The Afghan people will win - part 12
October 30, 2009 - 10:33pm
24-year-old Canadian soldier killed
"Having arrived in the theatre of operations less than a week ago, he was eager to get out and begin making a difference," Vance said.
.jpg)
Sapper Steven Marshall, 24, was killed while on foot patrol in Panjwai district in Kandahar province.
Why do people always publish a formal photo with announcements of this sort? What are we supposed to think?
Why do people always publish a formal photo with announcements of this sort? What are we supposed to think?
That short days ago, they lived - felt dawn, saw sunset glow.
So the photo is offered as some kind of documentary proof that this soldier actually was alive at one time?
So the photo is offered as some kind of documentary proof that this soldier actually was alive at one time?
Correct.
I missed this on The Fifth Estate on Friday night, but there are several repeats and CBC says it will be available online by Monday:
Why would anyone want to join the military? Particularly after seeing this fifth estate documentary - as startling an anti-recruitment film as it is a rare insight into battle-induced posttraumatic stress.
In Broken Heroes, three soldiers tell reporter Gillian Findlay what their life has been like upon returning from tours of duty, some altered after one deployment, another after spending time in a few war zones. Plagued by nightmares, racked with survivor guilt and trouble coping with tasks such as grocery shopping or minding the kids make it almost impossible to re-enter "normal" life. One of the biggest hurdles these men have to overcome, though, is the idea that they have a problem at all: "Nobody wants to be broken in the army," says one. "I've got my airborne wings. I'm army. I'm a sergeant. ... I'm in command of eight men in a combat zone, how are you going to tell me how to function at night?" explains another about why it took so long for him to seek help. Findlay respectfully tells their stories, and checks in with Canada's Chief of Defence Staff General Walter Natynczyk to see what the military is doing about erasing the stigma of PTSD. Senator and former general Roméo Dallaire is also interviewed, reminding us just how long the trauma can linger, and how it can turn up unannounced years later.
They must have had a crappy enough life before volunteering for the Stan to want to sign up for the Canadian military. What were their options?
The so-called "election" in Afghanistan is now a complete farce. Only one candidate - the NATO puppet Hamid Karzai - will be running. The other guy, Abdullah Abdullah, has said that a transparent or fair election is not possible.
But we all knew, in any case, that Karzai isn't President. B-52 is President of Afghanistan.
.
Oh my gawd. Listen to the bullshit here, folks:
Canada's new counter-insurgency stategy in Afghanistan will be put to the test after an IED blast Friday killed Sapper Steven Marshall near one of its showcase model villages, the second Canadian death in three days.
What "new Canadian counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan"? You mean U.S. Gen. Stanley McChristal's "new" old counter-insurgency strategy in Afghanistan? Canada's "showcase model village" - that's so Vietnam. Back then they were called "strategic hamlets" and were a dismal failure.
"Know that his death will also sadden the Afghan community where he worked to bring them a better life," said Brig.-Gen. Vance,...
Sure the Afghans will say that when Canadian soldiers are sticking their faces and rifle muzzles and Canadian journalists are sticking cameras and microphones (in the presence of Canadian troops) in their faces.
If this is an insurgency, then aren't the Taliban (or, more accurately, the insurgents) the people themselves and not an alien force, unlike ourselves?
Oops, I spoke too soon. The answer is found here:
The army hopes to expand these model villages further west into Panjwaii, but have met still opposition from the Taliban.
The implication being that "our" villagers are "good" Afghans and the Taliban are "bad" Afghans or "evil" Al Qaeda "foreigners" - we are the "good" foreigners.
The Canadian government, military and mainstream media just don't seem to "get it", do they?
Oh, here's a beauty:
Canadian troops have maintained a continuous presence around Belanday since July, when they moved into a run-down school compound after clearing the area of insurgents.
Here are your hard earned tax dollars at work. Here is the "real measurable progress we are making in Afghanistan" when it comes to constructing or rebuilding schools so Afghan children can get an education. It seems schools are better used for accomodations for our troops than educating Afghan children. I guess you need security first and then education for Afghan children will flow from that, which is a roundabout way of saying it will never happen.
I wonder how many in the military and the government saw the bitter irony in this?
The outgoing company commander, Captain Jean Vachon, says they eventually earned the trust of locals, to the point where soldiers on patrol walked hand-in-hand with children and received repeated tip-offs about IEDs.
Doesn't "white propaganda" just make you feel all warm and fuzzy inside?
"But soon the village streets filled up, even with women who were walking around without their faces covered." But there had been worrying signs of late that insurgents were keen on reasserting their presence [in] the area. On Sept. 13, Canadian soldier Private Patrick Lormand, 21, was killed in an IED explosion...
... Sapper Marshall's death threatens to [sic] undue months of progress by the Van Doos...
... Other Van Doos pointed out that their recently arrived replacements might be inclined to treat the population with suspicion and hostility in reaction to the death, which he said would strain the trust it took them months to build.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/ied-blast-claims-canadian-sold...
That's it in a nutshell: Canadian troops are only there for the length of their tour(s). Someday we will be gone, never to return. The insurgents are Afghans. Most of them will live there all their lives.
Which begs the questions: Who do you think most Afghans are going to trust and support? Who do you think is going to win the war?
The second clause of this sentence provide me with my morning chuckle.
Afghanistan's president welcomed his re-election by default Tuesday and reached out to opponents, promising to create a government of national participation and banish corruption that has undermined his administration
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/11/03/karzai-afghan-president-electio...despite the glob's propaganda spin, things continue to go from bad to worse for the failing imperial adventurers in Afghanistan, as evidenced by the behind the scene's attempts at deal-making:
Taliban Decline US Offer of 6 Provinces for 8 Bases
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23861.htm
Just a preview of Canada's future "training" role, when it withdraws from what Harper, Ignatieff, Layton, and Duceppe have variously referred to as the "combat" mission:
Five British soldiers shot dead
The soldiers, three from the Grenadier Guards and two from the Royal Military Police, had been mentoring and living with the Afghan police in a compound.
The officer opened fire, injuring several other troops, before fleeing.
A total of 92 UK troops have now been killed this year, the highest in any year since the Falklands War in 1982.
The right idea about Afghanistan:
An Afghan national police officer opened fire on British troops Tuesday Nov. 3, killing five of them and wounding six others. McChrystal wants to train up 400,000 charaters like this. "We will not let this event deter our resolve to building a partnership with the Afghan Security Forces to provide for Afghanistan's future." - Gen. Stanley McChrystal.
The Europeans have the right idea, Stan. You don't.
Bring. Troops. Home.
http://original.antiwar.com/huber/2009/11/04/so-much-for-europe
Afghan police penetrated by Taliban at every level:
Officials say the police have been successfully infiltrated "at every level" by the Taliban, meaning even seemingly loyal police, today's attacker served without incident for three years for instance, could be ticking time bombs just waiting for the order to attack...
... The latest incident has drawn renewed interest to the war, long unpopular with the British public, among the nation's press which is increasingly asking uncomfortable questions to a government determined to continue the war at any cost.
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/11/04/killing-of-british-troops-raises-conc...
An Afghan national police officer opened fire on British troops Tuesday Nov. 3, killing five of them and wounding six others. McChrystal wants to train up 400,000 charaters like this.
Hmmm...
5 x 400,000 = 2 million Allied dead
Hope my math is correct.
An Afghan national police officer opened fire on British troops Tuesday Nov. 3, killing five of them and wounding six others. McChrystal wants to train up 400,000 charaters like this.
Hmmm...
5 x 400,000 = 2 million Allied dead
Hope my math is correct.
Taliban to Unionist: "Just worry about the dead. We'll do the math."
Policeman Who Killed British Troops is ' Back With Taliban:'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/05/afghanistan-gunman-uk-soldie...
"Gunman identifed as policeman called Gulbadin greeted with flowers on return to Taliban protection sources say.."
Canadian 'trainers' had best watch their backs..
Afghan Resistance Statement: Why is the UN so Disturbed by the Murder of Western Nationals?
http://www.alemarah.info/english/index.php?option=com_content&view=artic...
"Nov 5, a few days ago a strong reaction came from the UN Security Council following the killings of Western nationals whom the UN calls its staff members but Mujahideen say were organizers of the runoff election.."
Canada's Defense Chief orders plans for a general Afghan withdrawal:
CBC News has learned that Chief of the Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk has ordered his commanders to start preparing military plans to pull out of Afghanistan and return thousands of soldiers and billions of dollars' worth of equipment to Canada.
Maj. Cindy Tessier, a spokeswoman for Natynczyk, suggested the plans were a measure of prudence.
"The parliamentary motion was clear, and prudent military planning has begun," she told CBC News. "That commences with orders."
In March 2008, Parliament voted to extend the mission until July 2011. The parliamentary motion said all troops must be out of Afghanistan by the end of that year.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/11/05/afghanistan-withdraw.html
I wonder if Gen. Walt Natynczyk was acting in a purely military manner or if a personal political agenda was behind it - ie., to force Harpo's hand.
I wonder if Harpo will freak out and redouble his efforts to try and have at least some Canadian troops stay beyond 2011?
Two points of interest:
Former Defense Chief Rick Hillier in his "A Soldier First" autobiography has written against Canadian troops staying beyond 2011.
The above article mentions that Harpo is waiting on Obama's decision on Afghanistan to determine what the future Canadian Afghan strategy will look like. Problem: Whatever Obama decides, it's going to be a troop surge - the only question is, "How many?", as he has ruled out the immediate troop withdrawal option.
Friendly fire casualty incident in Afghanistan:
Over 25 NATO and Afghan soldiers were wounded today and others were reportedly killed in a "search and rescue" operation being conducted in Western Afghanistan looking for two missing US soldiers.
Though NATO declined to give much in the way of details regarding the operation, the Badghis Province police chief said that NATO had inadvertently caused many of the casualties themselves in the air strikes, and that multiple Americans were slain in a "friendly fire" air strike incident.
The Taliban reported that they had already recovered the bodies of the two soldiers, who they said had [sic] drown[ed]. NATO has promised to continue their "exhaustive search and rescue operations."
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/11/06/missing-us-soldiers-spark-friendly-fi...
This is not the original headline:
Eight employees of U.S. military massacred by NATO pilots; dozens of U.S. and Afghan wounded
34,000 U.S. troop escalation for Afghanistan favored:
Advisers have reportedly narrowed it down to three options, a 20,000-25,000 troop escalation, a 45,000 troop escalation, and a "compromise" of about 34,000 which is seen as the favorite at the moment.
Though 34,000 is an enormous additional commitment, and will likely strain the military with 120,000 troops still on the ground in Iraq (and likely not going anywhere for quite some time) and around 68,000 in Afghanistan already, it is being treated as a very modest move.
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/11/08/obama-narrows-afghan-options-34000-tr...
However, more troops may not be the answers says U.S. National Security Advisor:
In an interview published on Saturday, the German weekly magazine Der Spiegel asked Mr. Jones whether he agreed with General Stanley McChrystal, the top United States and Nato commander in Afghanistan, that the troops increase was needed.
"Generals always ask for more troops," Mr Jones said. "I believe we will not solve the problem with troops alone. The minimum number is important, of course. But there is no maximum number, however. You can keep on putting troops in and you could have 200,000 troops there and Afghanistan will swallow them up as it has done in the past," he said,...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/6520753/Afgha...
Officials: NATO's Badghis air strike killed at least 20, mostly civillians:
The incident followed a comedy of errors among NATO forces which also has apparently left two American soldiers dead. An air drop of supplies to forces in the Badghis Province was accidently air dropped into a river, and two American soldiers dove in attempting to rescue the supplies.
The soldiers reportedly [sic] drown[ed] in the river, and the Taliban recovered the bodies downstream. But NATO launched a massive search and rescue operation which for some reason included an air strike against a warehouse on the outskirts of a military base housing both coalition and Afghan troops.
At least 25 international forces were wounded during the failed rescue operation as well, and though NATO initially claimed they were wounded by "insurgent activity" they later conceded that it was a possibility that they had been wounded in an attack by their own forces.
As for the air strike that left so many dead, the US insists that it was no accident but was an attack on "hostiles" even though it was against a NATO base, and a US spokesman insisted that they received no reports of any civilian casualties even though officials have been publicly clamoring for accountability virtually since the attack happened.
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/11/08/officials-natos-badghis-air-strike-ki...
NATO poised to abandon northern Helmand province:
In the face of an ever-growing insurgency across Afghanistan, NATO is reportedly eying a new "tactical pullout" which would have its forces abandon the northern portion of the Helmand Province, including the key town of Musa Qala...
... Though there is growing opposition to the war in Britain, with around two thirds of British voters now opposed and widespread calls for a pullout, the British military insists it must be continued, if for no other reason than accepting the inevitable defeat would cost the military credibility.
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/11/08/nato-poised-to-abandon-northern-helma...
Karzai claims mystery helicopters are ferrying Taliban to north Afghanistan:
For several weeks now, Afghanistan has been consumed by stories of mysterious "foreign helicopter" ferrying Taliban fighters to a new front in northern Afghanistan. These helicopters are alleged by no less than President Karzai to belong to "foreign powers" such as the United States and its allies. The helicopters are said to land in remote regions, but their activity has supposedly been noted by nomads who travel through the deserts of Baghlan and Kunduz province...
Without mentioning guilty parties or offering evidence, President Karzai suggested the reports of helicopters delivering terrorists to north Afghanistan were true, saying, "We have received reliable reports from our intelligence service. We have received reliable reports from our people, and today I received a report that these efforts [to transfer Taliban fighters] are also being made mysteriously in the northwest. The issue of helicopters has also been proved. We do not make any more comments now and investigations are under way to see to whom and to which foreign country these helicopters belong" (Tolo TV, October 11). According to Karzai, the "unknown" helicopters had been taking Taliban fighters to Baghlan, Kunduz and Samangan provinces in northern Afghanistan. The president's remarks were quickly followed by a call from the Lower House speaker, Muhammad Yunis Qanuni, for a government debate on the issue. "When the president of Afghanistan, as the first man of the country, is raising a fact and a problem, then it shows that the problem is important and serious." According to Takhar MP Habiba Danesh, the helicopter airlifts were already underway before the elections...
To read more on this story, click here:
http://www.jamestown.org/programs/gta/single/?tx_ttnews[tt_news]=35706&tx_ttnews[backPid]=26&cHash=4c09587a4d
When will Afghans win? In what year? What decade? Let's have some lucky guesses at the very least.
The Afghanistan War on Remembrance Sunday
http://www.redress.cc/global/cking20091110
"The Afghanistan war is lost, both in law and in the field. US and NATO politicians and services chiefs cannot recognize reality. After eight years, Afghan mujahideen freedom fighters have fought 'the most powerful alliance of the world' into retreat.."
This is a modestly positive sign. Obama dismissed all of the options presented to him by the military and told them to come back with a plan that has an ending.
Bomb-sniffer dog Sabi returns to Aussie base after 14 months "lost" in the "wilds of Afghanistan"
My question is... how do the Aussies know she wasn't "turned" by the Taliban? Could the pooch be a mole? One indication would be an increase in IED casualties. Watch for continuing updates in this exciting
tailtale.What will "the Afghan people" win? This 12 part exercise in wooly headedness always avoids answering that simple question in favour of illogical feel-good emotionalism.
What will "the Afghan people" win? This 12 part exercise in wooly headedness always avoids answering that simple question in favour of illogical feel-good emotionalism.
Good question.
Their goning to win what exactly?
I don't understand these threads. Is posting pictures of killed Canadan soldiers suposed to lead readers to believe the Afghan's are 'winning' because Canadians are dying?
I hate the military and I am embarassed my country is in Afghanistan but posting a picture everything a Canadian does, I don't know.
133 Canadian soldiers have died in Afghanistan, a war our Prime Minister has said we cannot win.
Why?
What will "the Afghan people" win?
The war. Wish I could make it more complex, but hey.
How about the Afghan people will (mostly) survive the war and continue to have one occupying group after another set up shop in their lands.
Sure. And India and China will always be poor colonized subjugated lands. And the sun shall never set on the British Empire. And Rome shall rule the world forever.
You lack imagination, and a sense of history, and perhaps (I don't know, just speculating) a profound partisanship with the downtrodden of the world.
Check out Matthew 20:16. There's some wisdom to be gleaned from that good book.
What will "the Afghan people" win? This 12 part exercise in wooly headedness always avoids answering that simple question in favour of illogical feel-good emotionalism.
You'll have to excuse the thread title. It's a mostly optimistic point of view that says Afghans will win the war. What some don't realize is that winning isn't everything. It's the warfiteering in between start of war and eventual inability for taxpayers of warfiteering countries to foot the bills for hyper-Keynesian militarism. Afghans won't win much if Korea, Vietnam and Cambodia were precedents for winning.
I always wonder what was meant by the Afghan people will win?
What Afghan tribe are we referring to? (Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Aimaks, Turkmen, Balochs)
I always wonder what was meant by the Afghan people will win?
What Afghan tribe are we referring to? (Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Aimaks, Turkmen, Balochs)
The foreigners, for a time, will leave their land(s).
I always wonder what was meant by the Afghan people will win?
What Afghan tribe are we referring to? (Pashtuns, Tajiks, Hazaras, Uzbeks, Aimaks, Turkmen, Balochs)
Gee, Webgear, I hadn't noticed they were at war with each other... and you didn't notice that the Afghan poeple a're collectively at war with the invaders. What does that say about military acumen?
Well, the U.S.A. used/is using Northern Alliance warlords and their armies as proxy troops to fight against the predominantly Pashtun Taliban and southern insurgents and the U.S.A. is not only paying (directly and indirectly) the Taliban and insurgents not to attack their convoys, the Pentagon is also funding and arming local "militias" to fight insurgents, as it funded and armed militias in the "Sunni awakening" in Iraq and as Russia did and failed at, during the Soviet Afghan War.
I understand that, Frmrsldr, but look at the double standard. When the invaders and their puppets run fraudulent "elections", which they can't even rig properly, I didn't hear Webgear say: "I wonder what is meant by Afghan elections? They're all just a bunch of little clans and factions. There's no such thing as the Afghan people!"
The Afghan people will consolidate their unity and their national identity by destroying the invaders and their puppets.
How many wars have you see recently between "North" and "South" Vietnam?
I rest my case.
Those are interesting points made by Unionist, FrmrSldr, and Webgear. I believe it was Seymour Hersh who suggested that al-Qa'eda were attacking the real anti-American insurgents in Iraq during the Sunni awakening. Something to think about.
And it's interesting that the US and Karzai have offered to share power with the Taliban in exchange for US proxy government in Kabul and US-Afghan military bases. I am thinking that something close to this will be the end result. And that looks like a long shot now considering that the Taliban appear to be holding out for complete NATO withdrawal. I also think that neither NATO nor the Taliban can win this war according to reports from last summer. Unless anything's changed, I think the US military wants to remain in Afghanistan indefinitely. We already know that it's not about democracy. And it's certainly not about fighting for women's rights in Afghanistan, or the very reason civil war broke out in Afghanistan 30 odd years ago.
What will "the Afghan people" win?
The war. Wish I could make it more complex, but hey.
Its not complex at all. At the present time, the "afghan people" are preyed upon Taliban thugs,warlord thugs, thugs claiming to be so-called government functionaries and tribal thugs claiming nothing but criminal enterprise.
When "the war" is over, the afghan people will have won only predation by 3 of the above 4. Not much of a "win for Afghans but a great day for the totally western anti-war construct of "peace" n'est ce pas?
The Afghan people will consolidate their unity and their national identity by destroying the invaders and their puppets.
How many wars have you see recently between "North" and "South" Vietnam?
I rest my case.
This is one comparison you can't make between Vietnam and Afghanistan. Vietnam is a far more ethnically homogenous country than Afghanistan. The reason for this is Vietnam's borders were allowed to form "naturally" over time. Afghanistan's borders were arbitrarily drawn by British colonial surveyors in the 19th Century where, typically, the locations of ethnically diverse people were not taken into consideration. This was done intentionally to create a weak and internally divided colony, so the British overseers ensured their stay would be as long as possible: Divide and rule.
The only time the peoples of Afghanistan are united is when they have taken up the fight against a common enemy: Foreign occupier(s). Look at the history of Afghanistan. If they aren't fighting foreign occupiers, they're squabbling (fighting) amongst themselves.
I think this war is going to end like the Soviet Afghan war. When we pull out, there will be civil war - a fight to determine who will be the next national government of Afghanistan.
I'm still wondring why when a Canadian soldier dies it becomes the cause for a new "The Afghan people will win" thread?
Dead Canadians = Afghan's winning?
I'm still wondring why when a Canadian soldier dies it becomes the cause for a new "The Afghan people will win" thread?
Dead Canadians = Afghan's winning?
I see it this way: Each Canadian soldier killed is one more reason for Canada to disengage from Afghanistan.
Beloved Enemy: Paying for the Privilege of Perpetual War:
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1878-...
"Our American militarists love war so much that they even bankroll the enemy, just to keep the blood money flowing.."
We already know that none of these things are a going concern for either side in this war, nor are they even on the table for a negotiated peace, and listed below in no order of low to non-existent priority for the principals in this war:
1. democracy
2. handing over Osama bin Laden to either the US Military or a third party country
3. establishing women's rights in Afghanistan, or why civil war began in the first place
4. insisting the Taliban break ties with the Islamic wing of the CIA, al-Qa'eda, which are not there in Afghanistan in any significant numbers anyway
What could these two former best of partners in crime, the Taliban and Uncle Sam, have possibly had a falling out over?
Why have there been backchannel talks with the Taliban and nothing made public by either side? If I was a Taliban leader, I would want to embarrass my enemy at every turn as did the NVA during Paris peace talks. It could be a Taliban PR extravaganza, and yet they maintain silence in solidarity with their former sponsors in Warshington. Why?
I'm still wondring why when a Canadian soldier dies it becomes the cause for a new "The Afghan people will win" thread?
Get a dictionary and check out the difference between "thread" and "post".
Apparently you've only seen the posts about dead Canadians. There aren't that many of them. Your morbid fascination is interesting. The Afghan insurgents attack at will in most of the country and control ever greater areas. The Canadians are a pathetic sideshow in the Dieppe area of the country. They can't even figure out, after eight (8) years of practice, how to go for a stroll and not get blown up by home-made booby traps. I hope you'll agree that the Canadians are losing, at least. Or is this your definition of victory?
I think this war is going to end like the Soviet Afghan war. When we pull out, there will be civil war - a fight to determine who will be the next national government of Afghanistan.
Well, what do you think happened when the U.S. pulled its troops out of Viet Nam and "vietnamized" the war? A "civil war" carried on for a few short years to determine who would be the next national government of Viet Nam. Needless to say, the insurgents won - reunified the country - and essentially the same forces have been in power for the past 35 years.
For the few years that the Taliban were in power, did you notice any civil war going on? It was the U.S. which invaded, resuscitated the Northern Alliance, and used them as their tool to take control. Once the U.S. and its allies leave, there may well be a power struggle, but without outside interference, the situation will surely stabilize as it has in the past.
Afghanistan's problems do not stem from Afghans hating each other. We are their problem, along with our predecessors.
And no Afghans have reported a single clandestine NATO air drop of weapons to the Taliban recently. It's not looking good.
The Canadians are a pathetic sideshow in the Dieppe area of the country.
Yes and no. Yes, Canadians are a pathetic sideshow due to their lack of numbers. The U.S. has 68,000 troops, the U.K. has nearly 10,000 troops and Germany has 7,500 troops; Canada has 1,200.
No, Kandahar is less (an insignificant) "Dieppe area" of Afghanistan and more of (a very significant) "Normandy" or better still "Stalingrad" and "Kursk area" of Afghanistan. Kandahar (and to a slightly lesser degree Helmand) are the most violent provinces of Afghanistan. Look at the history of Afghanistan: Kandahar City was the "birthplace of the Taliban". From there the Taliban consolidated their power in Kandahar province, then Helmand province and then (most of) the rest of Afghanistan.
That is why, in 2005 then Gen. Rick Hillier strenuously advocated for and convinced then Prime Minister Paul Martin to send Canadian troops south from Kabul where they were protecting aid, reconstruction and redevelopment NGOs, to Kandahar where the troops took on a definitely greater combat role in the more volatile and violent south.
Hillier now apparently contradicts himself in his autobiographical book "A Soldier First...", claiming that he was opposed to sending Canadian troops south. A sign to me that he is trying to "wash his hands" of any responsibility for the Canadian troops who have died since the redeployment south and to politically "wipe the egg off his face" for the embarrassing Battle of Stalingrad/Dien Bien Phu that the beleagered little Canadian contingent of the American Empire in Afghanistan is likely to suffer in Kandahar City at the hands of the "whirling Dirvishes".
I'm still wondring why when a Canadian soldier dies it becomes the cause for a new "The Afghan people will win" thread?
Dead Canadians = Afghan's winning?
I see it this way: Each Canadian soldier killed is one more reason for Canada to disengage from Afghanistan.
I agree. The only thing "the Afghan people" will have "won" from Canada is a few solar street lights and roads that the Taliban will destroy as soon as the west pulls out.
I'm still wondring why when a Canadian soldier dies it becomes the cause for a new "The Afghan people will win" thread?
Get a dictionary and check out the difference between "thread" and "post".
Apparently you've only seen the posts about dead Canadians. There aren't that many of them. Your morbid fascination is interesting. The Afghan insurgents attack at will in most of the country and control ever greater areas. The Canadians are a pathetic sideshow in the Dieppe area of the country. They can't even figure out, after eight (8) years of practice, how to go for a stroll and not get blown up by home-made booby traps. I hope you'll agree that the Canadians are losing, at least. Or is this your definition of victory?
Sparky, this is the hysterical division of the anti-war crowd's purely western construct of "peace". What is pathetic is that this anti-war crowd is totally ignored by their feudal favorites except when mined for propaganda purposes.
This dynamic is similar to the aims of the misguided souls who flocked to Saddam Hussein to volunteer as human shields around hospitals and schools but were shocked when Saddam used them as pawns to protect military facilities. These individuals have assumed an inflated self worth that is punctured only when rubbed against the reality that medieval tribalism values their assistance only as dupes.
By turning against their own people, they assume a moral superiority to the mortals who campaign against this stupid, wasteful military adventure on mere critical thinking. Critical thinking would dictate that any death, Afghan or western is one more reason to truncate this misguided adventure but the haste with which western soldiers' deaths are presented and insurgent activities praised by this crowd suggests these odious activities are a self-inflicted hairshirt donned to cover chronic insecurity.
By far, Canadian opposition to the Afghanistan fiasco is grounded in the logical premise that, after 8 years, we have nothing worthwhile to mention as 'success'; we have lost over 130 Canadian lives inflicted countless harm to the indigineous population and squandered over $20 billion and counting to suck up to an ancien regime that will self-destruct due to the weight of its own perverse policies regardless of Canadian devotion to their misguided adventurism.
All Canadians need to focus on creating a nation that gives value to a process of inclusivity for both emerging nations and their Canadian diaspora. A nation that is a true middle power, not a stooge for the tired pseudo-paternalism that fuels American military adventurism. The hysterical division of the anti-war crowd's emotion - driven eating their own young does nothing to furthur positive use of lessons learned.
Sparky, this is the hysterical division of the anti-war crowd's purely western construct of "peace". What is pathetic is that this anti-war crowd is totally ignored by their feudal favorites except when mined for propaganda purposes.
What are you doing on a progressive site? The National Post sent back your op-ed pieces?
You're referring to the civilizations of Iraq and Afghanistan? Your sort isn't worthy to eat off their floors.
My people are the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Canada. They are not your people - those who don uniforms and bear arms to teach the savages how to be like you. I turn against your people.
No gold, no diamonds, no oil - it's awful - how do your people manage to soldier on? Just pure darned British grit, I guess.
You dream of a Canada that will rival the U.S. A true middle power, no less! You and Stephen Harper! Dream on, sucker.
I'm still wondring why when a Canadian soldier dies it becomes the cause for a new "The Afghan people will win" thread?
Get a dictionary and check out the difference between "thread" and "post".
Apparently you've only seen the posts about dead Canadians. There aren't that many of them. Your morbid fascination is interesting. The Afghan insurgents attack at will in most of the country and control ever greater areas. The Canadians are a pathetic sideshow in the Dieppe area of the country. They can't even figure out, after eight (8) years of practice, how to go for a stroll and not get blown up by home-made booby traps. I hope you'll agree that the Canadians are losing, at least. Or is this your definition of victory?
Sparky, this is the hysterical division of the anti-war crowd's purely western construct of "peace". What is pathetic is that this anti-war crowd is totally ignored by their feudal favorites except when mined for propaganda purposes.
This dynamic is similar to the aims of the misguided souls who flocked to Saddam Hussein to volunteer as human shields around hospitals and schools but were shocked when Saddam used them as pawns to protect military facilities. These individuals have assumed an inflated self worth that is punctured only when rubbed against the reality that medieval tribalism values their assistance only as dupes.
By turning against their own people, they assume a moral superiority to the mortals who campaign against this stupid, wasteful military adventure on mere critical thinking. Critical thinking would dictate that any death, Afghan or western is one more reason to truncate this misguided adventure but the haste with which western soldiers' deaths are presented and insurgent activities praised by this crowd suggests these odious activities are a self-inflicted hairshirt donned to cover chronic insecurity.
By far, Canadian opposition to the Afghanistan fiasco is grounded in the logical premise that, after 8 years, we have nothing worthwhile to mention as 'success'; we have lost over 130 Canadian lives inflicted countless harm to the indigineous population and squandered over $20 billion and counting to suck up to an ancien regime that will self-destruct due to the weight of its own perverse policies regardless of Canadian devotion to their misguided adventurism.
All Canadians need to focus on creating a nation that gives value to a process of inclusivity for both emerging nations and their Canadian diaspora. A nation that is a true middle power, not a stooge for the tired pseudo-paternalism that fuels American military adventurism. The hysterical division of the anti-war crowd's emotion - driven eating their own young does nothing to furthur positive use of lessons learned.
I really start to wonder.
I just read an article where a General is saying the Canadian infantry is full. They have so many young men and women signing up to be soldiers that we no longer have any room for "grunts".
For some reason I just can't believe that when we pull of everything will be perfect over there. I still think we should pull out, like TODAY, but their feudal system is going to keep them fighting among each other for a long time.
Is it really shocking to discover that the Infantry is 25% oversubscribed and that young Canadians are lining up in droves to enlist, but only in the trigger-pulling end of combat arms - eschewing mundane MOCs like vehicle technicians or other maintainance functions? They want to be at the pointy end of the stick, not potwalloping in a sevice battalion or area support group.
This is a generation that has grown up without direct familal experience of war. No Wierd Uncle Bob twitching and diving under the table when someone drops something loud on the floor but a plethora of violent video games that lend a surreal distance to the concept of violence. An Afghanistan tour is the ultimate street cred for nominds immersed in popular gangsta culture.
Afghanistan's destiny is up to Afghans. Its none of our business - never was. The best thing we can do for Afghans is get out and mind our own affairs. What will be, will be.
Well, come on mothers throughout the land,
Pack your boys off to Vietnam.
Come on fathers, don't hesitate,
Send 'em off before it's too late.
Be the first one on your block
To have your boy come home in a box.
Sparky, this is the hysterical division of the anti-war crowd's purely western construct of "peace". What is pathetic is that this anti-war crowd is totally ignored by their feudal favorites except when mined for propaganda purposes.
What are you doing on a progressive site? The National Post sent back your op-ed pieces?
You're referring to the civilizations of Iraq and Afghanistan? Your sort isn't worthy to eat off their floors.
My people are the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Canada. They are not your people - those who don uniforms and bear arms to teach the savages how to be like you. I turn against your people.
No gold, no diamonds, no oil - it's awful - how do your people manage to soldier on? Just pure darned British grit, I guess.
You dream of a Canada that will rival the U.S. A true middle power, no less! You and Stephen Harper! Dream on, sucker.
My position against Canadian involvement in Afghanistan and the need to leave that country obviously doesn't fit into your hysterical rant so feel free to ignore it.
I dream of nothing and said nothing about "rival the U.S. A" (sic) Do you always make up stuff to suit your agenda? Your post is an excellent example of why the extremists of the anti-war crowd gain no traction or credibility.
Sparky, this is the hysterical division of the anti-war crowd's purely western construct of "peace". What is pathetic is that this anti-war crowd is totally ignored by their feudal favorites except when mined for propaganda purposes.
What are you doing on a progressive site? The National Post sent back your op-ed pieces?
You're referring to the civilizations of Iraq and Afghanistan? Your sort isn't worthy to eat off their floors.
My people are the people of Afghanistan, Iraq, and Canada. They are not your people - those who don uniforms and bear arms to teach the savages how to be like you. I turn against your people.
No gold, no diamonds, no oil - it's awful - how do your people manage to soldier on? Just pure darned British grit, I guess.
You dream of a Canada that will rival the U.S. A true middle power, no less! You and Stephen Harper! Dream on, sucker.
My position against Canadian involvement in Afghanistan and the need to leave that country obviously doesn't fit into your hysterical rant so feel free to ignore it.
I dream of nothing and said nothing about "rival the U.S. A" (sic) Do you always make up stuff to suit your agenda? Your post is an excellent example of why the extremists of the anti-war crowd gain no traction or credibility.
Well said.
I think that some of the anti-war movement unwittingly contributes to the perceived legitimacy of this global war on terrorism by acknowledging the very reason for it. Even though two of the hand-picked co-chairs of the 9/11 Commission have questioned the legitimacy of the 9/11 investigation and conclusions, there are people who dare not question the end results of a flimsy 9/11 investigation. There is no evidence that Osama bin Laden an al-Qa'eda acted alone in perpetrating 9/11 terror, or that they are even responsible. The so-called evidence amounts to confessions tortured out of five alleged masterminds of 9/11, and one of whom is missing and probably in FBI witness protection: Ali Mohamed, the alleged hijacking specialist, a former CIA asset and member of the US military leading up to 9/11/01. The unwitting accept the lies of the crazy George Bush regime surrounding the events of 9/11 as articles of faith. It's as if they want to believe the phony pretext for this phony global war on terror with an almost fanatical devotion to crazy George II and US hawks responsible for leading Canada and other NATO countries into Afghanistan and Iraq and now expanding the war into Pakistan.
But anything said by political parties, like the NDP, about negotiating a peaceful end to organized taxpyer-funded murder in those countries is scrutinized to the nth degree by some of those in the anti-war crowd. What the NDP and other leftwing voices say about war in Afghanistan is rarely accepted as articles of faith by all anti-war scrutinizers.
You're so superior. Can I have your autograph?
But anything said by political parties, like the NDP, about negotiating a peaceful end to organized taxpyer-funded murder in those countries is scrutinized to the nth degree by some of those in the anti-war crowd. What the NDP and other leftwing voices say about war in Afghanistan is rarely accepted as articles of faith by all anti-war scrutinizers.
So now there's three of you, Fidel, who are united against the "anti-war crowd". It must feel good.
So who among us believes that the "war on terror" is legitimate if even from a crazy George point of view? Or does it go without saying among the faithfull? (Sorry, U, but I think this is an example of the kind of fundamental questions any good anti-war movement should be asking themselves)
Is this war, like the VietNam war was, being waged on the pretext of a lie? Is this war even legal from an international legal sense? Or should the anti-war movement even think about going for the jugular along these lines? Is it very wise to continue with the same Roman battle line of attack with holding our collective breaths waiting for a pullout and be satisfied with ourselves holding up peace signs that say really subversive things, like "war is bad" and even "war pigs!" They already know they are war pigs and warfiteers. Sticks and stones break bones, but names will never harm them.
But anything said by political parties, like the NDP, about negotiating a peaceful end to organized taxpyer-funded murder in those countries is scrutinized to the nth degree by some of those in the anti-war crowd. What the NDP and other leftwing voices say about war in Afghanistan is rarely accepted as articles of faith by all anti-war scrutinizers.
So now there's three of you, Fidel, who are united against the "anti-war crowd". It must feel good.
Hey! get your rant straight. WE are the anti-war crowd. I don't know about the others but I'm united against the extremist numptys of the anti-war spectrum that make us easy targets for ridicule and marginalization.
In your deluded world, anyone who disagrees with you is a troll who adores Steven Harper.
If what you said about a General explaining that the infantry trade is full of members is true, then the reason (as you pointed out) is the conditioning of our youth from an early age with things like plastic toy guns, plastic GI Joe army men, DVDs of Hollywood war movies and video war games like Tour of Duty, etc., that glorify war and send the message that war is honorable.
Is this war even legal from an international legal sense?
According to the U.N Charter., the Nuremberg Pinciples, the Geneva Conventions and the World Court, the Afghan War is illegal.
Is this war even legal from an international legal sense?
According to the U.N Charter., the Nuremberg Pinciples, the Geneva Conventions and the World Court, the Afghan War is illegal.
Alright! Now we're getting somewhere.
But war pigs don't care about this and consider it a minor legal technicality. Their friends in the newz media will make sure that it's not a publicized issue. And the right's political support base will never know the difference nor care about the legality of their war on terror. More brown people are dying than white in this phony war anyway. And that's a win-win scenario as far as the bigoted right is concerned.
But what if, as Daniel Ganser describes it, the initial terror event that started all of this multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded disaster capitalism in NYC on 9/11 could be shown to have been a "let it happen on purpose" or even a "made it happen on purpose" self-inflicted terror event? We know that political hawks are infamous for demonizing foreigners as "the enemy" and America's enemies, and now Canadian conservatives are doing the same in lock-step with the American right. What if the left could create an air of doubt in their supporters that the conservative right is actually not interested in defending ordinary white people from terrorism which they are responsible for fuelling in the first place? I think that the political right and their bigoted support base are actually at odds as to their beliefs and goals for society. I think that if the conservative support base could be shown that their interests are not those of the warfiteers in power who are no so bigoted as much as they are just megalomaniacal psychopaths when it comes to conning taxpayers out of billions of dollars for war and socialism for the rich - and more liberal-ascist bureaucracy to curb their civil liberties for the sake of creating a police state slowly but surely - then the worm could turn in this phony war. To be exposed as the deliberate terrorists that they have been since NATO was formed, could be a major loss of credibility for the political right and driving a divisive wedge in the middle of the support base ~ 36 percent of Americans and somewhere near the same in Canada.
If what you said about a General explaining that the infantry trade is full of members is true, then the reason (as you pointed out) is the manipulation of our youth from an early age with things like plastic toy guns, plastic GI Joe army men, DVDs of Hollywood war movies and video war games like Tour of Duty, etc., that glorify war and send the message that war is honorable.
Ask Lt.Gen. Andy Leslie if its true - he's the one who stated it. http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Canadian+infantry+full+general+says/2217716/story.html
I can understand enlisting for a career that secures one's future such as airframe or avionics tech, especially during high unemployment but this abnormal attraction to the pointy end of the stick speaks to sociologic, not economic factors at play. To me, its frightening that Canadian youth will answer such a trifling call to arms in such numbers.
Is this war even legal from an international legal sense?
According to the U.N Charter., the Nuremberg Pinciples, the Geneva Conventions and the World Court, the Afghan War is illegal.
Alright! Now we're getting somewhere.
But war pigs don't care about this and consider it a minor legal technicality. Their friends in the newz media will make sure that it's not a publicized issue. And the right's political support base will never know the difference nor care about the legality of their war on terror. More brown people are dying than white in this phony war anyway. And that's a win-win scenario as far as the bigoted right is concerned.
But what if, as Daniel Ganser describes it, the initial terror event that started all of this multi-billion dollar taxpayer funded disaster capitalism in NYC on 9/11 could be shown to have been a "let it happen on purpose" or even a "made it happen on purpose" self-inflicted terror event? We know that political hawks are infamous for demonizing foreigners as "the enemy" and America's enemies, and now Canadian conservatives are doing the same in lock-step with the American right. What if the left could create an air of doubt in their supporters that the conservative right is actually not interested in defending ordinary white people from terrorism which they are responsible for fuelling in the first place? I think that the political right and their bigoted support base are actually at odds as to their beliefs and goals for society. I think that if the conservative support base could be shown that their interests are not those of the warfiteers in power who are no so bigoted as much as they are just megalomaniacal psychopaths when it comes to conning taxpayers out of billions of dollars for war and socialism for the rich - and more liberal-ascist bureaucracy to curb their civil liberties for the sake of creating a police state slowly but surely - then the worm could turn in this phony war. To be exposed as the deliberate terrorists that they have been since NATO was formed, could be a major loss of credibility for the political right and driving a divisive wedge in the middle of the support base ~ 36 percent of Americans and somewhere near the same in Canada.
I dunno, Fidel, I think anyone who has made the effort to inform themselves is already aware of the Bilderberg potential and the rest are sheep, too simple to comprehend and too unconcerned to care.
Devolution, not revolution may naturally take care of the issue as the combination of debt and high energy costs devolve the globilization model into a more local economy model complete with a lower standard of living and less government intrusion.
New Estimate for Afghan War: $1Million Per Soldier:
http://rawstory.com/2009/11/estimate-afghan-war-1-million-soldier/
and of course we have to pay the other side as well...not to mention the obscene profits for the usual pigs. Is it worth it Canada?
58, 000 dead US soldiers in VietNam versus less than one-thousand in Afghanistan today. This is a manageable war with US and Canadian defence contractors winning big time. They, too, want to see this thing dragged out for as long as possible.
The American people don't seem to be quite as anti-war today as they were by the end of the doctor and the madman's reign of terror.
The US miitary could be there in Afghanistan and Pakistan indefinitely as long as Americans aren't protesting in the streets and in front of the Pentagon. Or as long as they need to decide to bomb the only oil-rich Muslim country not under their control, Iran.
They need pushing and prodding toward legitimate peace negotiations mediated by someone other than the Saudis and Pakistani ISI in Uncle Sam's back pocket since before 'operation Cyclone' of the late 70's and 1980's through today. There needs to be at least some aspect of legitimacy introducing to this immoral and illegal war against yet another desperately poor nation of human beings who have known nothing but foreign meddling and war and grinding poverty and basic human rights violations for the last three decades and counting.
The Ghost of Viet Nam haunts the White House Ten more years in the Stan?
Failed assassination attempt on French General:
Fresh off of yesterday's announcement that some 700 French soldiers were marching into the Tagab Valley to try to seize control over it away from the Taliban, the militants have struck.
A pair of rockets were fired against a meeting being held between a local tribal shura and French Brigadier General Marcel Druart. Gen. Druart was not hurt but at least 12 civilians were killed and another 38 wounded...
... The region is not far from the valley in which 10 French soldiers were slain last year. Not far from Kabul, the Kapisa Province remains well outside of NATO control.
http://news.antiwar.com/2009/11/16/at-least-12-afghan-civilians-killed-i...
Future Afghan govt. to include Taliban: U.K.
Talk about desperation. They've given up on beating the insurgency, so now they need to recruit it. The Afghan people will win - then they will decide whether the Taliban or anyone else will be included in the government.
Escalation of Afghanistan War: Canada Faces a Fateful Decision
General Stanley McChrystal, the head of the U.S. armed forces in Afghanistan, says more troops are needed if the invading forces are to prevail, so he is asking President Barak Obama for an additional 40,000 soldiers. Currently, there are 64,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan plus several tens of thousands of other foreign soldiers and mercenaries.
McChrystal's blunt assessment of the war was delivered in a series of extraordinary public pronouncements in early October designed to pressure the President into a sharp and rapid troop increase. Obama is purported to be weighing the matter, but the U.S. troop presence is already up 20,000 since his election one year ago. The October 13 Guardian newspaper (UK) reports that as many as 13,000 unannounced, additional troops are quietly on the way.
...
In a recent interview, Joya explained:
"The people of Afghanistan do not want more troops...
"First of all, it is the right of my people to say that. Secondly, we believe that no nation can bring liberation in another nation. Today's situation, this eight-year disaster, is a good example of what war and occupation does.
"People say that if the U.S. withdraws, there will be a civil war. My message to people who say that is that there already is a civil war, and as long as these troops are in Afghanistan, the longer the civil war will be."
Somewhere around 800-1000 people came out to hear Malalai Joya speak in Vancouver last Saturday, and I understand Victoria and Winnipeg also had good turnouts. Havn't heard anything yet on tonights turnout in Toronto.
Soldiers' blood wasted in Afghanistan, author says
"That's why we believe that Canada and other NATO countries follow the wrong policy of the U.S. They just waste their taxpayer money in Afghanistan and the blood of their soldiers," Joya said.
"My message to the great justice-loving people of Canada is that men and women, please join your hands with us, we need your educational support, humanitarian support. We need your honest helping hand. We never want occupation. Occupation (will) never bring liberation."
They must have had a crappy enough life before volunteering for the Stan to want to sign up for the Canadian military. What were their options?
As a former Cdn military member(air force) and someone who has a few relatives in the forces, may I ask what your comment really implies? Are you suggesting that their lives were so crappy that their only option in life would be to stoop so low and join our military?
While I'm quite sure there are some losers in the military like you would find at any job place, most of the men and women who have gone to Afghanistan have done so voluntarily and with pride. They love their job, their country and proud of their duties.
The Cdn forces offers plenty good jobs/trades in army, air force and navy. It isn't just all infantry, guns and tanks. So many people have the wrong impression of military life.
I'm new to rabble and don't want to cause a fuss for sure, but it would be nice to see some nice and supportive comments for our men and women in uniform.
They must have had a crappy enough life before volunteering for the Stan to want to sign up for the Canadian military. What were their options?
As a former Cdn military member(air force) and someone who has a few relatives in the forces, may I ask what your comment really implies? Are you suggesting that their lives were so crappy that their only option in life would be to stoop so low and join our military?
While I'm quite sure there are some losers in the military like you would find at any job place, most of the men and women who have gone to Afghanistan have done so voluntarily and with pride. They love their job, their country and proud of their duties.
The Cdn forces offers plenty good jobs/trades in army, air force and navy. It isn't just all infantry, guns and tanks. So many people have the wrong impression of military life.
I'm new to rabble and don't want to cause a fuss for sure, but it would be nice to see some nice and supportive comments for our men and women in uniform.
No, I realize there are many good people in the military. We have people with college diplomas, degrees and advanced degrees who have joined the military. My next door neighbor graduated with an engineering degree in the middle of a recession in the late 1980's, and after a year of searching for a decent job to no avail, he joined the military. Three recessions in three decades. That's the point I was trying to make.
And now we have military recruiters in the malls where young people hang out. This wasn't the case when I was young. Kids can flip burgers for min wage, and even work two jobs while scraping enough money together to live while studying for college or university courses, or they can join the military and have the whole shot paid for by the taxpayers. And they can access job training that just isn't happening in the battered civilian economy. For some it's not a real choice whether to choose lowly paid and lowly skilled non-unionized employment or to go to work for the government and be earning something like $50,000 within a few years with full benefits, subsidized daycare etc. When Uncle Sam needs help from the colonies to put down an insurgency in one of his frontline states, our stooges in Ottawa answer with, aye-aye right away yes sir as always.
I'm new to rabble and don't want to cause a fuss for sure, but it would be nice to see some nice and supportive comments for our men and women in uniform.
I too, am a former member of the Armed Forces. The greatest caution I can give you is don't fall for that bullshit that supporting the war is the same as supporting the troops and vice versa.
Malalai Joya's Video Message To Canada's Military Families:
http://paulsgraham.ca/index.php/2009/11/17/malalai-joyas-video-message-t...
They have nice hats, and cool sun glasses.
The red Friday rallies were just that, a useful tool for the government to equate public demonstrations in support of the troops with the war effort, just as Nov 11 observances have subtlety shifted over the years from recalling the horrors of conflict as was the theme during the cold war, to the idealism represented by the 'passing of torches' to new generations of veterans. The concept of current or recently serving soldiers being considered as veterans is relatively new, having been formulated in the late 90s, to do with the benefit structure and the veterans charter, but it also provides a dual purpose of having the current generation, and more importantly the efforts of today, seen by the public in the same noble light as yesterday's conflicts.
I'm new to rabble and don't want to cause a fuss for sure, but it would be nice to see some nice and supportive comments for our men and women in uniform.
I too, am a former member of the Armed Forces. The greatest caution I can give you is don't fall for that bullshit that supporting the war is the same as supporting the troops and vice versa.
I'll agree that someone who doesn't support the war can still love and support the troops. But sadly though, many people I talk to when talking of Afghanistan or the few websites I check from time to time end up calling our troops useless or war criminals.
The red Friday rallies were just that, a useful tool for the government to equate public demonstrations in support of the troops with the war effort, just as Nov 11 observances have subtlety shifted over the years from recalling the horrors of conflict as was the theme during the cold war, to the idealism represented by the 'passing of torches' to new generations of veterans. The concept of current or recently serving soldiers being considered as veterans is relatively new, having been formulated in the late 90s, to do with the benefit structure and the veterans charter, but it also provides a dual purpose of having the current generation, and more importantly the efforts of today, seen by the public in the same noble light as yesterday's conflicts.
Most people I know wore their red t-shirt voluntarily and supported the troops regardless of how they felt about the war.
I consider any soldier who served his mission and country to be noble. You should go to the nearest base to you and run around shoiuting baby killer with a peace patch on your jacket.
How's that thing about not wanting to make a fuss working out for you?
How's that thing about not wanting to make a fuss working out for you?
Hard to avoid after reading your comments. You could also visit the 133 dead soldiers families and tell them their sons were not noble.
The red Friday rallies were just that, a useful tool for the government to equate public demonstrations in support of the troops with the war effort, just as Nov 11 observances have subtlety shifted over the years from recalling the horrors of conflict as was the theme during the cold war, to the idealism represented by the 'passing of torches' to new generations of veterans. The concept of current or recently serving soldiers being considered as veterans is relatively new, having been formulated in the late 90s, to do with the benefit structure and the veterans charter, but it also provides a dual purpose of having the current generation, and more importantly the efforts of today, seen by the public in the same noble light as yesterday's conflicts.
I'm also a former CF member. The hypocracy of the government in its manipulation of Remembrance Day while simultaniously thwarting veterans benefits for the casualties of its adventurism is appalling.
The coverups of Afghan decisions are being breached by whistleblowers who face the full force of government in response. Watching Defense Minister Mackay lying in the House is nauseating.
This Afghanistan intervention by the Harper Conservatives is an un-Canadian attempt to graft the worst aspects of American foreign military adventurism onto the Canadian peacekeeping model.
You could also visit the 133 dead soldiers families and tell them their sons were not noble.
Dulce et Decorum est Pro Patria Mora - Lieutenant Wilfred Owen, victim of WW I (d. November 4, 1918)
War is neither glorious nor noble.
According to Wilfred Owen, war is "vile" and "obscene".
The Afghan war is illegal, immoral and unjust and the 134 Canadians who have died in Afghanistan died for no good reason, sent there by governments who knew (or should have known), and a current government that knows this is a war we cannot win.
"My own judgement... quite frankly is we are not going to ever defeat the insurgency [in Afghanistan]" - Stephen Harper in a CNN interview on March 1, 2009.
I'm not as unsympathetic to your plight as it might appear. I know only too well how difficult it can often be to recognize the truth for what it is, when ones head is wedged firmly into memes which constitute the only level of understanding imaginable. They all died for nothing, which is tragic and sad enough on its own, yet even more so when people continue to demonstrate wholesale acceptance of the monstrous lies that caused their deaths. There is nothing noble or heroic in dying for a sham cause.
It was a Liberal intervention. The current mission, or a continued intervention/occupation in one guise or another, is supported by all three mainline parties, the Liberals, Conservatives, and the NDP.
....and, at least judging by their acquiescence, the canucklehead people too
Lest We Forget in its original construct was a very anti-war statement not lets remember our fallen heroes but remember the brutality of war so that we never go to war again. People trying to flip that around to the nobility of our soldiers is absurd. Why are our soldiers who are in a foreign country noble but the Afghans trying to repel them are evil? If the American empire had not intervened in the 1980's there might still be secularists alive in Afghanistan but the west has been paying people to kill secularists there for over 20 years. Gee looky here there are only fanatics left aren't they the less than noble ones.
I get very pissed when I hear people talking about the nobility of war. There is nothing noble about war especially war that is in furtherance of empire. The only people who have no choice in war are people whose homes are invaded by imperial forces. They have a just cause in trying to repel the people invading their country. I spoke with my relatives who fought in WWII and neither my father or uncles ever tried to claim anything they did while at war was noble or they themselves where noble. They were horrified and hoped that it would never happen again. They certainly did not come back from Italy and say who shall we invade next to give them the benefit of our superior culture.
It was a Liberal intervention. The current mission, or a continued intervention/occupation in one guise or another, is supported by all three mainline parties, the Liberals, Conservatives, and the NDP.
Yeah. I'm refering to the portions of the 'mission' on the Conservatives' watch that they cannot deny taking ownership of. I am by no means a far left extremist denying reality to fit an agenda but no rational individual can deny the mounting evidence of a debacle that the leftist antiwar crowd has pointed out right from the beginning.
It is disheartening that jowly pork chops in expensive suits like Hillier and nothing too low political opportunists like Mackay can simply pooh-pooh whistleblower accusations into irrelevance by bald faced lies. The corridors of power are infested with these self-serving mutts insinuating themselves into the Canadian fabric like a giant tapeworm.
It isn't simply the parochial,suspicious villagers of the Conservative party but the whole apparatus of the political class and senior minions who keep power as an entitlement and to hell with the citizenry - except as taxation beasts of burden.
The liberals and that other Con-job party are far too brutal and obvious, with their hypocrisy having been worn to shreds through excessive use. What isn't as clear to some are NDP statements to the effect of "we don't support this mission, we have a better way." To be sure, not this mission at least, with it's inconvenient stream of ramp ceremonies and caskets lending truth to the despicable lies on every occasion. Perhaps another less costly 'mission' on the political scale for our consideration then, which is precisely another covert shell game soundly in tune with the Anglo-American-European proclivity towards assisting the troublesome 'natives' far and wide. Continental Europeans at least have learned to conduct imperialism on the cheap. Obviously, the NDP have had plenty of time to take notes.
It was a Liberal intervention. The current mission, or a continued intervention/occupation in one guise or another, is supported by all three mainline parties, the Liberals, Conservatives, and the NDP.
Oh that's a steaming pile of bullshit. The NDP voted against the Harpers more than any other party in Ottawa. And the NDP voted to oppose mission extension in Afghanistan. Liberals and Tories voted with each other to extend the immoral and illegal military occupation of Afghanistan led by their imperial masters in Warshington. Both the Liberals and Tories puckered up and kissed crazy George II's ass on the issue of sending Canada's colonial outpost troops to Afghanistan.
The NDP is the effective opposition in Ottawa as always.
Charmed as always Fidel. Tell us then, in your words, or straight out of the NDP playbook if you will, what is their idea for a better 'mission.?'
Charmed as always Fidel. Tell us then, in your words, or straight out of the NDP playbook if you will, what is their idea for a better 'mission.?'
Withdrawal of Canadian troops from Afghanistan. That play is in the NDP's platform for several years and still the same policy.
What Afghans need are transparent peace talks with UN appointed mediators, but not the phony backchannel talks that have been happening for months between the Taliban, CIA, MI6, and with Pakistani ISI and Saudis mediating. War in Afghanistan is a proxy affair since the late 1970's and 80's. Surrounding countries are deeply involved in this phony war on terror, and Canada needs to get out from under Uncle Sam's shadow where our two old line party leaders have been hiding, and use Canada's diplomatic channels to help put a stop to the senseless killing in Afghanistan where the CIA and Brits have been working with the drug barons and warlords to export massive amounts of opium for sale as hashish in Russia, and as heroin and all its derivatives in Europe, and North America for the last 20 years.
What Afghans need are transparent peace talks with UN appointed mediators, ...
No, not really. What they need is superior types not telling them what to do, and murdering them when they won't listen. Kind of basic, I think, and at the heart of international law.
What Afghans need are transparent peace talks with UN appointed mediators, ...
No, not really. What they need is superior types not telling them what to do, and murdering them when they won't listen. Kind of basic, I think, and at the heart of international law.
They need for people in the west to stop believing that this is a real war on terror when it is not. No more proxy war in Afghanistan - real peace negotiations and exit strategy with real timelines laid out for NATO . But the phony war has to be realized by everyone for what it is.
When Americans and Canadians realize that "Al-Qaeda" is not a foreign enemy but a creation of US foreign policy, the bipartisan agenda in Warshingto for waging phony war will tumble like a house of cards.
Withdraw all Canadian forces from the Afghanistan combat mission, with reasonable advance notice and in consultation with our allies. Ensure that Canada delivers on the aid and development assistance commitment made through the Afghanistan Compact.
You're either misled, or are being misleading.
Withdraw all Canadian forces from the Afghanistan combat mission, with reasonable advance notice and in consultation with our allies. Ensure that Canada delivers on the aid and development assistance commitment made through the Afghanistan Compact.
You're either misled, or are being misleading.
And what else would this mean for you as far you are able to interpret the English language wording? Are you using a secret decoder ring that no one else has?
No need for the complexity of a decoder ring to determine precisely what it means when merely half of a functioning non-partisan mind will suffice. Another mission, in a less bothersome area of the occupied territory. How else are they going to 'ensure' the delivery of aid and development assistance without the need to use armed 'provincial reconstruction teams' in the relatively chummy areas of the country?
The US military and various international aid agencies have been supplying the Taliban with everything from weapons and ammo to the more serreptitious route with allowing the Taliban to confiscate aid money from Afghan officials all the while. I don't know why you think we would need a combat force a la Paul Martin in order to deliver aid to Afghans. All aid goes to Afghans as things are now - it's just that some of it is being used to buy weapons to fight the illegal and immoral US-led military occupation. I really don't understand why you're beating around the zaney george bush like this when we could be speaking openly and freely about what's really happening in the Stan since Jean Chretien and Paul Martin got us into this US-led quagmire in the first place.
What Afghans need are transparent peace talks with UN appointed mediators, ...
No, not really. What they need is superior types not telling them what to do, and murdering them when they won't listen. Kind of basic, I think, and at the heart of international law.
If the USA's former proxies in Kabul from 1996-2001, the Taliban, are going to win anyway, even though various experts have said that neither side can win a decisive victory in Afghanistan and Pakistan, then why not hurry both sides along to this final conclusion with diplomacy and peace talks as the NDP, Tariq Ali, and the UN's various experts on Central Asian matters have advocated all along? The phony war has to be exposed for what it is and phony peace talks along backchannel lines bypassed in favour of transparent UN-mediated peace talks.
Not every opinion expressed here has to be of an anti-NDP rhetorical nature for the sake of political expediency. Our two old line parties in minority government and phony opposition must to be forced into acting as if they are a coalition in a sovereign government and to create Canadian foreign policy that is independent of our imperial master nation instructing Ottawa every step of the way.
The NDP, Tariq Ali, and the UN's experts have no business negotiating with Taliban or anyone else. The Afghan people will choose how to live once the murderers/dogooders are gone. The insurgents have shown no signs of wanting to negotiate with anyone until the foreigners leave. Sounds like a healthy approach to me. But keep right on trying.
The NDP, Tariq Ali, and the UN's experts have no business negotiating with Taliban or anyone else.
But our imperial masters and Brits have been negotiating with the Taliban and Gulby Hekmatyar on the sly for several months. Gulbuddy the acid thrower and implicated in the first World Trade Centre bombing has been offered amnesty and a role in Afghan government! So much for crazy George and company vowing never to negotitate with terrorists and their former cold war proxies, who are now accusing the US-CIA and US military of planning and orchestrating 9/11 entirely on US soil and that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraqis or even Afghans.
I wonder how ordinary Afghans feel about these illegitimate negotiations happening behind closed doors in swanky hotel rooms of Islamabad and Lahore? Or is that none of their business either?
Okay. I'm closing this for length.
Fidel and Slumberjack, you both need to dial it down. For example, Fidel's "steaming pile of bullshit" and Slumberjack's "merely half of a functioning non-partisan mind will suffice". That. Stop it.
I'm sure there will be a part 13 to this. All of us here in the babble community greatly appreciate both of your efforts to stay with the facts/opinions and leave the personal insults and incendiary language out. Thanks ever so much. You all have a great night.