The Afghan people will win - part 14

134 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
The Afghan people will win - part 14

[url=From">http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/afghan-people-wi... part 12:[/url]

Maysie wrote:
I'm sure there will be a part 13 to this.

Not with my luck.

 

Unionist

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8371766.stm]Robert Gates says Afghan donors must fight corruption[/url]

Corruption [noun] - when the money and weapons don't go to our frickin' puppets. [Source: White House lexicon]

 

Webgear
Webgear

HERAT, Afghanistan, Nov 20 (Reuters) - A suicide bomber on a motorcycle detonated his explosives in a crowded area in southwest Afghanistan on Friday, killing 17 people, including a senior police official, a provincial governor said.

Farah Province Police Chief Faqir Mohammad Askar said the target of the attack in the provincial capital Farah City was the police official, who was killed along with two of his bodyguards.

Governor of Farah, Rohul Amin told Reuters the death toll in the blast had risen to 17. Earlier, the head of the city's main hospital, said 15 people had died. Amin said 29 people were also wounded in the attack.

Unionist

From Webgear's reliefweb.int link:

Quote:
Aid organizations and their staff have been subject to increasing numbers of attacks, threats and intimidation, by both insurgent and criminal groups, as well as of other parties involved in the conflict.

Interesting euphemism for the invading armies of the most powerful countries in the history of the world - no?

Further:

Quote:

In particular, we call upon all parties of the conflict:

- To distinguish between civilians and combatants in all attacks, and ensure that all attacks are
directed at military objectives, using proportionate force.

- To take all possible steps to avoid or minimise civilian casualties and damage to civilian property
or infrastructure.

- Never to use civilians as a shield against attack.

- Never to attack humanitarian, development and medical personnel or supplies.

- Never to take hostages for any reason whatsoever.

- To conduct raids or searches of premises with proportionate force and with consideration for
Afghan culture and the safety of civilians.

- To ensure timely and adequate compensation and assistance is provided to civilians who have
suffered as a result of conflict.

- To conduct transparent investigations of incidents involving civilian casualties and ensure full
accountability.

- To ensure that no detainee or prisoner is subjected to torture, or cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment.

How come you didn't quote those parts, Webgear??

Anyway, the part you quoted proved only that the murdering armies are incapable of bringing the slightest security or peace to this long-suffering nation. I guess your point is that they should get out, now?

 

Webgear

Unionist, I am very sorry from now on I will post the complete article.

 

Unionist

Webgear wrote:

Unionist, I am very sorry from now on I will post the complete article.

 

No, Webgear, you're free to post the parts you want, and I'll do likewise. I just wanted to note that usually occupying forces are held responsible for safety and security. The blood of innocents, whether Afghans or aid workers, is on our (Canadian) hands, and those of the rest of the occupiers.

 

Unionist

Webgear wrote:

 

No, you are correct. I should have post the complete article from now on. It was rude of me not to post the full article. I will cease posting in this thread from now on.

Suit yourself.

 

Webgear

No, you are correct. I should have post the complete article, I will do as you wish from now on. It was rude of me not to post the full article. I will now cease to post in this thread.

Maysie Maysie's picture

Just to clarify, for copyright purposes, we ask that no babblers reproduce complete articles.

And Unionist, you can dial it back a bit. Webgear apologized to you, not that he had to in my opinion.

NorthReport

Gotta love Hillier's US political connections

One year to turn Afghanistan around, Hillier says
McCain predicts Obama will send 'tens of thousands' of additional troops to the war-torn country

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/afghanmission/article/729049--one-year-to-turn-afghanistan-around-hillier-says?bn=1

Frmrsldr

NorthReport wrote:

Gotta love Hillier's US political connections

One year to turn Afghanistan around, Hillier says

That quote doesn't originate from Hillier. All that pompous piece of shit is doing is parotting what Gen. Stanley McChrystal stated in his 60 page report on McChrystal's warmed over Gen. David Petraeus' (which in turn is wamed over Vietnam) counterinsurgency (COIN) doctrine.

Frmrsldr
NorthReport

Another Canadian war monger shares his thoughts:

 

Don't head for the exit

TIME AND OPPORTUNITY

What can be achieved thereby is a series of solutions overlapping in time, which would bring greater security than insecurity, and greater stability than instability, to most of the people of Afghanistan most of the time. Such an outcome would at least give the people of both Afghanistan and Pakistan time and opportunity to choose the best way for themselves, which is most assuredly not to live under the tender mercies of the Taliban.

A third exit strategy would be to announce withdrawal timetables now (or soon) before the military momentum has been shifted away from the Taliban. This would merely hasten defeat. One likely result would be that the Taliban would increase their attacks and try to create an even greater momentum toward their victory. Such a strategy would be an admission that no successful outcome is possible for the U.S. or NATO because, despite Gordon Brown's desires, no Afghanistanization of the war can be achieved until a working police and justice infrastructure is put into place. That is surely years away.

When the talk of “exit strategies” is closely examined, the real choices emerge. And they are stark. Fight this war to a successful outcome – understanding that success does not mean victory, though it must mean stability and security for most of the people of Afghanistan – or choose the pace of defeat.

War is both terrible and complex but one age-old dictum still applies. If you are attacked and you are defeated, you will pay significant consequences. The West was attacked and cannot lose the war in Afghanistan with impunity. That is an exit strategy with a high degree of risk and even more punishment in the long run.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/dont-head-for-the-exit/article1372353/

 

Fidel

And in case there are any Charleton Heston wannabe types frequenting this thread, the Taliban covet the [url=http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/09/taliban-seek-rifles-with-more-pu... armor-piercing Kalakov[/url] according to at least one weapons dealer. And back in the 1980's, bullets supplied to the mujahideen were said to have cost US taxpayers $5 dollars apiece. Of course, those were the days when every red-blooded armchair warmonger believed in evey Afghan's right to armed struggle, and to be armed to the eye teeth by the CIA and friends. At the same time, Oliver North and CIA were swinging covert deals with the Ayatollah and running drugs from Colombia in order to fund armed struggle in a tiny Central American country. And like the proxy war taking place at the same time in Afghanistan, most of the Contras were mercenaries, who were basically unemployed thugs recruited from around Latin America and paid $2000 American dollars a month to murder Nicaraguans. And very often they shot off the legs and arms of innocent bystanders, and many of them women and children,  as instructed by military officers, and some who were graduates of the infamous school of the Americas university of terror. That's when they weren't bombing schools and hospitals built by Marxists and political neutrals in Central America. The tactics in all US-CIA orchestrated dirty wars share eery similarities with tactical m.o.'s

canuquetoo

NorthReport wrote:

Another Canadian war monger shares his thoughts:

 

 

Don't head for the exit

TIME AND OPPORTUNITY

When the talk of “exit strategies” is closely examined, the real choices emerge. And they are stark. Fight this war to a successful outcome – understanding that success does not mean victory, though it must mean stability and security for most of the people of Afghanistan – or choose the pace of defeat.

War is both terrible and complex but one age-old dictum still applies. If you are attacked and you are defeated, you will pay significant consequences. The West was attacked and cannot lose the war in Afghanistan with impunity. That is an exit strategy with a high degree of risk and even more punishment in the long run.


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/dont-head-for-the-exit/article1372353/

 

In regard to exit strategies, the only one that makes any sense is to get out as quickly as possible to minimise losses - run, don't just 'head' for the exits.

What a steaming pile of canard Mr. "don't head for the exits" trowels on with the shopworn "We were attacked", so we must destroy a little country whose people don't know and don't care to know about the 'west'.

The longer 'the west' stays in Afghanistan, the more enemies they make.

Frmrsldr

Here's more of the usual bullshit:

Michel Comte wrote:

HALIFAX, Canada (AFP) - Despite fierce public pressure to end the war in Afghanistan eight years on, politicians and experts on Saturday decried calls for setting an exit date they say would embolden the Taliban.

"History shows us that if you set dates for when you're going to leave, the enemy waits until you leave," US Senator John McCain said at the Halifax International Defense Forum in easternmost Canada.

"I think benchmarks are important," he said. "But if we set a date for when we are going to withdraw, I don't want to go, if we are going to set a date so that the Taliban and others can just sit back and wait until we leave."

"The exit strategy is success," he insisted. "The exit strategy is not time-date certain."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091121/pl_afp/afghanistancanadaussummitunr...

Oliver Moore wrote:

Time is running out in Afghanistan, Canada's former top soldier warned, arguing that the next 18 months is crucial to turning around the country.

Retired general Rick Hillier said that there would be "one shot" at changing the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan.

"The surge, in my view, is fundamental here," he said Saturday. "It's absolutely essential."

His comments came at the Halifax International Security Forum, a gathering of top-level policymakers and military leaders,...

...Such a surge was heavily backed by U.S. Senator John McCain, who shared the stage with gen. Hillier and said he expects a decision as early as Friday...

... An equally gloomy take was offered by the fourth panellist, Najam Sethi, the editor-in-chief of Pakistan's Daily Times.

"I think this troop surge is too little, too late," Mr. Sethi said. "Nobody wants to be on the losing side, they all hedge their bets. And so far the Taliban is winning."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/time-running-out-in-afghanista...

NDPP

Afghan 'Contras'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/22/us-anti-taliban-militias-afg...

"US Special Forces are supporting anti-Taliban militias in at least 14 areas of Afghanistan as part of a secretive programme that experts warn cold fuel long term instability in the country.."

 

Frmrsldr

Here is the view from the L.A. Times:

Julian E. Barnes wrote:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates was in Canada on Friday as part of an effort to strengthen the alliance with a partner considered vital to the war effort.

But with the U.S. strategy still undecided, Gates was hardly in a position to ask Canada to reconsider or modify its decision to withdraw its 2,800 troops by 2011. Instead, the trip to Halifax, in the Maritime province of Nova Scotia, was billed by officials as more an effort to build goodwill over the long term.

Gates arrived in the midst of a national furor over the conduct of Canadian troops in Afghanistan. A senior Canadian diplomat has charged that the country's troops handed military prisoners over to Afghanistan's intelligence service, under which they faced a high likelihood of torture.

The outcome of the debate over those charges could help determine Canada's decision on its troops, who are concentrated in Kandahar province...

... Public sentiment in Canada has turned against the Afghanistan mission. Still, U.S. officials believe that with improvements in Kandahar and the surrounding area next year, Canada might be more open to extending its stay.

http://freedomsyndicate.com/fair0000/latimes00064.html

NDPP

Realities Collide at Halifax 'War Conference'

http://mostlywater.org/realities_collide_halifax_war_conference

[US Secretary of Defence] Gates lauded Canada as a 'major contributor' to the Afghan War..."

NDPP

Our Corrupt Occupation of Afghanistan

http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/23199

"Is it just me or is the pontification of Western leaders about corruption in Afghanistan growing rather tiresome...?"

NDPP

Obama to Announce Afghanistan Surge of Over 30,000

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/afgh-n25.shtml

"The increase sets the stage for a deepening of US military violence in Central and South America and for a confrontation with the US working class which increasingly opposes the war.."

US Headache Over Afghan Deserters

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/KK26Df01.html

"One in every four combat soldiers quit the Afghan National Army (ANA) during the year ending in September..."

Frmrsldr

Obama's troop surge to be announced December 1:

Jason Ditz wrote:

White House officials announced today that President Barack Obama will address the nation on December 1 to unveil his new Afghanistan escalation strategy, putting an end to months of speculation and allowing NATO to approve its own escalation later that week.

Though the final decision took over three months for the administration to make the announcement does not appear to be far outside the expected range of options, and the 34,000-man escalation that was reportedly favored for the past month is said to be the plan of choice.

the exact details of the announcement will not be made public for another week, but it is said to include a handful of largely artificial benchmarks [much like in Canada, I daresay] designed to make the appearance that the war is moving forward. It does not however appear that it will include any concrete timeline for withdrawal.

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/11/24/white-house-afghan-escalation-to-be-a...

NDPP

Eid Message from Mullah Omar:

http://www.ummah.net/forum/showthread.php?t=237676

"...Those who have occupied our country and taken our people as hostage, want to use the strategem of negotiations like they used the drama of elections for some time in order to achieve their colonialist objectives. The invaders do not want negotiations aimed at granting independence to Afghanistan and ending their invasion but they want negotiation which will prolong their evil process of colonization and occupation.

However the people of Afghanistan will not agree to negotiations which prolongs and legitimizes the invaders' military presence in our beloved country.

Afghanistan is our home. No one will ever be ready to negotiate with anyone else about ownership of one's own home--still more to share administration and control of the house and end up becoming homeless, powerless and a servant in one's own house.

The foreigners have occupied the land of the Afghans by dint of military might and savagery. If they want a solution of the issue, they should put an end to the occupation of Afghanistan..."

Fidel

The Taliban know all about making servants of Afghans. [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=16256]Malalai Joya[/url] said in Halifax recently:

Quote:
"They [the occupying forces] say if troops leave, the Taliban will eat us. But they are supporting the Taliban today, supporting warlords. Both of them are eating us. To fight against one enemy is easier than two. We are between two enemies [the occupiers and the extremists]," she said, urging an immediate troop withdrawal. •

It's the "war on terror drama", according to Joya. The war on terror is a fraudulent war. It's code for the war on democracy and great gamemansship. NATO is a relic of the cold war and should be disbanded.

Unionist

Well, it seems from the last two posts that both Mullah Omar and Malalai Joya (who don't like each other much) are calling for immediate troop withdrawal.

Not one single Canadian political party agrees. Some of them call for "negotiations". Others lie about withdrawal in 2011.

It is rare that one sees such a sharp and clear division of opinion between occupiers and occupied.

Canada must get out now! No negotiations - just leave!

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Well, it seems from the last two posts that both Mullah Omar and Malalai Joya (who don't like each other much) are calling for immediate troop withdrawal.

Not one single Canadian political party agrees. Some of them call for "negotiations". Others lie about withdrawal in 2011

At least one leftist, Tariq Ali, who is from one of the countries deeply involved in this protracted phony war on terror says transparent negotitations mediated by the UN are exactly what's needed. As things are now,  backchannel talks have been mediated by the Saudis and Pakistani ISI, notorious cold war allies of the CIA and US military and probably still controlling the USA's former proxies, the Taliban. Two years ago a CBC news broadcast quoted one Kandaharian as suggesting that the CIA and Paksistan's army intelligence were probably aiding and abetting the Taliban. And this same view is held by Malalai Joya today.

And to suggest that Afghans are oblivious as to what's been happening in their own country for the last 30 years would be as insanely derisive and racist as those comments made by Zbigniew Brzezinski who described the CIA's meddling in Afghanistan as having produced "a bunch of stirred up Muslims" in the 1980's.

And I must say that I find it strange to say the least that an anti-gun crusader would be beating his own drum for more war, and for more phony war at that. Observers have said that neither the Taliban nor foreign the occupiers refusing to leave can win this protracted conflict. Malalai Joya says her people hate the Taliban and that they hate the illegitimate warlord government propped-up by the USA. It matters not that either of the two bad apples wins this phony war on terror as long as the weapons are laid down and organized murder stopped. The NDP and leftwing commentators in Central Asia are correct in their appraisals of this no-win US-led quagmire in Afghanistan which Canada's so-called leaders are refusing to do anything but continue to be just another proxy army fighting for Uncle Sam.

Unionist

Fidel wrote:
And I must say that I find it strange to say the least that an anti-gun crusader would be beating his own drum for more war, and for more phony war at that.

I'm not opposed to guns, but some of your posts about the right to individual armed struggle would certainly give me pause.

As for beating the drum for more war, you're mistaken. Malalai Joya and I call for immediate withdrawal of all invaders from Afghanistan. You call for negotiations between all the different enemies of the Afghan people. That much is very clear.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Fidel wrote:
And I must say that I find it strange to say the least that an anti-gun crusader would be beating his own drum for more war, and for more phony war at that.

I'm not opposed to guns, but some of your posts about the right to individual armed struggle would certainly give me pause.

So how do you feel about the Taliban's right to armed struggle? Who do imagine is funding the Taliban's right to pursue armed struggle and maintaining a profitable pace for the military-industrial complex simultaneously?  

Quote:
As for beating the drum for more war, you're mistaken. Malalai Joya and I call for immediate withdrawal of all invaders from Afghanistan. You call for negotiations between all the different enemies of the Afghan people. That much is very clear.

But as Tariq Ali has said, Pakistan is also deeply involved in this phony war as are surrounding countries affected by the drug smuggling and weapons dealing, and with violence spilling over the borders into their countries.  The US Military and CIA have worked for years to destabilize the entire region. This is a UN matter and not to be left to the USA's "former" proxies, the Taliban, to decide the outcome some time five or ten years from now and perhaps never if the Taliban do decide to share power with their "brothers in creed", the pro-mujahideen Karzai and US-backed warlord government. If that is the eventual outcome, then all of the senseless killing by long guns and other destructive methods will have been for nothing regardless of whether of the imperialist occupiers or the theocratic feudalists seize power.

The NDP and Tarqiq Ali are arguing for UN mediated transparent negotiations to end this protracted phony war on terror. You, the self-described anti-gun crusader, are arguing for more bloodshed and senseless killing in order to achieve one of two same inevetable and bad conclusions to phony war either way. Your pro-Taliban and pro-US military way costs lives. The NDP and Tariq Ali are advocating a sane solution.

Unionist

The NDP and Tariq Ali, like you, have no business dictating "solutions" to the Afghan people - especially when your country, and his, maintain occupation forces in Afghanistan murdering the people there. I can't believe Tariq Ali doesn't stand for immediate withdrawal, without negotiations - but maybe you could find me a quote.

Our only right is to stop interfering in their country - immediately.

You're still focused on saving the Afghan people from the Taliban. But the more you try, the more credibility you will give the Taliban as the only ones fighting the invaders. Malalai Joya, whom you quote when it suits your needs, speaks clearly on behalf of her people.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

The NDP and Tariq Ali, like you, have no business dictating "solutions" to the Afghan people - especially when your country, and his, maintain occupation forces in Afghanistan murdering the people there. I can't believe Tariq Ali doesn't stand for immediate withdrawal, without negotiations - but maybe you could find me a quote.

All leftists stand for immediate troop withdrawal first and foremost. But the Taliban, the US military and NATO countries,  and you, too, apparently, are for solving things with the barrels of non-registered illegal long guns, IED's, suicide bombings, aerial drone attacks, dirty war etc

Unionist wrote:
Our only right is to stop interfering in their country - immediately.

You seem to be under the illusion that only Uncle Sam and Afghanistan are involved in this phony war.  That's not true. Other countries are deeply involved and have a responsibility to negotiate a ceasefire and to guarantee Afghanistan's sovereignty.

Unionist wrote:
You're still focused on saving the Afghan people from the Taliban. But the more you try, the more credibility you will give the Taliban as the only ones fighting the invaders. Malalai Joya, whom you quote when it suits your needs, speaks clearly on behalf of her people.

False. There are many people more interested in putting a stop to the organized murder in Afghanistan and Pakistan by dragging all countries involved into transparent, UN-mediated peace negotiations to solve this 30 year-long protracted conflict in Central Asia.

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

All leftists stand for immediate troop withdrawal first and foremost.

Excellent. Let the Canadian troops withdraw "first and foremost", and then let the negotiations begin! I owe you a bottle of champagne the day Jack Layton gets up in front of a camera and says that.

Quote:
You seem to be under the illusion that only Uncle Sam and Afghanistan are involved in this phony war. 

No, Fidel, if you listened - ever - you might have heard me call for Canada to get the hell out. That kind of implies that Canada is involved in this war. Ring any bells?

Quote:
There are many people more interested in putting a stop to the organized murder in Afghanistan and Pakistan by dragging all countries involved into transparent, UN-mediated peace negotiations to solve this 30 year-long protracted conflict in Central Asia.

Nonsense. The insurgents have stated, time and time again, that they will only negotiate with Afghans. Not foreign invaders. I fully support that call. You think the U.S. and Canada can't find the exit door without "negotiations"? All those who call for "negotiations" are desperately terrified that the puppet regime will collapse the instant the invaders leave. Which of course it will. Which of course is why they won't leave. Until they are driven out. Which will happen sooner than you think.

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Fidel wrote:
All leftists stand for immediate troop withdrawal first and foremost.

Excellent. Let the Canadian troops withdraw "first and foremost", and then let the negotiations begin! I owe you a bottle of champagne the day Jack Layton gets up in front of a camera and says that.

And there are leftists also demanding an end to the organized murder dragging on for 30 years to-date since the CIA, Saudis, and Pakistani ISI began meddling with proxy war in Afghanistan. The left is very flexible as to how to end the organzed murder and dirty war. But some of us are insisting on more bloodshed by way of phony war which expert observers have agreed is a pointless war, a deniable war and for which there is no end in sight.

Unionist wrote:
No, Fidel, if you listened - ever - you might have heard me call for Canada to get the hell out.

And good luck with that. No one seems to be listening to this noble call to end the warfiteering or the senseless killing as a result of Zbigniew and company's long phony war to setup another US military occupation in preparation for colder war encirclement of Russia, Iran, and China. The Talian are not wanted in Pakistan, and no one seems to want them in Afghanistan either except for perhaps their Pakistani ISI and Saudi masters and some other people we both know,.

Unionist wrote:
Nonsense. The insurgents have stated, time and time again, that they will only negotiate with Afghans.

You mean the Pakistani ISI and Saudi-controlled Taliban orchestrating the insurgency and to maintain "strategic depth" in Afghanistan, just to be clear.

Quote:
...Not foreign invaders. I fully support that call. You think the U.S. and Canada can't find the exit door without "negotiations"? All those who call for "negotiations" are desperately terrified that the puppet regime will collapse the instant the invaders leave. Which of course it will. Which of course is why they won't leave. Until they are driven out. Which will happen sooner than you think.

This is just another way of supporting the pro-warfiteering and pro-illicit drug export agenda of the CIA and Afghan warlords profiting by this phony war and illegal occupation of Afghanistan. Very many leftists believe that this is not a legitimate war on terror. And Malalai Joya herself describes it as the "war on terror drama" used by Uncle Sam to extend the illegal military occupation of her country. It is a phony war, and it is a deniable war on terror that now requires all countries involved to negotiate an end to their involvement in proxy war and to support and promote Afghanistan's sovereignty. The UN does have a purpose since WW II when certain countries marched into other countries and violated sovereign borders and perpetrated free for all genocides. The principals in this phony war need for the world to stand up to them but not to abandon desperately poor Afghans to gangster nations violating their sovereignty for 30 years and counting.  

Unionist

Fidel wrote:
The principals in this phony war need for the world to stand up to them but not to abandon desperately poor Afghans to gangster nations violating their sovereignty for 30 years and counting. 

This, and every single other sentence you write on the subject, is a long-winded way of opposing immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops. Opinions like yours provide the pretext that Layton needs to continue to ignore the decision of the delegates in 2006. That leaves us with no parties in parliament, not one, calling for withdrawal of the troops.

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
Fidel wrote:
The principals in this phony war need for the world to stand up to them but not to abandon desperately poor Afghans to gangster nations violating their sovereignty for 30 years and counting. 

This, and every single other sentence you write on the subject, is a long-winded way of opposing immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops.

No. True lefties are able to hold two entirely compatible opinions for both troop withdrawal and for peace negotiations, whichever comes first.

You, on the other hand, seem to be rigid in expressing an opinion of the phony war that is compatible with both the leftist view for withdrawal and for extending the protracted phony war prolonging the illegal US military occupation and using the Taliban as a ruse for doing so. There is no chance for peace and end to the organized murder while promoting what is now a 30 year-long US military involvement in Central Asia. You say that the end is in sight, but expert observers to this conflict say there can be no clear winner anytime soon.

Unionist wrote:
Opinions like yours provide the pretext that Layton needs to continue to ignore the decision of the delegates in 2006. That leaves us with no parties in parliament, not one, calling for withdrawal of the troops.

And here we have Uncle Sam's cold war ally and now courted warlord, [url=http://english.aljazeera.net/news/asia/2009/10/2009106175023363406.html]... Hekmatyar[/url] telling the world of Uncle Sam's false pretext for waging phony war:

Quote:
 Hekmatyar, who is alleged by the US to have aided Taliban and al-Qaeda fighters, said that the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were planned on US soil.

"Those who carried it out were people born in the US and Europe and they were trained there. They were not Afghans and they never got training in Afghanistan," he said.

"Everyone knows the pilot training was done in the US and the plan of the operation was hatched there."

So if no Afghans or Iraqis were involved in perpetrating 9/11, then that means the US bombing and invasion of two sovereign countries since 2001 and 2003 are illegal and violations of international law. And yet here you are condemning the NDP and Pakistani leftist Tariq Ali for suggesting a UN mediated end to the organized murder in Central Asia.

Would you have also suggested that the international community had no business intervening in Hitler's affairs when the Nazis marched into Poland uninivited? Czechoslovakia? France? Ukraine? Russia?

At what point and after how many countries Uncle Sam invades militarily would you suggest that the international community speak up about the situation in general? Or is that none of our business as far as you, and somewhere on the political left that I cannot fathom, is concerned?

kropotkin1951

Enough of the speaking for "true lefties".  Try IMO instead.

Fidel

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Enough of the speaking for "true lefties".  Try IMO instead.

Well I know for certain that I am a lefty. And I know that the NDP and Tariq Ali are on the left. I can't be certain about certain anonymous babblers however convoluted their argument is for prolonging the US-led phony war on terror. 

kropotkin1951

Pat Martin is by that definition a leftie.  So continue on speaking for the "true lefties" you non-anonymous poster.  You are posting from Havana t and are the real Fidel, right?

Unionist

Still waiting for the quote from Tariq Ali demanding that the Afghan insurgents stop wiping out the invaders long enough to "negotiate" with Mr. McChrystal.

I do believe this will be a long wait.

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Still waiting for the quote from Tariq Ali demanding that the Afghan insurgents stop wiping out the invaders long enough to "negotiate" with Mr. McChrystal.

I do believe this will be a long wait.

[url=http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/174977]Tariq Ali[/url] wrote in 2008:

Quote:
The neo-Taliban have said that they will not join any government until "the foreigners" have left their country, which raises the question of the strategic aims of the United States. Is it the case, as NATO Secretary-General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer suggested to an audience at the Brookings Institution earlier this year, that the war in Afghanistan has little to do with spreading good governance in Afghanistan or even destroying the remnants of al-Qaeda? Is it part of a master plan, as outlined by a strategist in NATO Review in the Winter of 2005, to expand the focus of NATO from the Euro-Atlantic zone, because "in the 21st century NATO must become an alliance designed to project systemic stability beyond its borders"?...Such a strategy implies a permanent military presence on the borders of both China and Iran. Given that this is unacceptable to most Pakistanis and Afghans, it will only create a state of permanent mayhem in the region, resulting in ever more violence and terror, as well as heightened support for jihadi extremism, which, in turn, will....

Ali is saying we should realize that this is not a real war on terror led by the USA and NATO but a colder war strategy for great gamesmanship in Central Asia.

The worst thing that could happen for Uncle Sam and NATO is that an end to the phony war occurs and UN-mediated exit strategy is laid out for them. The pro-Taliban and pro-USA Saudis and Pakistani ISI do not represent the international community and are therefore not legitimate mediators in the ongoing non-transparent backchannel talks occurring for the last number of months on the QT.  

Tariq Ali wrote:
"What is really required in the region is an American/NATO exit strategy from Afghanistan, which should entail a regional solution involving Pakistan, Iran, India, and Russia. These four states could guarantee a national government and massive social reconstruction in that country. No matter what, NATO and the Americans have failed abysmally"

But what would Tariq Ali know about this having been born in one of the two Asian countries directly involved in this conflict,  and having written extensively and spoken publicly about Central Asian politics for many years?

Unionist

Well, thank you for that, Fidel. If the article is authentic, Tariq Ali should retire gracefully from the scene and stop lending cover for his British hosts. I frankly don't give a shit where he was born. He is talking here like any two-bit imperialist lackey who wants all the Great Powers to rule in Afghanistan. If I'm reading him correctly, the people of Afghanistan will have as big a surprise awaiting him as they delivered to the previous set of invaders (whom you also supported, if memory serves...).

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Well, thank you for that, Fidel. If the article is authentic, Tariq Ali should retire gracefully from the scene and stop lending cover for his British hosts. I frankly don't give a shit where he was born.

So that makes two leftwing commentors with whom you disagree, or actually you say very little about, concerning why Canada's two old line parties allowed crazy George II to lead Canadians by the nose-hairs into Afghanistan.

[url=http://www.rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/noam-chomsky... Chomsky[/url] is another well known leftist who says the old line parties' reasons for occupying Afghanistan militarily are not credible. And like Tariq Ali, Chomsky also provides more plausible imperialist motives.

You said once before that Uncle Sam's proxies in Kabul from 1996 to 2001, the Taliban, would never negotiate with their Warshington or ISI puppeteers. And yet they have done just that.

 

Unionist wrote:
He is talking here like any two-bit imperialist lackey who wants all the Great Powers to rule in Afghanistan.

So what you're really saying is that you disagree with mainstream leftists as to why our stooges followed crazy George II into Afghanistan, and that this is a legitimate war on terror as far as North America's carbon copy US-Canadian bipartisan war parties are concerned, and that prominent brown people from Central Asia are the real lackies for imperialism, just like someone both you and I know but refuses to admit to being the case?

So tell us truthfully, us fake anti-war lefties that is,  have you ever felt like tap dancing across the room on spur of the moment?

Unionist

You want to debate why the U.S. and Canada invaded, in order to avoid the issue that they should simply get out. You provide cover for the right wing of the NDP that way, not to mention Harper and Ignatieff. Every single one of them has a good reason why Canada invaded and why (and in what form) it should stay. It's the culture of imperialism, and those "leftists" like Tariq Ali share that culture, when they look for Russia and India and Pakistan and China and (of course) the U.S. to rule Afghanistan.

What you all share in common is an ability to let people determine their own destiny.

And no, I have no respect for "mainstream leftists" (reminds me of "mainstream Jews" who are constantly thrown in our face on this board and wherever Israel apologists dwell). If they do not side with the self-determination of the people, there is nothing "left" about them. They will lose. They always have.

 

Unionist

Obama's desperation is destabilizing the region before he even announces his harebrained attempt at military triumph:

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8381183.stm]Pakistan's Gilani warns Obama over US Afghan troop plan[/url]

Quote:
Pakistan has warned the US that sending more soldiers to Afghanistan could endanger its southwest border region.

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
 Every single one of them has a good reason why Canada invaded and why (and in what form) it should stay. It's the culture of imperialism, and those "leftists" like Tariq Ali share that culture, when they look for Russia and India and Pakistan and China and (of course) the U.S. to rule Afghanistan.

False. It is NATO who has no business being there on the other side of the planet and destabilizing Afghanistan and surrounding countries' backyards. If you read Ali's essay, he says, in so many words:

1. The war on terror is not real, and that the imperialists have other motives for occupying Afghanistan(ditto for Chomsky and Malalai Joya, and, of course, myself as well as the NDP)

2. Tariq Ali, like Canada's federal NDP advocates, says that all of the countries involved in this proxy war need to participate in peace talks and hammer out an exit strategy for NATO.

Unionist wrote:
What you all share in common is an ability to let people determine their own destiny.

And is that so terrible?

There needs to at least be the same transparency that existed during the Paris peace talks between the NVA and the doctor and the madman's regime. The world as well as ordinary Afghans need to be informed as to what the sticking points are in the current illegitimate negotiations happening between the Taliban and US-led NATO occupiers and with Saudis and Pakistani ISI/CIA mediating phony peace talks - the same backchannel negotiations which you said would never take place. And apparently they were never supposed to take place, because you took offense to the notion that this is anything but a legitimate US war on US-orchestrated terror in Central Asia, or whatever.

Unionist wrote:
And no, I have no respect for "mainstream leftists" (reminds me of "mainstream Jews" who are constantly thrown in our face on this board and wherever Israel apologists dwell). If they do not side with the self-determination of the people, there is nothing "left" about them. They will lose. They always have.

And coindidentally, there are hawks in the US and their rigthwing supporters protesting the very idea that the 9/11 "masterminds" will be given a chance to defend themselves in a kangaroo trial in NYC. Right-rightists say a legitimate trial to convict those already presumed guilty by virtue of confessions tortured out of them,  will allow those presumed guilty to use the trial as a platform to express their radical views. And apparently the alleged masterminds are expected to state the reasons for their alleged terrorist actions as a response to US-backed oppression in the West Bank and Gaza. This, some leftists say, can't be allowed to happen when mainstream newz media have effectively maintained a pro-US and pro-Israeli bias to-date. 

Similarly, the US military and NATO desire that no public discussion takes place as to the reasons for phony war in Afghanistan. As all of Tariq Ali, Malalai Joya, RAWA,  Chomsky, and the NDP have stated, the imperialists have other unstated motives for occupying Afghanistan and Iraq militarily. The US military wants to avoid similar embarrassment that occurred as a result of  transparent peace talks with the North Vietnamese during that illegal war. It is a phony war on terror, but at the same time, US war hawks and NATO allies don't want any more people figuring this out than already have.

Fidel

They're all the same bipartisan crazy George O'bomba in a country where the economy is based largely on war and generating false pretexts to maintain a perpetual state of war.

NDPP

Europe Backs Afghanistan Strategy Aimed at 'Regionalization'

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/nov2009/pers-n27.shtml

"The new strategy of 'regionalization' is aimed at dividing Afghanistan into individual cantons-in a similar manner to what took place in Lebanon and the former Yugoslavia..."

kropotkin1951

Oh my god, imperial powers promoting a divide and conquer strategy.  I am now officially shocked.

canuquetoo

With or without the US and its stooges, the "Afghan people will win" nothing. The notion is nothing more than emotional drivel. Russia, China and India all stand to replace the US as dictator du jure should the ancien regime falter while Iran and Pakistan actively destabilise any attempt at a functioning nation.

Until Afghanistan can put its past behind and cultivate its entrepreneurial spirit free of the violence inspired by myriad indiginous factions fighting to profit from chaos," the Afghan people will win" nothing.

 

canuquetoo

 

China Wants the Spoils, Not the War

Newsweek

By Melinda Liu

War requires both blood and treasure, and in Afghanistan, Beijing has invested plenty of the latter without risking any of the former. It's been betting big on the war-torn state, and in 2007 it made the largest investment in Afghan history: a $3 billion deal by China Metallurgical to develop the world's largest untapped copper reserves at Aynak. That, coupled with avid Chinese interest in Afghanistan's oil, gas, iron, and uranium, has prompted Western complaints that Beijing is "free-riding" on NATO military efforts to stabilize the country. So far, Beijing has provided the allies little more than mine-clearing expertise and refuses to put soldiers under NATO control. Now, with the European effort to train Afghan police plagued by problems, experts argue that China should step in. Washington is upping the pressure, too. During his visit last week, President Obama got China to agree to cooperate on ensuring that neither Afghanistan nor Pakistan is used as a terrorist base. And Jon Huntsman, the U.S. ambassador to China, says Washington is discussing possible intelligence cooperation with the Chinese. Still, they're not likely to offer much more. Beijing considers Afghanistan a quagmire and worries that troop casualties could inflame antiwar sentiment at home--especially since a third of its soldiers are single children, because of family-planning controls. And Washington, already in China's debt, is poorly placed to convince Beijing otherwise.

canuquetoo

Unionist wrote:
Entrepeneurial spirit. LOL!

Haste makes waste. LOL

Pages

Topic locked