has agreed to speak at the rally in a personal capacity, and we are approaching speakers from the Afghan community, and an outspoken Labor politician.
The demands of the rally include, so far:
1. Troops out of Afghanistan, End the Occupation
2. Guarantee Afghan's fleeing war refugee status and rapid resettlement in the community
3. Genuine reconstruction aid
4. Something on women's rights??
A group of activists is also planning a separate stunt action on the actual anniversary date of Wednesday October 7 which can help publicise the Saturday event.
Sydney is also holding a rally around the anniversary of the invasion of Afghanistan, but their rally will be on Thursday 8 October. They have the support of the NSW Greens, the Fire Brigade Employees Union and the Maritime Union of Australia.
Initial indications are that there is broad support for an action calling for troops to leave Afghanistan, including from groups which don't have the resources to be part of the organising committee.
If your organisation wishes to endorse the rally, would like to help build it or wants more information please contact Trent on 0407 070 841.
Source: http://www.global-sisterhood-network.org/
But according to the Pentagon agency responsible for combating roadside bombs in Iraq and Afghanistan, the increased Taliban threat to U.S. and NATO vehicles comes not from any new technology from Iran but from Italian-made mines left over from the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency's military assistance to the anti-Soviet jihadists in the 1980s.
Source
I just read an article in a news paper two days ago. (Standard freeholder, Cornwall) and I don't know what to think.
There was an Afghan man who had his ears cut off and his nose cut off because he was caught by the Taliban carrying a voters card.
There was a picture of him, it was quite sad. Is that actually a common occurance?
In the context of the violence threatened surrounding the elections, no.
There was also little violence surrounding the 2004 presidential as well as the 2005 national elections.
The Taliban used the threat of potential violence to achieve its aim of reducing voter turnout and thereby reduce the legitimacy of whoever is elected president and who are elected in the provincial governments.
However, once a threat is made, the Taliban need to make a few examples to maintain their credibility and show their power.
Notice how, when we have one gruesome incident of this, the western media 'jumps' all over it, but when we have endemic instances of this perpetrated by average Afghan citizens (non Taliban or insurgent affiliated) from all over Afghanistan - ie., not just Pashtuns but Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen, (ie., instances among all the Afghan ethnic groups) - it doesn't get reported? One has to go to RAWA or scour the internet to find obscure sites that cover these stories.
That is because it doesn't fit the 'narrative' (spin) our government, military and mainstream media wants us to hear: U.S./NATO/ISAF troops = "good". Taliban = bad. Our "mission" (of mercy/sanctified by God) is to "help" the people of Afghanistan. As for the "Taliban"? Well, they're "detestable murderous scumbags", remember?
Conclusion
1) Our Northern Alliance allies are just as bad, (often worse) than the Taliban.
2) Because we turn a blind eye or often encourage and support the criminal activities of our Northern Alliance allies, we have sunk to their level and are as legally and morally culpable and blameworthy as they are.
3) Not all those who fight against us are Taliban or commit atrocities. In fact, among the insurgents, the Taliban and those who commit atrocities, are a minority.
All three points in the conclusion raise the queston: WHY ARE WE IN AFGHANISTAN?
I just read an article in a news paper two days ago. (Standard freeholder, Cornwall) and I don't know what to think.
There was an Afghan man who had his ears cut off and his nose cut off because he was caught by the Taliban carrying a voters card.
There was a picture of him, it was quite sad. Is that actually a common occurance?
In the context of the violence threatened surrounding the elections, no.
There was also little violence surrounding the 2004 presidential as well as the 2005 national elections.
The Taliban used the threat of potential violence to achieve its aim of reducing voter turnout and thereby reduce the legitimacy of whoever is elected president and who are elected in the provincial governments.
However, once a threat is made, the Taliban need to make a few examples to maintain their credibility and show their power.
Notice how, when we have one gruesome incident of this, the western media 'jumps' all over it, but when we have endemic instances of this perpetrated by average Afghan citizens (non Taliban or insurgent affiliated) from all over Afghanistan - ie., not just Pashtuns but Tajiks, Uzbeks, Turkmen, (ie., instances among all the Afghan ethnic groups) - it doesn't get reported? One has to go to RAWA or scour the internet to find obscure sites that cover these stories.
That is because it doesn't fit the 'narrative' (spin) our government, military and mainstream media wants us to hear: U.S./NATO/ISAF troops = "good". Taliban = "bad". Our "mission" (of mercy/sanctified by God) is to "help" the people of Afghanistan. As for the "Taliban"? Well, they're "detestable murderous scumbags", remember?
Conclusion
1) Our Northern Alliance allies are just as bad, (often worse) than the Taliban.
2) Because we turn a blind eye or often encourage and support the criminal activities of our Northern Alliance allies, we have sunk to their level and are as legally and morally culpable and blameworthy as they are.
3) Not all those who fight against us are Taliban or commit atrocities. In fact, among the insurgents, the Taliban and those who commit atrocities, are a minority.
All three points in the conclusion raise the queston: WHY ARE WE IN AFGHANISTAN?
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2007/12/26/husband-cut-off-wife-s-ears-n...
U.S. blames Canada for friendly fire
http://www.thespec.com/News/Local/article/628721
"Three years ago today, an American A-10 attack jet inadvertently strafed the soldiers of Charles Company outside of Kandahar, killing Private Mark Graham of Hamilton. Now, newly released documents suggest the U.S. commanders put the attack down to Canadian inexperience."
Kucinich renews call for Afghan withdrawal after botched airstrike:
http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/09/04/kucinich-renews-call-for-afghan-w...
"'News reports covering today's attack by the U.S. command southwest of Kunduz province show that the good intentions of NATO forces in Afghanistan are not sufficient,'" [Rep. Dennis] Kucinich [D-OH] stated. 'If we want to avoid killing innocent civillians, we must end the war.' ... 'The war in Afghanistan is quickly developing into a tragedy of monumental proportions. It is time for the U.S. to end this war and bring our troops home.'"
Botched? It wasn't botched, it was a complete success.
That pilot will probably get a DFC.
"...the good intentions of NATO forces in Afghanistan..."
Nice one, Dennis!
First, Australians had to go to Afghanistan to kill Afghans. Now, there's no need to leave their territorial waters!
You can't find a more apt metaphor for white civilization than that. Our "allies".
With an impeding election, do you know where one can find on the Web as comparison chart of the four political parties' positions on key issues, such as whether and how long to pursue our war against the Afghan people?
"...the good intentions of NATO forces in Afghanistan..."
Nice one, Dennis!
Don't knock him. He's saying the country that started the war (the U.S.A.) should "end" it (like Vietnam) by leaving. What good is he going to do his cause by rubbing most American's noses in the fact that what we are doing over there is pernicious and obscene?
Besides, he might be speaking to most American's perceptions of the war without subsrcibing to such a view himself: namely, that NATO has quote "good intentions in Afghanistan."
Since we are on the topic of NATO, I have rather good news:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6143065/Gover...
"The issue of Nato's approach to the Afghanistan crisis was highlighted by Eric Joyce MP, who last week quit his post as a junior aide to Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, when he called into question the alliance's commitment.
In a letter to the Prime Minister, he wrote: 'For many, it seems that Britain fights, Germany pays, France calculates and Italy avoids. If the United States values each of these approaches equally, they will end up shouldering the burden by themselves.' ....
But many officials in Whitehall remain convinced that Nato's response will be woeful....
One source said: 'We have made repeated attempts to get Nato to shoulder more of the burden in Afghanistan but without any real success.
'There has been some tinkering around the edges but there is no real commitment from any of our partner nations to commit troops to an operation which at best has reached stalemate and at worst is being lost.'
'There is now a sense of resignation over this issue. We approach Nato summits with little or no hope that anything will change.'
Patrick Mercer, the Tory MP and former infantry commander, said: 'Unless our partner nations start to pull their weight in terms of combat units then Nato is doomed.'"
Another account of the U.S. bombing of fuel tankers that left 90 Afghanis dead - I was surprised to see a Taliban spokesman quoted in the MSM (way at the end, of course).
Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid said the trucks were headed from Tajikistan to supply NATO forces in Kabul. When the hijackers tried to drive the trucks across the Kunduz River, the vehicles became stuck in the mud and the insurgents opened valves to release fuel and lighten the loads, he said.
Villagers swarmed the trucks to collect the fuel despite warnings that they might be hit with an airstrike, Mujahid said, claiming no Taliban fighters died in the attack.
Abdul Moman Omar Khel, a member of the Kunduz provincial council and a native of the village, said about 500 people from surrounding communities swarmed the trucks after the Taliban invited them to help themselves to the fuel. Many were awake at that hour because of a late-night wedding party and festivities marking the Islamic holy month of Ramadan, when Muslims can eat and drink only during hours of darkness.
"The Taliban called to the villagers, 'Come take free fuel,"' he said. "The people are so hungry and poor."
He said five people were killed from a single family, and a man he knows lost three sons.
Survivors expressed anger that NATO and Afghan forces were unable to provide enough security in the area to prevent Taliban violence.
"The Taliban were there from 2 p.m. yesterday," said Habibullah, the driver of one of the tanker trucks that was hijacked. "I informed the military about this and I told them they will hijack us. They told me that they will inform the (NATO) military about this. No one came to protect us."
Habibullah, who like many Afghans uses only one name, was interviewed in Kunduz city, about 15 miles from the site.
Abdul Ghafoor, whose brother was killed in the airstrike, said NATO soldiers have a duty to protect civilians.
"The vehicles they are driving around in are not for taking their families for sightseeing," he said. "The Taliban of this area are not good people."
Kunduz, a former Taliban stronghold, had been generally peaceful until insurgent attacks began rising earlier this year - perhaps an effort to control a profitable smuggling route from neighbouring Tajikistan. Most of the fighting in Afghanistan this summer has been in the south and east, where U.S. and British forces operate.
Last May, U.S. warplanes struck military targets in the western Farah province, killing an estimated 60 to 65 insurgents. The U.S. said 20 to 30 civilians also died in those attacks. The Afghan government said 140 civilians were killed.
Uh-oh, NATO screws up again in Afghanistan:
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/06/outrage-as-us-forces-attack-afghan-ho...
In Germany there is going to be a national election in a couple of weeks.
In Canada there is going to be (possibly) a national election in a couple of weeks.
If only there could be the kind of debate in Canada that there is going on in Germany:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/afghanistan/la-fg-germany-...
Two more Canadian soldiers killed by roadside bomb
More Canadians seem to get killed on weekends in Afghanistan than all the other days of the week combined. Wonder why?
The Frontier Post Editorial: 'Rivers of Blood': The West Could Care Less for Deaths of Afghans
http://worldmeets.us/thefrontierpost000034.shtml
"But the saddest part of this colossal massacre of Afghan civilians is the lack of tears welling up in Western eyes. They seem to keep a meticulous tab of the casulties of their own solidiers, but don't venture the vaguest calculation of how many Afghan civilians are being killed. Thus far not a single human rights watchdog has made an issue of this civilians carnage. Even reputable international organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have remained mum. Western hearts grieve only for their own. And if the Afghanistan war is becoming increasingly unpopular in the West, it's because of the mounting deaths and casulties among their own military ranks.."
Deadly day for U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan
Three died in a roadside bombing in northern Iraq - the US military's deadliest single incident in five months - and one died in Baghdad.
Four soldiers died in what was described as a "complex attack" in Kunar province, eastern Afghanistan.
Enduring Freedom Until 2050
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KI09Df01.html
"The US and its NATO allies will do - and spend - whatever it takes to implant military states on the doorstep of both Russia and China and-Allah only knows - get their trans Afghanistan-Pakistan gas pipeline back on track.."
Afghan War Reaches a Tipping Point
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KI09Df03.html
"The Kunduz incident has displayed a ghastly truth. There is Afghan blood equally on the hands of all NATO countries. Conceivably, to those who will also insist on having the right to have a say in the downstream of the killing, friday's incident in Kunduz may well prove the tipping point in the war.."
Harper's hired hand, Michaelle Jean, weeps and praises young Canadians to encourage them to head off to slaughter and to murder.
Here she is, shamelessly wearing the costume of the murderers:
Some people will do anything, no matter how low, when you install them in a palace and stuff their backside full of dollars.
If your stomach is strong, you can read the whole disgusting story here.
Her CBC training obviously comes in handy here..
Unionist
Speaking of politicans in custumes, here are two for you.
I agree with Unionist and Webgear. Politicians shamelessly pandering and jumping around in clown suits is rather disgusting.
Did Layton manage to hit any Haitians in rowboats, or just wing 'em?
Edited to add: I just noticed, Jean is talking to some Jimmys.
US General Stanley McChrystal, head of the International Forces in Afghanistan (Isaf), decided to bar boozing after launching an investigation into the bombing in northern Afghanistan.
Harper's hired hand, Michaelle Jean, weeps and praises young Canadians to encourage them to head off to slaughter and to murder.
Here she is, shamelessly wearing the costume of the murderers:
Some people will do anything, no matter how low, when you install them in a palace and stuff their backside full of dollars.
If your stomach is strong, you can read the whole disgusting story here.
Thank you for your post, Unionist. As a former soldier, you expressed my sentiments exactly. When I heard the story on CBC Radio, I had the same reaction.
I didn't know the Jean was the C in C. In that case she could have called in the CAF to defend the constitution last January when Harper and the gang were preassuring her to support their coup of the parlimentary process, such as it is, and for what its worth.
I didn't know the Jean was the C in C. In that case she could have called in the CAF to defend the constitution last January when Harper and the gang were preassuring her to support their coup of the parlimentary process, such as it is, and for what its worth.
Well, ultimately it is the Queen who is the C-in-C of the Canadian military. When inducted into the military, one swears an oath of allegiance to, "... the Queen, her heirs and successors."
The Govenor General is the Queen's representative in Canada. They are the de jure C-in-Cs. Realistically, and in terms of actual practice, the Prime Minister (and Parliament) is the de facto C-in-C. It was the words and actions of Prime Ministers and Parliaments that sent Canadian troops to Afghanistan and keeps them there still.
Personally, I would prefer it if the Canadian military swore allegiance to protect the Constitution and people of Canada. Not some unelected, unrepresentative, foreign institution that dates back to the feudal era - the Crown of England and its successors.
In a nutshell, the Afghan war is the result of Osama Bin Laden's hate and desire to strike a blow against the American Empire and the U.S.A.'s hatred of Osama Bin Laden, his allies and their screaming for vengence over 9/11 with the result that innocent Afghans (whom neither side cares about) are maimed and murdered and their country, villages, homes and lives are destroyed:
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/09/07/caught-in-the-crossfire-the-f...
No, in actual practice, the GG is the C-in-C. It is a designated appointment that comes with the office.
I'd see this as somewhat of a contradiction, in that the elites whose interests are represented by the respective political parties in office are the ones who have access to the means of changing the Constitution. It wouldn't make all that much difference though where the allegiances are owed, to the Queen, GG, PM or a piece of paper, in that they all form part of the same system of corporate governance.
No, in actual practice, the GG is the C-in-C. It is a designated appointment that comes with the office.
No, you're wrong. Did you not see where I wrote the Oath of Allegiance soldiers swear states "... to the Queen, her heirs and successors." In the oath, the GG is nowhere mentioned.
The GG as Lieutenant of the Queen (C-in-C) must come from somewhere else like the BNA.
Although the GG has a lot of de jure power; power on paper (in the BNA and the Constitution), the GG has little power in actual practice (de facto) - the result of previous GGs doing very little with their power. In the Westminister model of government, when it comes to powers, if you don't use it, you lose it.
What did the Queen or the GG do or say that caused Canadian troops to be sent to Afghanistan?
Absolutely nothing. It was Cretien and Parliament that sent Canadian troops to Afghanistan. Why are our troops still in Afghanistan? Because of two war resolutions brought before the House by Prime Minister Harper and passed by Parliament that escalated Canada's military engagement in Afghanistan until at least 2011.
There's no point in pinning your hopes on the GG. The GG, just like the Queen, is a pompous popinjay of a position that in practice has very little power. I wish it were otherwise, because if it were so and she had an antiwar sentiment (which she obviously doesn't), then our troops would have been outta there like yesterday. As it is, the current GG has exercised very little power and the PM used her as a tool to prop up and extend the life of his goverment and to shore up evaporating support for the war.
No, if you want to pin your hope and trust on anything, your best bet is Parliament and the people. If you don't like the kinds of governments our fellow citizens are electing, then I would suggest we all do what we can to inform, involve and inspire fellow Canadians to elect better people and governments to office.
Before we had the Constitution we had Magna Carta and the BNA. Needless to say, the Constitution and the Charter of Rights are not perfect. They (Constitution and Charter of Rights) are at least a little more democratic and egalitarian than Magna Carta and the BNA.
They swear an oath to the Queen as the head of state, not as C in C. The cermonial position of C in C has been delegated by the Queen in Canada's case to the GG, whose responsibilities include:
Here's some good news:
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/09/nato-chief-concerned-by-rising-opposi...
NATO is shitville and Anders Fogh Rasmussen is mayor.
Here's more good news:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/10/poll-british-military-withdraw-...
Whoa Nellie! Here's even better news:
http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/09/09/icc-prosecutor-eyeing-war-crimes-in-a...
They swear an oath to the Queen as the head of state, not as C in C. The cermonial position of C in C has been delegated by the Queen in Canada's case to the GG, whose responsibilities include:
Again, the GG position is a de facto relatively powerless pompous position. Military law in Canada consists of the Queen's Regulations and Orders. Perhaps I am confusing the American model with the Canadian. In the U.S.A., the head of state and the C-in-C are the same - the President. The President can declare and wage war (for 90 days, after which Congress must vote to either continue or end the war).
As (symbolic, there's a lot of symbolism involved here) head of state, does the Queen (Crown) have (in theory) the power to declare war for Canada? I realize that this is probably yet another prerogative the Crown has lost due to its lack of use over centuries.
Commander-in-Chief of Canada
The Governor General of Canada is the Commander-in-Chief of Canada.
Responsibilities include:
The role of Commander-in-Chief of Canada has been closely linked to the evolution of Canada, as well as to the history of the Canadian Forces.
The migration of monarchs
In 1627, King Louis XIII of France appointed Samuel de Champlain the first Governor of New France.
After the British conquest of New France, King George III issued the Royal Proclamation of 1763, establishing a foundation for British government in Canada and appointing the first British governor of Canada. A small militia was also present.
The birth of a new nation
After Confederation in 1867, Governors General were authorized to oversee internal matters, but had to acknowledge and respect British policy concerning external affairs. The British North America Act declared that the Command-in-Chief of the Land and Naval Militia would continue to be vested in the Queen.
A Governor General as Head of State, a Canadian Militia
The Militia was established by the Militia Act of 1868. In the 1870s, a small militia was based in Halifax under the command of a general officer on loan from the British Army.
In 1904, however, a new Militia Act stated that "the Command-in-Chief of the Militia is declared to continue and be vested in the King, and shall be administered by His Majesty or by the Governor General as his representative." This Act also doubled the permanent force to 4000, to provide a garrison to replace the British in Halifax.
This was an important landmark, as it was the beginning of a truly Canadian force, and it reinforced the role of the Governor General as Commander-in-Chief. In 1905, the change to the Militia Act was legalized and reference to the Office of the Governor General became the Office of the Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of the Militia.
The Militia legislation was passed in the House of Commons August 3, 1904 and came into effect on November 1, 1904.
In 1968, following the unification of the three services, the Governor General became Commander-in-Chief of the Canadian Armed Forces (now, the Canadian Forces).
Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada
Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982
Thanks Webgear.
I'm still confused though, what is the purpose of the Queen (Crown)? What is a soldier swearing allegiance to when it's the Queen (Crown)? To the military laws enacted in the name of the Crown - the Queen's Regulations and Orders?
The GG is simply the representative, or the agent of the Queen in Her Majesty's role as Queen of Canada, a title she holds seperately I might add from Queen of England. As she stands in for the Queen in every official sense, she gets all the honours.
Thanks oldgoat.
So, as a soldier, when Canada goes to war -- who do I hold responsible? If I say, "Hell no, I won't go", whose orders am I ultimately disobeying - to whom does 'the buck stop'. In other words, who has the ultimate political/legal/Constitutional/moral authority/responsibility? To whom am I saying, "No" to?
OTTAWA - NATO's secretary general, who recently ruffled feathers by urging Canada to extend its combat mission in Afghanistan beyond 2011, quietly scuttled a planned visit to Ottawa that was supposed to take place over the last few days.
The decision by Anders Fogh Rasmussen to postpone meetings with the Conservative government came as the U.S. turns up the heat on the Netherlands to keep its troops in the wartorn region.
"Public discourse on the effort in Afghanistan has started to go in the wrong direction" said a copy of his Sept. 9 speech circulated ahead of time. "If we were to walk away ... soon there will be terrorists in Afghanistan and attacking from Afghanistan, profound instability in Pakistan and in Central Asia. This is simply a future we cannot allow to happen."
Such remarks - especially if they were repeated in Ottawa - would likely have been incendiary in the current political climate, where the Conservative government's fate hangs by a thread.
Yeah, no kidding.
Note: The Netherlands is scheduled to militarily disengage from Afghanistan in 2010. Canada in 2011. The Netherlands and Canada (thus far) are the only countries that have end dates to their military engagement.
Afghan journalists criticize British raid
Sultan Munadi, 34, was shot dead in the British-led operation while Stephen Farrell was unharmed. A British soldier and two Afghan civilians also died.
Afghan journalists say the incident has revealed double standards among the international forces in the country.
Mr Munadi's brother told the AFP news agency the raid had been "pointless".
But the British authorities have defended the operation, saying it was the best chance of saving lives.
Mohammad Osman, Mr Munadi's brother, said there had been "no need for this operation at all".
He said the Red Cross, the UN and tribal elders were all involved in "optimistic negotiations" for the release of Mr Munadi and Mr Farrell "when all of a sudden this raid took place". [...]
Bari Salam, an editor for Afghan public radio, told the BBC the death of Mr Munadi was "the most shocking event to date involving the international forces".
He said Afghans had previously seen the Taliban as being the biggest threat to lives and to the development of democracy in Afghanistan, but that now "it is the internationals who are stepping over all those values".
Mr Salam said there were "strong indications that Sultan was shot by the British forces".
"We know now that he was not on the list of people to be rescued by this rescue operation. Simply, he was left alone," he said.
Mullah Wakil Ahmed Muttawakil is an Afghan you should get to know:
httP://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/i-told-the-us-to-talk-to-th...
US RISKS AFGHAN SOVIET FAILURE
Says Zbigniew Brzezinski:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8251944.stm
Warning graphic video (somewhat)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BUsu9SKz7zk
What a load of crap.
Obviously this video was done for properganda reasons. Do american's really expct us to believe that they are worried about a child being in their crosshairs?
That they are waiting to shoot because a kid is around? Bullshit. I bet that's not even the origional voice, it's dubbed.
And why would they even shoot at these guys? The roads over there can't be as good as ours. Could they possibly be just repairing a hole in the road? Yup! When is fixing a road a crime?
Tears of Fire: Mourning in the Macabre Killing Fields of Afghanistan
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1839-...
"I took some flesh home and called it my son.."
...why we fight
The Frontier Post Editorial: 'Rivers of Blood': The West Could Care Less for Deaths of Afghans
http://worldmeets.us/thefrontierpost000034.shtml
I disagree. The West couldn't care less for deaths of Afghans.
Canada: doctor Evil's mini-me northern colony. Hurtig's Russian, I mean rushing to Armageddon is a good one. Our shameless stooges should be made to walk the plank, keel hauled, tied to an anchor and club-hauled on a reef.
This op-ed appeared today under the signature of Colin Kenny, Chair of the Senate Standing Committee on National Security and Defence:
Retreat!
It is time for Canadians to face the fact that we are unable to achieve our goals in Afghanistan
[O]ur initial assumption - that the Taliban was a spent force - proved to be a pipe dream. Canada and its NATO allies do not have time and space on our side. Our troops are fighting a highly motivated, resilient opponent on its own turf, where military intruders had never sniffed success. The British invaded in the 19th century and failed badly; the Soviets in the 20th century, and got pounded. The British failure was one component of the death of the British empire; the Soviet failure was a huge component in the death of its empire. [...]
What we hoped to accomplish in Afghanistan has proved to be impossible. We are hurtling toward a Vietnam ending.
Our troops have performed magnificently against huge odds. But we are not close to achieving our objectives, and there is no sign that we will.
Prime Minister Harper should do the right thing, and start moving toward a word no soldier likes to hear, but that is sometimes the only intelligent thing to do. That word is retreat.
Bravo!
Number 130
Pte. Patrick Lormand, 21, of the 2nd Battalion, Royal 22nd Regiment based in Quebec City, was killed and four others were injured in a roadside blast from an improvised explosive device on Sunday afternoon, the military said.
The events of this week have drawn attention to the unraveling security in northern Afghanistan in a way months of the creeping insurgency had not.
Long considered one of the most stable and peaceful parts of the country, the northern provinces have seen rising violence as heavy insurgent activity has spread to 80 percent of the country – up from 54 percent two years ago. (See map.) Under increasing pressure in southern Afghanistan and northern Pakistan, militants who have long sought to extend their reach have turned their attention to the north, where NATO has established a second supply route in the wake of debilitating attacks on its southern pipeline.
Christian Science Monitor
yes, unionist I watched a report on that last evening, followed by comments from MacKay stating that Kenny's words were not helpful and should be dismissed outright.
yes, unionist I watched a report on that last evening, followed by comments from MacKay stating that Kenny's words were not helpful and should be dismissed outright.
I missed that, remind, but here are comments by MacKay, Robert Fowler, and Stephen Staples:
Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Kenny's comments do a disservice to the Canadian soldiers, diplomats and aid workers risking their lives in Afghanistan.
"Speaking negatively and making these types of inflammatory comments is simply counterproductive and doesn't help," MacKay said.
"It is really hard to see why we should be putting the lives of young Canadians at risk anymore when we're not seeing the product at the other end," Kenny told CBC News.
And Kenny isn't alone. Robert Fowler, a retired Canadian diplomat who survived an al-Qaeda kidnapping while working for the United Nations in Africa, has also questioned Canada's continued presence in Afghanistan.
"It strikes me as rather extreme that one goes out and looks for particularly complex misery to fix," Fowler said in an interview last week with CBC anchor Peter Mansbridge. "There's lots of things to fix that can be done more efficiently and probably more effectively."
Those opinion shouldn't be ignored, said international affairs expert Steven Staples.
"Senator Kenny is someone who has followed this mission closely," said Staples, president of the Rideau Institute on International Affairs in Ottawa. "I would describe him as the hawkish end of the Liberal party. But now that he has made this assessment and come out publicly calling for a retreat, I think that's very significant."
If MacKay doesn't like the idea of "RETREAT!", may I recommend him for deployment on the front lines?
Afghanistan: 'Necessary' War for Empire
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/14-4
"Afghanistan was sold to the public on multiple fabrications, including defeating Al Qaeda, building democracy, stopping heroin, fighting terrorism, and liberating Afghan women. Not one of these reasons is remotely close to the truth.."
ps good thing the elites are beginning to sour on the Afghan mission since god knows the antiwar movement doesn't seem up to much of anything at all..
Number 130
19.2 percent, or almost one in five, of those 130 Canadian deaths, have occurred on a Sunday.
"We are making real measurable progress." - Stephen Harper on Afghanistan.
Here's the "proof":
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/13/AR200909...
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/14/us-hopes-iraq-style-militias-can-brin...
NDP quiet on Afghanistan's fraudulent election: "The hypocrisy of the Conservative government's response is par for the course. More disturbing, however, is the fact that the NDP is missing in action, again, on the Afghanistan file..."
Think Layton spoke in Halifax, about the need to pull our miltary out now and bring them home. So I am not too sure on "how missing" they are.
Report: Gen. McChrystal seeking another 40,000 troops for Afghanistan:
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/09/16/report-gen-mcchrystal-seeking-another...
NDP quiet on Afghanistan's fraudulent election: "The hypocrisy of the Conservative government's response is par for the course. More disturbing, however, is the fact that the NDP is missing in action, again, on the Afghanistan file..."
From derrick's article:
Kabul blast kills 10 civilians, plus "unknown number" of NATO forces
A suicide car bomb hit vehicles carrying foreign troops near the U.S. Embassy and an American military base in Afghanistan's capital Thursday, killing at least 10 people and wounding dozens of others, officials said.
The suicide bomber rammed his explosives-filled car into two vehicles of the NATO-backed international force, said Abdul Ghafar Sayedzada, head of Kabul's criminal investigations unit. [...]
Sayedzada said foreign forces also were killed but he did not know how many.
The attack killed 6 Italian soldiers, 17 Afghan civilians, and wounded at least 52 Afghan civilians as of 07:15 AM(centeral time).
Even Tarek Fatah is now calling for Canada's withdrawal from Afghanistan. But it's only because he's disgusted that we're losing the war against the "jihadists".
I won't link to his sour-grapes National Pest editorial, but those with strong stomachs can find it there easily enough.
Canadian soldier killed (number 131), 11 others wounded
And Berlusconi is turning tail - a good role model for his brother-in-crime Harper:
Italian PM calls for Afghan exit
The Italian prime minister has called for international forces to withdraw from Afghanistan, after a suicide attack in the capital Kabul killed six Italian soldiers.
"We are keen to bring our boys home as soon as possible," Silvio Berlusconi said on Thursday as he arrived for an EU summit in Brussels.
The Afghan people are winning!
Canadian soldier killed (number 131), 11 others wounded
And Berlusconi is turning tail - a good role model for his brother-in-crime Harper:
Italian PM calls for Afghan exit
The Italian prime minister has called for international forces to withdraw from Afghanistan, after a suicide attack in the capital Kabul killed six Italian soldiers.
"We are keen to bring our boys home as soon as possible," Silvio Berlusconi said on Thursday as he arrived for an EU summit in Brussels.
The Afghan people are winning!
Umm, what? The afghan people are DYING
You call that winning?
Canadian soldier killed (number 131), 11 others wounded
And Berlusconi is turning tail - a good role model for his brother-in-crime Harper:
Italian PM calls for Afghan exit
The Italian prime minister has called for international forces to withdraw from Afghanistan, after a suicide attack in the capital Kabul killed six Italian soldiers.
"We are keen to bring our boys home as soon as possible," Silvio Berlusconi said on Thursday as he arrived for an EU summit in Brussels.
The Afghan people are winning!
Hey, if Italy, why not Japan?
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/world-mainmenu-26/asia-mainmenu-...
Even the U.S.A. is adopting a 'go slow' policy toward Afghanistan:
http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/09/17/gop-seeks-afghan-war-info-gates-urges...
"The president on Wednesday said he would 'take a very deliberative process' in making decisions on Afghanistan. Obama said he will finish his broad assessment of military, diplomatic, civilian and development efforts there before moving on to his next step - mulling additional deployments." ....
.... "Congress is divided over the question of more troops and the public has grown tired of the war as violence in Afghanistan has soared to record levels and record numbers of U.S. troop deaths. Fifty-one troops were killed in August, making it the deadliest month since the U.S. invasion in October 2001."
Former post edited and moved below. (See post #105).
Umm, what? The afghan people are DYING
You call that winning?
Yeah, SparkyOne, in this world of "lesser" people being told how to live by our invading armies and rapacious corporations, you sometimes have to give your life to achieve freedom. Anyway, if you don't believe they're winning, just wait a bit and we'll resume this discussion.
A few words from Susan Sarandon for CODEPINK:
There is nothing more powerful than hearing someone speak from their heart.
That is why I was so moved by Barbara Lee's passionate speech on the floor of Congress September 14, 2001, eight years ago this week. She was the only member of Congress, in both the House and Senate, to have the courage to vote no against authorizing war in Afghanistan. Her voice shakes with emotion, but she stands her ground with strength and grace and the knowledge that she is speaking the truth that desperately needed to be heard. Her's was the only voice of compassion, of reason, during such a charged and painful time. When she said "Let us not become the evil that we deplore," she knew the quagmire that would result from such military engagement.
This week, many of us took inspiration from Barbara Lee and used our own voices to speak out against our woefully misguided war in Afghanistan. As one woman, she spoke for many of us eight years ago. This week, we each have the opportunity to follow her lead and channel the outrage and hope of everyone who wants us out of Afghanistan; each day, we flooded the blogosphere and phone lines and opinion sections of newspapers with the words that need to be heard about why we need to end our involvement in Afghanistan. If you haven't already, you can still use these tools from CODEPINK to make your voice loud and clear.
One of the best bumper stickers I've ever seen says "Speak your truth, even if your voice shakes." If you haven't ever blogged or called your Congressperson before, now is the time to do so, even if your voice shakes. It is up to us to remember Barbara Lee's brave example, her voice trembling with deeply felt conviction. We need more Barbara Lees to speak out against war. We can be those Barbara Lees, ourselves. We are the ones we've been waiting for. When we speak together from the heart, we truly can change the world.
In solidarity,
Susan Sarandon
Women Say No to War
Pte. Jonathan Couturier - latest to die in Afghanistan - thought the mission was "useless"
The soldier's sister-in-law and his brother's spouse, Valerie Boucher, also told the newspaper Jonathan "didn't want to go" and was very much looking forward to coming home.
Nicolas Couturier was also critical of the Afghanistan mission, saying it "is not serving anything."
The family's comments, coming on the same day Couturier's body was flown from Kandahar on its way to Canada, sparked a reaction from political leaders, with the Bloc Québécois's defence critic saying he agrees with the family.
"I endorse the comments of the young man and I endorse the comments of his family," said Claude Bachand.
The New Democratic Party has also been critical of the mission in Afghanistan, but MP Joe Comartin said Couturier's death was not in vain.
"It's hard to say to the family, was this a waste? I don't say that to them because I don't believe that," Comartin said outside the House of Commons.
"On the other hand, we've done more than our share. Canadians have done more than their share in terms of contributing our soldiers. The faster we get out of a combat mission and just deal with other issues that we can deal with, the better it will be for the whole country."
Unionist
"On the other hand, we've done more than our share. Canadians have done more than their share in terms of contributing our soldiers. The faster we get out of a combat mission and just deal with other issues that we can deal with, the better it will be for the whole country."
What do you think Mr Comartin meant by this portion statement?
The Afghan people will win
==
Thanks for that subtle but important thread title alteration, Unionist. We all hope that Afghans do win and the sooner the better for all of them.
Pte. Jonathan Couturier - latest to die in Afghanistan - thought the mission was "useless"
The soldier's sister-in-law and his brother's spouse, Valerie Boucher, also told the newspaper Jonathan "didn't want to go" and was very much looking forward to coming home.
Nicolas Couturier was also critical of the Afghanistan mission, saying it "is not serving anything."
The family's comments, coming on the same day Couturier's body was flown from Kandahar on its way to Canada, sparked a reaction from political leaders, with the Bloc Québécois's defence critic saying he agrees with the family.
"I endorse the comments of the young man and I endorse the comments of his family," said Claude Bachand.
The New Democratic Party has also been critical of the mission in Afghanistan, but MP Joe Comartin said Couturier's death was not in vain.
"It's hard to say to the family, was this a waste? I don't say that to them because I don't believe that," Comartin said outside the House of Commons.
"On the other hand, we've done more than our share. Canadians have done more than their share in terms of contributing our soldiers. The faster we get out of a combat mission and just deal with other issues that we can deal with, the better it will be for the whole country."
The sentiments expressed by the soldier and his family are diametrically opposed to the bullshit blah blah-ed by Brig. Gen Jonathan Vance and other members of the war party.
Unionist
"On the other hand, we've done more than our share. Canadians have done more than their share in terms of contributing our soldiers. The faster we get out of a combat mission and just deal with other issues that we can deal with, the better it will be for the whole country."
What do you think Mr Comartin meant by this portion statement?
Unfortunately, he meant the well-known retreat of the federal caucus from the 2006 convention decision, which was "interpreted" as meaning withdrawal, not from Afghanistan, but from the "combat mission", or "active counterinsurgency", with an attempt to specify the south. It meant keeping our troops in Afghanistan to "train" and provide "security" and, of course, to do all the phoney non-existent BS "reconstruction" work which they wouldn't know how to do if it bit them on the backside.
But I'm happy to see that a brave 23-year-old Quebecker, with a sense of humour, figured it out for himself and characterized it more eloquently than any of our politicians or kiss-ass Governors-General have done so far. Just before he was killed for the greater glory of Her Majesty, he called it:
Do we have any politicians of mettle who will stand up and use simple words?
What was the discussion last month at the Halifax convention?
Was there a change in the NDP plan?
I doubt any politician around today uses simple words.
Unionist
"On the other hand, we've done more than our share. Canadians have done more than their share in terms of contributing our soldiers. The faster we get out of a combat mission and just deal with other issues that we can deal with, the better it will be for the whole country."
What do you think Mr Comartin meant by this portion statement?
"The faster we get out of a combat mission and just deal with other issues that we can deal with, the better it will be for the whole country.", is suffiently vague that it could mean anything from our troops will remain, but the mission will morph from aggressive combat to our troops engaging in reconstruction, redevelopment and humanitarian aid to 'passive' defense (protection) of NGOs and humanitarian aid groups doing the work (a slippery slope scenario) to our troops not being there - only NGOs and humanitarian groups or Canadians being anywhere else but Afghanistan through to finally, Canadians dealing with issues we can deal with in Canada and Canada only.
How are you, I or Unionist to know? You'd have to ask the original author of that comment - Mr. Comartin.
It is instructive to turn at this moment to the Canadian army, which has in Afghanistan fewer troops than the Brits but who have suffered just as ferociously; their 130th soldier was killed near Kandahar this week. Every three months, the Canadian authorities publish a scorecard on their military "progress" in Afghanistan - a document that is infinitely more honest and detailed than anything put out by the Pentagon or the Ministry of Defense - which proves beyond peradventure (as Enoch Powell would have said) that this is Mission Impossible or, as Toronto's National Post put it in an admirable headline three days' ago, "Operation Sleepwalk". The latest report, revealed this week, proves that Kandahar province is becoming more violent, less stable and less secure - and attacks across the country more frequent - than at any time since the fall of the Taliban in 2001. There was an "exceptionally high" frequency of attacks this spring compared with 2008.
There was a 108 per cent increase in roadside bombs. Afghans are reporting that they are less satisfied with education and employment levels, primarily because of poor or non-existent security. Canada is now concentrating only on the security of Kandahar city, abandoning any real attempt to control the province.
Canada's army will be leaving Afghanistan in 2011, but so far only five of the 50 schools in its school-building project have been completed. Just 28 more are "under construction". But of Kandahar province's existing 364 schools, 180 have been forced to close. Of progress in "democratic governance" in Kandahar, the Canadian report states that the capacity of the Afghan government is "chronically weak and undermined by widespread corruption". Of "reconciliation" - whatever that means these days - "the onset of the summer fighting season and the concentration of politicians and activists for the August elections discouraged expectations of noteworthy initiatives...".
Even the primary aim of polio eradication - Ottawa's most favored civilian project in Afghanistan - has defeated the Canadian International Development Agency, although this admission is cloaked in truly Blair-like (or Brown-like) mendacity. As the Toronto Star revealed in a serious bit of investigative journalism this week, the aim to "eradicate" polio with the help of UN and World Health Organization money has been quietly changed to the "prevention of transmission" of polio. Instead of measuring the number of children "immunized" against polio, the target was altered to refer only to the number of children "vaccinated". But of course, children have to be vaccinated several times before they are actually immune.
The Independent
Canada is now concentrating only on the security of Kandahar city,....
The Independent
(Bolding added). This exposes the government's and military's lie that the Canadian "mission" is morphing to one of reconstruction, redevelopment and humanitarian aid. The reference to the Dahla dam shows the cynicism of the government. It's going to take longer than 2011 for that dam to be fixed and have additional reconstruction added to it after that.
Assassins in office and cowards at the polls. Keeping that oil and that opium coming.
Was there a change in the NDP plan?
I doubt any politician around today uses simple words.
So, Webby, will you be the First Canadian soldier to stand up and say "No way". Will you go public and state, unequivocally, that you will not participate in an illegal and immoral occupation of Afghanistan?
Or will you go back, just so you can get that next ribbon, or because you like making Harper rich?
Break the seal, dude. Tell the DND, very publicly, to shove their "mission" up their asses.
That's courage.
Was there a change in the NDP plan?
I doubt any politician around today uses simple words.
So, Webby, will you be the First Canadian soldier to stand up and say "No way". Will you go public and state, unequivocally, that you will not participate in an illegal and immoral occupation of Afghanistan?
Or will you go back, just so you can get that next ribbon, or because you like making Harper rich?
Break the seal, dude. Tell the DND, very publicly, to shove their "mission" up their asses.
That's courage.
Very cool, Jingles. That's what Corporal Paul Demetrick did.
Jingles, no I will not be the first. I don't believe what we are doing to be illegal or immoral.
I believe we could be operating in a more effective manner, I believe that Canadian and NATO leadership is poor at times. I still believe in the mission.
Jingles, no I will not be the first. I don't believe what we are doing to be illegal or immoral.
I believe we could be operating in a more effective manner, I believe that ... leadership is poor at times. I still believe in the mission.
Yeah, these are the arguments of the champions of the great 'lost cause' like the American South in the Civil War or the Vietnam War or ...
Frmsldr
Can you expanded on your last point?
So you think that if we operate in a more effective manner we will accomplish WHAT in Afghanistan?
What, precisely, is our mission in Afghanistan?
Bush, Blair, Chretien and the others cynically sent our troops to fight, get injured and die in Afghanistan knowing beforehand that we weren't going to win. I mean it wasn't like we had the examples of Vietnam or the Soviet Afghan War or anything.
If these leaders hadn't learned anything from history, then they are even more stupid than I give them credit for.
For Many Britons, the Party Game is Over
http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=548
"The Afghan war is a fraud. It began as an American vendetta for domestic consumption in the wake of the 11 September 2001 attacks, in which not a single Afghan was involved. The Taliban, who are Afghans, had no quarrel with the US and were dealing secretly with the Clinton administration over a strategic pipeline. They offered to apprehend Osama Bin Laden and hand him over to a clerical court but this was rejected.
The establishment of a permanent US/NATO presence in a resource-rich strategic region is the principal reason for the war...The game is over. Corporatism and a reinvigorated militarism have finally appropriated parliamentary democracy, a historic shift.."
"The army officer, Capt. Robert Semrau, will face a court-martial on charges of second-degree murder, attempting to commit murder, negligence and behaving in a disgraceful manner, the Canadian Defense Department said in a statement."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/19/world/americas/19canada.html?_r=1&ref=...
This Semrau was the scumbag who was reported by an eyewitness to have murdered an unarmed and gravely wounded insurgent, and then was immediately released on bail.
I see now that the other scumbags haven't even charged him with first-degree murder. Perhaps he only intended to wound him again, but not kill him?
I stand by my first reaction from January:
You may wish to read the following posts to see babblers saying Semrau is presumed innocent (we're referring to an armed Canadian shooting people in Afghanistan) and justifying the release on bail of someone who, if the prima facie evidence is upheld, is a dangerous murdering sociopath.
Ann (Kabul in Winter, 2002) Jones, just back from Afghanistan:
Meet the Afghan Army
Is It a Figment of Washington's Imagination?
By Ann Jones, TomDispatch.com/AlterNet
The big Afghanistan debate in Washington is not over whether more troops are needed, but just who they should be: Americans or Afghans -- Us or Them. Having just spent time in Afghanistan seeing how things stand, I wouldn't bet on Them.
Frankly, I wouldn't bet on Us either. In eight years, American troops have worn out their welcome. Their very presence now incites opposition, but that's another story. It's Them -- the Afghans -- I want to talk about.
Afghans are Afghans. They have their own history, their own culture, their own habitual ways of thinking and behaving, all complicated by a modern experience of decades of war, displacement, abject poverty, and incessant meddling by foreign governments near and far -- of which the United States has been the most powerful and persistent. Afghans do not think or act like Americans. Yet Americans in power refuse to grasp that inconvenient point.
In the heat of this summer, I went out to the training fields near Kabul where Afghan army recruits are put through their paces, and it was quickly evident just what's getting lost in translation. Our trainers, soldiers from the Illinois National Guard, were masterful. Professional and highly skilled, they were dedicated to carrying out their mission -- and doing the job well. They were also big, strong, camouflaged, combat-booted, supersized American men, their bodies swollen by flack jackets and lashed with knives, handguns, and god only knows what else. Any American could be proud of their commitment to tough duty.
(...)
The cat is out of the bag: Fallen soldier thought Afghan mission 'useless'
The cat is out of the bag: Fallen soldier thought Afghan mission 'useless'
The cat was first seen on Sept. 19 at 12:04 am.
But she still has teeth and claws!
This Semrau was the scumbag who was reported by an eyewitness to have murdered an unarmed and gravely wounded insurgent, and then was immediately released on bail.
I see now that the other scumbags haven't even charged him with first-degree murder. Perhaps he only intended to wound him again, but not kill him?
I stand by my first reaction from January:
You may wish to read the following posts to see babblers saying Semrau is presumed innocent (we're referring to an armed Canadian shooting people in Afghanistan) and justifying the release on bail of someone who, if the prima facie evidence is upheld, is a dangerous murdering sociopath.
Captain Semrau was probably part of an Airborne/Green Beret/Special Forces/JTF 2/CIA counter-intelligence psywar/psyops programme:
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2009/091709a.html
The reason why he got caught in his targeted assassination is that he did it in front of the wrong (Afghan) people. (Afghan) insurgent intelligence/counter-intelligence is much better than ours. A number of the Afghan troops being mentored were probably insurgent intelligence "plants" (undercover agents), possibly double agents.
Update
http://freedomsyndicate.com/fair0000/latimes00016.html
http://original.antiwar.com/engelhardt/2009/09/20/us-or-them-in-afghanis...
America Has Been Here Before
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2009/09/20
"We should hang a huge sign over Afghanistan: 'CAUTION: DEJA VU!'. Afghanistan's much ballyhooed recent election staged by its foreign occupiers turned out to be a fraud wrapped up in a farce - as this column predicted a month ago. It was as phony and meaningless as US run elections in Vietnam in the 1970s. Canada played a shameful role in facilitating this obviously rigged vote.."
How handy for you. Notwithstanding what it is you believe, the fact is we are occupying a sovereign nation, a nation which never was nor ever could be a threat to Canada (remember, that's the country you fantasize you are "defending"). It is, despite the post hoc justifications and legal weaselry, a violation of international law: an act of aggression.
There is no "mission". There is only occupation. Your continued aid and abetting of a war crime makes you complicit. You are a war criminal. You can look up what is the punishment for that, but I'm sure you know what that is already.
Well, if I am convicted I will take my punishment.
Yes, I know the possible penalties.
Article 77
Applicable penalties
1. Subject to article 110, the Court may impose one of the following penalties on a person convicted of a crime referred to in article 5 of this Statute:
(a) Imprisonment for a specified number of years, which may not exceed a maximum of 30 years; or
(b) A term of life imprisonment when justified by the extreme gravity of the crime and the individual circumstances of the convicted person.
2. In addition to imprisonment, the Court may order:
(a) A fine under the criteria provided for in the Rules of Procedure and Evidence;
(b) A forfeiture of proceeds, property and assets derived directly or indirectly from that crime, without prejudice to the rights of bona fide third parties.
http://www.icc-cpi.int/NR/rdonlyres/EA9AEFF7-5752-4F84-BE94-0A655EB30E16/0/Rome_Statute_English.pdf
http://www.international.gc.ca/court-cour/war-crimes-guerres.aspx?lang=eng
How handy for you. Notwithstanding what it is you believe, the fact is we are occupying a sovereign nation, a nation which never was nor ever could be a threat to Canada (remember, that's the country you fantasize you are "defending"). It is, despite the post hoc justifications and legal weaselry, a violation of international law: an act of aggression.
There is no "mission". There is only occupation. Your continued aid and abetting of a war crime makes you complicit. You are a war criminal. You can look up what is the punishment for that, but I'm sure you know what that is already.
Anyone guilty of war crimes or crimes against humanity will be brought before the World Court. The World Court, like any human organization has limited resources. As we all know, when it comes to detaining and prosecuting war criminals, the World Court and those acting in a supportive role will go after the worst case offenders and work their way down to a cut off point. At best (hopefully) those who escape justice are very "small" offenders. Crimes against humanity would have to be gross and/or widespread. In order for a war crime to be proven the crime must satisfy the conditions of being systemic and widespread, a pattern done over a period of time.
Unless Webgear is a high ranking officer, it is unlikely he will face charges of a war crime or a gross crime against humanity. If Webgear is of a lesser rank, particularly a lower non commissioned officer rank, what could happen is that Commanding Officers facing lesser war crimes and/or crimes against humanity charges could pass the legal (and moral) blame/responsibility to the troops at the bottom of the military's "corporate ladder". This was the case with the beating death of the Somali boy by the Canadian military in 1994.
As a soldier, to take a vocal stand against the war, one runs the risk of the military filing charges and a legal suit against one. For example, an Army buddy of mine - Corporal Paul Demetrick - whom some of you here at rabble may know about, took a vocal and public stand against the Afghan war by writing letters to newspapers about his views and identifying who he is and the fact that he was (at the time) a soldier. The Army started preliminary Court Martial proceedings against him. In Canadian military law there is this catch all clause "Conduct unbecoming ... ", where, if all else fails, they can charge you with. In the Demetrick case, the military decided the best course of action was to hush things up: He was quietly given a 'voluntold' honorable discharge.
So, you see, whether Webgear toes the "corporation's cultural" values of the military and complies to another tour if ordered or if he resists and voices any opposition he may have for the war, he faces potential legal risks. "Damned if he does. Damned if he doesn't", either way. If he obeys like a good little soldier and does as he is ordered, he is least likely to get into (legal) trouble.
If he is opposed to the war, if he quietly voluntarily leaves the military at the first opportunity, this is the least 'harmful' (to oneself) option. This is why so few currently serving Canadian soldiers have spoken out against the war. That, plus they are indoc[trinated] by the military (and society) to internalize the military's values. It takes a strong individual to resist external pressure and indoctrination.
If you have the opportunity, check out the DVDs "Sir! No Sir!" and "F.T.A.".
http://www.truthout.org/091709R
Former Canadian Soldier Speaks out Against 'disgusting' Child Rape in Afghanistan
http://www.canada.com/nas/disgusting+former+Canadian+soldier+says+allege...
"Every day, Travis Schouten lives with the image of the rape of an Afghan boy at a Canadian Forces base. 'It's disgusting' said Schouten, now retired after 5 years in the military. We're telling people that we're trying to build a nation there and we let this happen.."
Child rape IS disgusting whether in Afghanistan or Canada where it is rampant. But as repugnant as child-rape, is imperialism, occupation and aggressive warmaking..
continued over here