The Afghan people are winning - part 8

But they didn't, because they didn't have any such information.

I couldnt agree more that it is none of our business. In a perfect world, democracy would reign supreme, and 40 some odd countries would not be occupying Afghanistan militarily. Unfortunately that is not the current reality and never has been. And I'm sure Jack Layton understands this as well.

Actual world scenario:

Whether you believe it or not, Iggy and Harper will do whatever Uncle Sam tells them to. It's what they do. It's their designated colonial administrative duty, and these kinds of menial tasks assigned to the them by Washington are their unwritten obligations. With the Tory and Liberal agenda reigning supreme in Ottawa, Canadians can expect more of their sons and daughters returned home to them in plastic bags from Afghanistan. Murder is the ultimate expression of insanity. Achieving peace is more difficult than most people know. 

It doesnt matter what I think. Realistically speaking I have zero ability to stop the epic tragedy still unfolding in Afghanistan 31 years after the CIA bgan meddling in Afghanistan. Afghanistan: A Forgotten Chapter Warning: Not a pro-USSA point of view

We could pullout of Afghanistan, as the NDP has proposed since protesting Paul Martin's vicious toadying for switching Canada's role from that of peacekeepers to one of US-style combatants by 2006. Yanquis imperialists would still be there along with about 38 other countries' militaries. I'm not so naive as to think that peace or prosperity will visit Afghanistan soon. Ordinary people in Afghanistan are not winning after 31 years of US meddling in that country and counting.

Awwwwe... Jingles you broke the pact.

Yes, cover the kids eyes and ears. This thread is X rated for relentless supporters of Canada's two old line parties and vicious toadies of the empire.

The red print is the link it is not bolding

And they still have no such information. Apparently as far as international law goes, it's too late now to press that point with Washington and NATO. Theyve since received a nod from UN to be there.

But if we are trying to convince ordinary people and voters alike as to what's gone wrong in Afghanistan and why they shouldnt support Ottawa's Liberal-Tory war coalition, then I think the soft underbelly for Ottawa's vicious toadying is probably to ask self-annointed experts and the undecideds Why is Canada's military in Afghanistan? Youll likely receive a wide range of answers and wild guesses. Because if they can't explain why, and their fearless political leaders can't tell them either, then the snakes should start turning on one another at some point.

That's not what she said. She said:

So, now it's Canada's responsibility punish rapists. I see. How does she propose to do this? "Canada can do much better", she says, but doesn't bother saying what that better would be. Is she leaving it up to our US-trained Generals to figure it out? Maybe the women-friendly Harper government can get Jason Kenney working on a plan.

She sounds like Fidel: occupation if necessary, but not necessarily occupation.

She doen't like all the nasty killing and stuff, but still sees a role for Canada. Should we send in the RCMP? They can taser Dostrum. Or they can drive the Taliban to the outskirts of Kabul and make them walk back. Or they can provide explosives and agent provocateurs to goad some young guys into plotting an attack......wait a minute...

Attack Antonia eh?

Not going down that patriarchial road with you.

 Whatever the NDP says is wrong according to our non-partisan partisans.

 Canada should get the hell out of their country immediately if not sooner. We've done quite enough there already thank you very much. These 'solutions' imposed by outsiders have brought nothing but harm. Canada's role in Afghanistan is to invade, occupy and destroy and aside from a few disgusting social work photo ops, what they bring for the Afghan people - women, children and men, is bombs and bullets. If you wish to help the women and people of Afghanistan, make your part of their war go back where it came from.

Several thousand Taliban are on the verge of victory over the 40 nation military alliance, and NATO's surrender is imminent. No diplomacy needed just more blood and gore and solid as jello combative comments. Pass the body bags, and let's skewer Jack Layton some more, that peacemongering commie leading the effective opposition to the Harper lap poodles and those other warmongering plutocrats propping them up.

I don't quite follow how the first sentence which I quite like connects to the rest. By the time I reached Layton and "effective opposition" I was quite lost I must confess.

I'm trying to understand it myself. Just remember, this is all Jack Layton's fault. It's easier that way.

The NDP hasn't proposed anything of the sort.  Except for Dawn Black's earlier musings about moving the road show on to Darfur, which doesn't make it party policy btw, what we've actually been witnessing is a shell game where the object is to uncover the word 'mission'  after it's been spun around in front of our eyes.  Chances are we wouldn't find the word under the shell called Khandahar, but certainly under another.  Yes indeed, the current mission would have ended under an NDP government, to be replaced by another more 'constructive' mission somewhere else in Afghanistan.  No official statement that I'm aware of calls for the complete withdrawal from that country.  Not lost on anyone adept at how shell games operate is the realization that any mission in that country collaborates with a foreign occupying force.  Collaboration under another guise remains the essence of NDP policy regarding Afghanistan.

Fidel, you are trolling. 

Stay out of this thread.

I don't think he was being patriarchal or attacking Antonia. He was taking issue with some of her statements - which imply that she wants Canada (and others) intervening in Afghanistan, telling them what laws to have, how to train their police, etc, etc, etc.  What Canada needs to do is get out, not change our mission to some other type of control over the Afghans. 

And btw, I really don't think we are the country that can speak with any authority on how to adequately handle rapists.

When did we start putting women in jail because they were raped Ghislaine?

We don't. But read an Amnesty report about how many countries on this planet do that - or worse such as stoning them to death for it. That is for those countries to figure out. We cannot go intervene in every single country that treats women like garbage and impose our values on them. I wholeheartedly agree that we are lucky to be women in Canada. However, I do not support continued intervention in Afghanistan as a rich Western country telling them how to run their country.

What do you not get about Canada is supporting the government  in Afghanistan doing this, plus implimenting other anti-women bills. And it is shameful. So yes we need to get the hell out, but we also owe Afghans much. How to do  all of this is still the question, attcking someone who is at least trying to speak about is not the answer.

Y

I'm a member of the Zerbiasis fan page on Facebook. She has been courageous and outspoken on many important issues. She's not afraid of the MSM establishment. I admire her for that. This particular column of hers properly condemns the occupation. It exposes some of the lies about the alleged improvement of women's condition under the heavy hand of the invaders and their warlord puppets. If she had just left out her last couple paras where she says what Afghans "need", it would not have been a bad piece - and I agree with Jingles and Ghislaine from that perspective.

It's a reminder that even very progressive people, indeed all of us, have to be careful about telling other nations how they should be running their affairs. We should be especially careful when our own troops are occupying and murdering them. But it doesn't put Zerbisias on the other side of the fence. Her article is light years ahead of the trash coming out of a certain political party in recent months. She is just the kind of ally we need in the MSM, speaking out against the occupation - we need more like her.

remind, I absoluely get that Canada is supporting the government there and that is why I am saying we have to get out immediately - not in 2011. That is what we owe Afghanistan.

I was not attacking you, just stating my opinion that I don't support meddling in the Afghanis country any more or trying to tell them how to run out. We need to leave right away and not try and linger by imposing Western values on them. It is their country to run.  

I was talking about attacking Zerbiasis

ok, well i did not see jingles or myself attacking her. I saw some people taking issue with a couple of her statements, while agreeing with her about ending the occupation. As unionist pointed out, most of her post is excellent.

When the U.N. gave the green light for the U.S.A.'s and NATO's war in Afghanistan, which was handed to the U.N. as a post de facto fait accompli, the U.N. contravened its own Charter concerning the declaration and prosecution of an (illegal) aggressive war by other (subordinate) parties.

But then the U.S.A. always gets what it wants anyway by simply ignoring the U.N. and international laws and treaties it is party to. Something about being a Superpower and not being subject to international organizations, laws and treaties like everyone else.

C'mon Maysie, our friend Fidel is not trolling. He is honing his skills in the fine art of sarcasm. No need to kick him out of this public swimming pool of ideas and debate.

Afghan Presidential Candidate: The US Occupation Must End

http://www.alternet.org/world/141504/afghan-presidential-candidate%3A_th...

"the past 8 years have done more harm than good to women's rights in Afghanistan -- the US is waging a war not winning a peace.."

Please tell Jingles to stop trolling in kind, thank you very much.

This is not my position nor is it remind's on the US-led NATO military occupation of Afghanistan involving approximately 40 countries and Canada. If he persists with this antagonism and straightforward lie, then I think I should be able to defend myself with similar bullying tactics in kind at the very least if scales and balance are absent. And he knows full well which parties' MP's voted against extending Canada's military occupation of Afghanistan and which two old line parties voted in unison for it. That's not trolling -  it's stating the truth, which I am under the impression is generally encouraged on this progressive forum.

What Jack sez:

A "surge" (escalation, for those of us in the real world) in troop levels is always accompanied by massive increases in atrocity. Does Layton thin Fallujah was a success in that sense? He must, since the same bloodthirsty storm troopers of white supremecy, the US Marines, whom laid waste to everything living in the city of Mosques, are now part of the escalation.

Oh boy. Iran will be invited. How nice of Ms. Clinton to invite the people who live there to a conference on what kind of damage NATO will do to their countries. What a fucking asshole.

Spoken like a true Clintonista.

Now, this is the quote that I want Fidel to read. Nowhere does Layton seem to understand that even if it were true that Canadian troops will leave in 2011 (they won't), there would still be thousands of American einzatzgruppens all over the country, carrying out their Phoenix programs without interruption. So, Layton's dreamy role of a "eminent person" to show the savages the ways of the Lord demonstrates that either he's a Obomber wannabe con man, or completely off his bloody nut. Nowhere does he seem to recognize that we have no business being their, either in uniform or in Wilsonian top hat and tails, dining with the "moderate" insurgents to get them to play along. He seems completely oblivious to the naked colonial attitude reflected in his and the NDP's position. Jack better get his head out his ass.

I know what you'll say. You'll accuse me of being an apologist for the "two old line parties". Whatever. It isn't about them. We already know Ignasty and Harper are fascists. We can't change that. But the NDP are supposed to be the alternative to the Capitalists. Layton demonstrates time and again that he has very little quarrel with those two when it comes to the important stuff.

I have a suggestion for a campaign slogan for any one of the three. "It's not personal, you understand. It's just business"

Afghanistan Tells Journos: No Election Criticism

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/afghanistan-tells-journos-no-cri...

"In advance of my trip here, I recieved a copy of the Afghan election commission's 'code of conduct', to be signed by journalists who want to be accredited to cover the upcoming vote. It's a pretty interesting read. Among other things, journalists are to 'avoid printing, broadcasting and publishing of scandalous advertisements and disgrace reports about [a] candidate's personality or behaviour which could effect the election results."

I'm beginning to think you arent so much an anti-war advocate as you are just plain old anti-NDP. Jack and the NDP and Blocquistas voted against the two old line parties and against extending Canada's military occupation of Afghanistan. The NDP and Bloc's anti-war stance was defeated, and the troops are there until at least 2011. You are blaming Jack Layton for that, and so I think you are not serious. 

Why arent you attaempting to place equal dubious blame on the Bloc for having been unable to stop Canada's military extension in Afghanistan? Because by the same logic, you must think of them as traitors for voting against extending the mission and for not giving the Harper-Liberal coalition their pro-war votes of confidence.

A UN mediated peace process is clearly what's needed in Afghanistan. Warlords in political opposition to Karzai have stated this is what's needed. UN officials have said so, And surrounding countries affected by an increase violence due to weapons and drugs smuggling from Afghanistan are saying peace talks are needed to end the war and related violence. And Jack Layton and the NDP are now appealing to everyone involved for peace talks to happen.

But people like you and General McChrystal, otoh, arent talking peace negotiations at all by what I can tell. US  Mil. General McChrystal wants Obama to send even more US troops to Afghanistan and even more money for training and arming Afghan security forces. Tens of thousands more US troops. Are we to assume that this is Jingles' position, too?

Of course, like McChrystal and warhawks and some other people we're familiar with, the handful few Taliban ideologues will not desire peace talks or involving other countries' leaders in such diplomacy. The main principals calling the  shots in this war will not want their own power to wage war taken from them with offers of compromise and power sharing made to other Taliban warlords in the region. Iran will be courted by US warhawks to provide a land and air route for supplying NATO's counterinsurgency. The US military will lose its main supply routes through Pakistan if the Pakistani army is unable to stop the Taliban in Swat Valley. The US is becoming more powerless with having to cede some control for supplying this war to Russia and Stani nations, Iran etc. Eventually, security for the region should be handed over to SCO countries anyway - it's their backyard not ours and especially not "North Atlantic" Treaty Org's responsibility. Iran is one of those nations sharing a border with Afghanistan and therefore desires to quell the export of militant Islam to their country as do China, Russia, India etc.

On the other side of the equation is Pakistan. Their military leaders are saying they can't afford to allocate any more of their half million man army to Swat valley and border region for a long list of flimsy reasons. The real reasons are unclear, except that the Pakistani ISI probably still controls the Taliban and still desires "strategic depth" in Afghanistan for purposes of geostrategic advantage over India and their border conflict in Kashmir. My guess is that Pakistan's ISI and the US CIA are still collaborating behind the scenes to keep the war going for their ulterior motives and to maintain US military presence in Central Asia under the false pretense of waging a war on terror. In fact, it's a war of terror and colder war manouvering. The main principals in this phony war necessarily need giving the bum's rush to the exit door with drums for peace negotiations beating louder and louder by the day.

"For the military, aid is part of its counterinsurgency operations. "It's a useful counterinsurgency tool," is how Liutenant-Colonel Tom Doucette, commander of Canada's provincial reconstruction team, described CIDA's work. Development assistance, for instance, was sometimes given to communities in exchange for information on combatants. Reconstruction aid was an important part of what the Canadian army called "three block war". "Our military could be engaged in combat against well-armed militia in one city block, stabilization operations in the next block and humanitarian relief and reconstruction two blocks over," explained the Paul Martin government's 2005 International Policy Statement." Yves Engler Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy, Page 153 Afghanistan

and from the sublime to the...not so sublime..

http://www.ndp.ca/press/canadas-next-steps-in-afghanistan

"our skills and reputation as a peace maker"....really?  Mendacious muck and gobbledygook this

So it appears NDPP doesnt support diplomacy or peace negotiations.

not if these are simply alternative attempts by which the  Predator seeks objectives unattainable by military means or as Ward Churchill characterized negotiations with western 'Crusaders', like being "locked in a room with the sociocultural equivalent of Hannibal Lector."

Fidel.  A moderator told you to stay out of the thread.  You clearly read that and understood, but chose to blow it off.  I'm suspending your account for a time to be determined after consultation.

Not on my behalf I hope oldgoat. On what basis is someone ejected like this? Seems counterproductive especially to one of your more enthusiastic contributor/participants. Why not try some diplomacy or peace negotiations first?

Engaging in a little sarcasm shouldn't get you suspended.

It was on neither of your behalf, and has been involving countless threads in a process which predates both of you.  If you're told to stay out of a thread you stay out of the thread.

Something to remember when we hear nice liberal humanitarian neofeminist interventionists talk of "negotiations" or "diplomacy" with the "moderate insurgents": they aren't in any way serious.

When they say "negotiations", what they mean is "unconditional surrender". When the say "diplomacy", the mean "accept the presence of foreign troops on your soil, and foreign corporations plundering your resources". If they were honest, all the nice liberals would admit that what their diplomatic solution model for Afghanistan is identical to the diplomatic solution to the "Indian Problem" in the Americas: surrender and move to reservations.

Can anyone seriously imagine a scenario where NATO, or the UN, or the special envoys and esteemed white persons will agree to remove all foreign troops from Afghanistan? Not a chance. Since the only leverage they have is overwhelming, indiscriminate force, removing that threat means removing any reason to be there.

Thanks for that link, NDPP.

This is a very interesting interview, and everyone should read it.

The title, however, is inaccurate: Candidate Bashardost does not say "the US occupation must end."

He had a chance to say so here, but he didn't:

He had another chance to say it here, but didn't:

He had a third chance to say it here, but instead talked about how the US has a role to play in deciding Afghanistan's future:

Thanks for the deconstruction, M. Spector. It shows how impressions get created without being founded in reality - and the danger in reading headlines.

The logic of murderers is compelling:

125 extra UK troops set for Afghanistan

The humorously-named Labour Secretary of "Defence", Bob Ainsworth, explained:

... so we're sending more sacrifices.

Wow his thread is embarassing. I don't think we should be in Afghanistan and I pray for the day we westerners will smarten up and leave them alone but this thread seems more about a couple of people trying to piss each other off with rude and sarcastic comments than worrying about the people in Afghanistan.

You say the Afghan people are still winning? Try telling that to the parents of that young girl who was just shot by a Canadian soldier.

And this is part #8? I hope there isn't a part 9.

Welcome to babble, SparkyOne. It's always nice to be lectured to by someone on their very first day on the board. Is it part of a series? Where can I sign up?

Hi Unionist, thank you!

You have to admit this thread doesn't seem about us destroying Afghanistan as much as it seems to be about you and Fidel, no offense!

I haven't considered making a serious but I could blog about it, you would join right?

I'm just tired of hearing about Afghans dying and Canadians dying and people trying to justify it somehow. I don't like my tax dollars buying bullets that shoot little girls.

Insurgent attacks increasing all over Afghanistan

QUOTE OF THE DAY:

And then this gem:

What would the maximum force have been - a tactical nuclear device?

Source.

PTSD perhaps?

Didn't he shoot his friend inside the base? Where the only people who have guns are the soldiers?

It sounds like he fired his weapon by accident and is trying to cover up.

PTSD does not afford rational thought time, it is immediate response which is at work.

Now we know what the people of Afghanistan have had to deal with...

Yup!

I think the CF have been told to start preparing public opinion for extending the "mission" past 2011. Here's why:

Break no longer needed after Afghan mission: general

What liars this officer corps are - spouting whatever script Harper writes and pretending it's their own "military" opinion.

This is 100% bullshit for a number of reasons:

1. The Afghans can build IEDs that can defeat our Leoppard tanks. Canada deploys 'em, the insurgents destroy 'em.

2. $5 million and cool army toys for our officer class to play with aren't going to magically reduce the rates of PTSD and suicide in the Canadian military.

As for that Gutfeld moron, my suggestion is: Take a look at how soldiers are forced to do 3 or more tours consecutively and then take a look the rate of PTSD, domestic and criminal violence and suicide within the U.S. military and military families, and then flap your gums in public on this subject.

Malalai Joya:

I think we can all agree that Canada, the U.S., all NATO and ISAF countries should leave Afghanistan now. What bothers me though, about walking away physically is that we are also walking away morally - from Afghanistan. American, Canadian and Western European society collectively bear moral resposibility for what is happening in Afghanistan starting with the Soviet Afghan war in 1979 and the war and violence that has continued to the present. At the very least, we should stop the war immediately. Withdraw all troops. Apologize to the Afghan people. Then promise to rebuild what we have destroyed and try to heal as many physical and emotional wounds we have caused the Afghan people. Rather than our telling, we need to seek Afghans telling us how we can reverse the harm we have done.

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/07/16/the-afghanistan-industry.html

Operation in Afghanistan Rooted in Israel: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23128.htm

"The real reason why the U.S. continues its presence in Afghanistan is Iran, the country which is an annoyance for Israel, said Karen Kwiatkowski, a writer and former US Air Force officer."

Whatever that means.

I'm not impressed by reading one article by one Afghan intellectual in the Guardian, Frmrsldr. We should leave. Of course we should pay reparations. But that's not what you appear to be suggesting. We have no business shooting and bombing the Afghan people into submission to our way of life. Neither are we allowed to do so with "reconstruction" dollars.

France 24 Documentay: Embedded with the Taliban

Thanks Cueball - excellent pieces!

I defy anyone to understand this story:

Arrest after Polish Afghan death

Keep reading.

Unionist that article of frmsldr's was from RAWA, not the Guardian!

You and I are in agreement on this. I am not making the argument that we should impose reconstruction and redevelopment and then use it to justify continuing our troop presence in Afghanistan - upon the Afghan people.

The way we are acting is like children: We "play" with whatever "toys" attract our attention for the moment. When we abuse and destroy these toys, we discard them without further thought (remorse) and turn our attention to other toys (such as Colombia, Venezuela, Sudan, Somalia, Niger or Iran or...?).

I will accept the concept of "reparations" provided it is moral based rather than legal based and it is directed by the Afghan people rather than us.

We are opposed to this:

Link

Increasing security for us and increasing (what we see as) "humanitarian aid" means increasing insecurity and increasing death for Afghans.

We are descending like black angels of death upon Afghanistan.

Maybe the title of the next thread on this topic does need to be modified somewhat, as no one is winning anything here, except maybe the defense contractors.
 
Seven bombers killed as Taliban switch tactics with attack in east
 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/taliban-afghanistan-khost-attack

The article was posted on the RAWA website, but it originally appeared in The Guardian, as noted at the top of the page.

Velvet Revolution or Lesser Shades of Black?

http://arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2009/07/velvet-revolution-or-lesser-s...

"Some speak of a 'velvet revolution' in Iran, while I see nothing but Red Blood. Velvet, Silk, or Satin, or maybe just Black Polyester, it doesn't really matter what you call it - the fact remains that thousands of Iranians have had it with the rule of the Ayatollahs.."

Unionist, this page is for you,

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/07/25/afghan-woman-mp-lists-enemies...

It was from the Guardian.

Report: US commanders 'incompetent' over nine soldiers killed in Afghan battle of Wanat

misposted and removed to Iran thread

Maybe it is. But I took a look through one of the lists of the detained and those killed, and I noticed that by and large they were of the "professional" class, and or students... that said, you should get some sleep, this is a thread about Afghanistan, not Iran... 

oops so sorry....as you say zzzz

Never underestimate the resourcefulness of the Afghans

http://nytimes.com/2009/07/26/world/asia/26marines.html?pagewanted=1&_r=...

Germany Is Dragged Into the War in Afghanistan Against the Will of the People

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_56413.shtml

"We are fighting a national, anti-Western insurgency in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is of geostrategic importance because it is a place from which one can monitor Russia, India, Pakistan and China. The country is also phenomenally well situated in terms of the politics of natural resources. In fact, the Americans want to build a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan...

But the international organizations are far more corrupt. Western companies are raking in profits of 400, 600 and sometimes 1,000 percent there. Only a fraction of the money passes through the Afghan government, while the rest ends up in private hands. In Kabul a Western company submitted a bill for $10 million for a 1.5 kilometer metal fence around the Zarnegar Park. Karzai had the matter investigated and it turned out that this fence was worth no more than $70,000. This doesn't  exactly strengthen the Afghan's trust in Western development aid..

Were it not for the spiraling unemployment they have created, they wouldn't have the soldiers to fight their wars. They will not stop until they are stopped - and only the people, organized can stop them.."

It's sad that Canadian soldiers actually want to go to Afghanistan. I'm afraid of who they will turn around and try to fight once Canadian soldiers get pulled out!

That's the result of social conditioning from early childhood. The impression that (the majority) of Canadian soldiers want to go to Afghanistan itself is "spin". That's the story the government and the military want to tell and want you to believe. The corporate owned media lap this stuff up right out of their hands. In Canada, the military dissuades, threatens and intimidates any soldier or their family that is publicly critical of the war. The fact that PTSD, alcoholism, licit and illicit drug abuse, domestic and criminal violence and suicide have skyrocketed in the military and within military families since 2002, tells another story.

The only soldiers who can be said to willingly go to Afghanistan are Army Reservists because they can choose: That is, if you discount the pro war indoctrination and pressure they are subjected to.

For the Reg(ular) Forces, when you sign your induction papers - you are signing a legal document that literally puts the power of making decisions over your physical and emotional health and over your life and death to anyone who is your "superior" (which, when you first get in is everyone) in your chain of command.

No one knows for certain how they are going to react to war - until they get there. Consequently, not many people know how popular or unpopular Afghanistan is among Canadian soldiers. Canadian soldiers, like our American counterparts, need the Courage to Resist.

"I don't feel like satan, but I am to them".

The German Offensive in Afghanistan

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jul2009/pers-j27.shtml

"The German Army has dramatically intensified its intervention in Afghanistan in the past few days. For the first time since Hitler's troops laid waste to large parts of Europe, the German army is again conducting major military operations against "rebellious elements." According to press reports, the 21-cm Morser 18 was one of the main weapons used by Hitler's Wermacht on all of the fronts of the Second World War. Now the same weapon in its modern form is being used once again to rain destruction upon the enemy. The decision for the latest deployment was not made by the German parliament, but rather by the Army High Command itself.."

Afghanistan: Training Ground for War on Russia

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14538

"Nato trains Finland, Sweden for conflict with Russia.."

Oh, that's great. Just like Germany did (wrt) Finland in World War II.

Long thread - feel free to start part 9!