The Afghan people will win - part 15

109 posts / 0 new
Last post
Unionist
The Afghan people will win - part 15

[url=http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2009-11/29/content_12559281.htm][... inmates escape in W Afghanistan[/color][/url]

Quote:
Over a dozen inmates escaped from prison in Farah province west of Afghanistan, provincial police chief Faqir Mohammad Askar said Sunday. [...]

    Two of the escapees were Taliban fighters while the remaining were criminals prisoners, he further said.

    It is the second case of jail break out over the past couple of months. Previously 11 detainees escaped a jail from northern Balkh province.

Unionist

Typical lying headline:

[url=Canada">http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-wont-extend-afghan-m... won't extend Afghan mission, Harper says[/url]

Quote:
Mr. Harper said Canada is preparing to boost the civilian-heavy development and reconstruction program for Afghanistan, a measure that could require more soldiers to defend even after 2011. Some military analysts have predicted this could require 500 to 800 troops to stay behind.

remind remind's picture
Fidel

I can see it all now. The NDP will be all over this old line party pro-USA lie for 2011 withdrawal. And Afghan sovereignty will continue to be just a vicious rumour.

Slumberjack

What my crystal ball tells me, along with the tea leaves of their own policy, is that they won't have a leg to stand when it comes to being all over anything in this regard, since their own policy would closely resemble the so called 'civilian' heavy development charade of the government.

Fidel

And 79 confidence votes later... I'm sure NDP campaigners will be able to dig up some strategic sound bytes and quotable quotes from either wing of the exact same Bay Street Party of vicious pro-USA toadies and war pigs on the far right and "pragmatic" centre-right.

Unionist

I'm not sure why I found [url=this">http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hStbTnhs-SM... to be hilarious[/url], but I did:

Quote:

"One of the areas where we need to do better work is understanding Kandahar city," said Lt. Col. Carl Turenne, commanding officer of the Kandahar Provincial Reconstruction Team.

"I am already refocusing to make sure we get much more out of the city."

Just arrived in Kandahar, have we, Lt. Col.?

Laughing

Diogenes Diogenes's picture

With all due respect to Unionist, canuquetoo, Frmrsldr and even Fidel; have any of you noticed how often you are in violent agreement with each other?

Part 12 of this series logged 133 messages in the span of 9 days, but much of the activity had to do with the art of the insult.  There is not one mention of Richard Colvin in part 12, even though the issue is, uh, rather germane to the topic at hand?

Maysie closed off Part 12 with this comment (in part):

Maysie wrote:

I'd like to suggest that as we move into the 14th possible thread on this issue, that we really think about what the purpose is for all these threads. Given, you know, the title of these series of threads.

The title of the thread is the headline and, IMHO, the most important part of starting a new thread.  Choosing the correct title makes a big difference in the readership that you attract.

What I am saying is "The Afghan people will win - Part 1/0" is going to attract a pretty narrow audience

Not that there is anything wrong with that. I mean maybe you guys are entitled to have your own bar fights, like the Irish do, if it helps you get along better with each other on the stuff that really matters.

My point here (and I really do have one) is that I'm in agreement with your thread title, but I hope it is the last in the series. I promise not to post here anymore because I'm shifting my attention to Canada and Afghanistan - Part 15.  This title is an improvement, but my first post there will be an appeal to Webgear to appeal to a moderator to change the title once again.

Cheers, my learned friends.

Unionist

Diogenes, hear me out.

These threads have been going on for a very long time in "International News and Politics". The intended subject matter was news about the developments in Afghanistan and how the invaders are losing, in particular.

Canadian politics surrounding the Afghan "mission" properly belong in National News or Canadian Politics, and there have indeed been many such threads also.

Unfortunately, the "Afghan people are winning" threads have occasionally been hijacked by: 1) those who think the Taliban our "our" enemy, and must say so at every opportunity; or 2) those who want to debate the position of various Canadian political parties, which is a very proper debate that belongs elsewhere.

Some have done an excellent job in resisting these diversions - let me pay tribute in particular to Frmrsldr and NDPP - while I have done badly, often getting sucked in to these diversionary debates.

My point is that there is a very particular role for these threads which is quite separate from debating policies of Canada. And there is a role for that kind of thread too. Rather than choosing between them, I propose that we do a better job in distinguishing between them.

 

Frmrsldr

Germans (so far) seem to be more on the ball over war crimes in Afghanistan than Canadians:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/27/germany-afghanistan

Frmrsldr

About ethnic tensions in Afghanistan:

http://original.antiwar.com/porter/2009/11/28/tajik-grip-on-afghan-army-...

Mohammed Qasim Fahim is President Hamid Karzai's first Vice President (according to the Afghan Constitution, Afghanistan has 2 Vice Presidents). Click here for information about Fahim (and other main Afghan warlords) and his early relationship with Karzai:

http://www.warlordsofafghanistan.com/mohammad-qasim-fahim.php

Webgear

 

I believe historically, the Tajiks have always held a larger percentage of the control over the military compared to the Pashtuns. 

 

I would spectacle those Pashtuns in the ANA are from Hamid Karzai's Popalzai clan of the Pashtun tribe.

Fidel

Diogenes wrote:

With all due respect to Unionist, canuquetoo, Frmrsldr and even Fidel; have any of you noticed how often you are in violent agreement with each other?

There is a chasm of difference between what I think of this phony-baloney war on terror and what some others believe it to be.

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

 

I would spectacle those Pashtuns in the ANA are from Hamid Karzai's Popalzai clan of the Pashtun tribe.

Possibly, but keep in mind Karzai is not a warlord and thus has no troops personally loyal to him. Apologists for the war often use the myth that we were "asked" to be in Afghanistan.

The Bonn Conference hosted by the Pentagon saw the appointment of Karzai as Afghan President. The first units of ISAF troops entered Kabul, Afghanistan on December 20, 2001, swept aside the interim government the Afghan people had established and "secured" the city. The "Afghan interim government in exhile" arrived in Kabul on December 25, 2001.

Our little puppet, Karzai, having no national army or troops loyal to him and being a lone Pashtun in the government was naturally forced to "accept" our foreign troop presence to prop up his regime.

Frmrsldr

Diogenes wrote:

With all due respect to Unionist, canuquetoo, Frmrsldr and even Fidel; have any of you noticed how often you are in violent agreement with each other?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Explain.

Webgear

Frmsldr, I think you should conduct some research about Karzai and his forces. He is a tribal elder and does carry some weight.

 

Diogenes Diogenes's picture

Frmrsldr wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

With all due respect to Unionist, canuquetoo, Frmrsldr and even Fidel; have any of you noticed how often you are in violent agreement with each other?

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean. Explain.

Ooops. Sorry Frmrsldr. As U pointed out, you have not succumbed to the ranting that sometimes happens here.  I tossed in your name because you're a former soldier, like canuquetoo, and it was careless of me.  Can I claim collateral damage here?

I think the best way to support our troops now is to expedite their return home.  They are supposed to begin withdrawal in July 2011 but Harper and MacKay are being dodgy on that commitment too.  Nothing is said because everything is about protecting national security.

Diogenes Diogenes's picture

Diogenes wrote:

My point here (and I really do have one) is that I'm in agreement with your thread title, but I hope it is the last in the series. I promise not to post here anymore because I'm shifting my attention to Canada and Afghanistan - Part 15.  This title is an improvement, but my first post there will be an appeal to Webgear to appeal to a moderator to change the title once again.

Cheers, my learned friends.

Well I have to eat my words here because Maysie closed down the thread that I thought was better suited for what I had to say, so I can't post there now anyways.  Whatever. No matter.  Maybe I'll start a new thread called "Support our troops, demand their return home ASAP" or maybe just "Bring our troops home now" just to protest.

This war is over for Canada. We lost. We're simply doing damage control now. And the events of the last two weeks have amply demonstrated that if a problem is identified, our leaders are incapable of fixing it.  These people have no business extending our stay in Afghanistan.

I want our troops to come home proud in the knowledge that they did their best.  It would be horrible to see a repeat of the Vietnam war saga and the perception that our troops had failed us. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our leaders have failed us.

I wish "Bring our troops home now" would become a populist rally cry for at least one party, along with a demand for a free vote in the House of Commons to decide on the matter.  Then we could have a spirited debate instead of a bunch of muzzled MP's that have to tow the party line.

 

Fidel

Diogenes wrote:
I think the best way to support our troops now is to expedite their return home.  They are supposed to begin withdrawal in July 2011 but Harper and MacKay are being dodgy on that commitment too.  Nothing is said because everything is about protecting national security.

Okay, but what of those other people in that large group supporting this war and who we might want to convince that this war is wrong ie. conservative party supportes and Liberals who  simply laugh-off "the looney leftwing" and our "rants" demanding the troops be brought home? Shouldn't we tell them why this is a bad war as opposed to just blathering something like, "TROOPS HOME NOW!!? or "SUPPORT OUR TROOPS AND BRING THEM a-HOME!!" I can just imagine their eyes glazing over with thoughts that the feds should do anything those anti-war crazies on the left are demanding. And that's because they've been told over and over that the left can't be trusted either way any way.

  As far as they can tell,  crazy George Bush's regime was merely reacting to a terrorist attack on NYC and Pentagon on 9/11 with, as far as they can tell, a legit war on terror on the other side of the world in Russia's and China's and Iran's backyards. And now our dumbocratically elected officials have fallen in-line with the crazy George view that we necesaarily have to hit the terrorists at home, otherwise we'll be fighting them here on our soil eventually. And very many conservative party supporters in Canada and the US fully believe in the war on terror. They are actually fearful of another attack on a major North American city or whatever it is the Homeland Security feds, CIA and US hawks have told them will happen unless they win this phony war in Central Asia.

Fidel

Diogenes wrote:
"Bring our troops home now"

 

Why should borderline Liberal or even iffy Tory party voters take any notice of this mantra? Don't get me wrong, it's a good one. But I really think people want to be informed as to the why.

Diogenes Diogenes's picture

Unionist wrote:

Diogenes, hear me out.

...

My point is that there is a very particular role for these threads which is quite separate from debating policies of Canada. And there is a role for that kind of thread too. Rather than choosing between them, I propose that we do a better job in distinguishing between them.

I understand, but I still hope this may be amoung the last in this series.  In my mind, they already have won.  The Afghans have shown us that we are simply an occupying army, and a rather poor one at that, and that we have no business being there. So lets get out.

Fidel

Diogenes wrote:
 but I still hope this may be amoung the last in this series.  In my mind, they already have won.  The Afghans have shown us that we are simply an occupying army, and a rather poor one at that, and that we have no business being there. So lets get out.

Sorry for neglecting you. But I am a Liberal voter and sometimes Tory supporter and vice versa. I am convinced that our troops are there to bring democracy to the brown people. I am generally of the mindset that all those thirdworld capitalist countries are led by corrupt  incompetents, and only the English-speaking countries carrying the torch of liberal democracy are true and noble and just want to save everyone from the terrierists. But I might be converted to the dark side with a decent argument that disturbs my naevete.

Diogenes Diogenes's picture

Fidel wrote:

Diogenes wrote:
"Bring our troops home now"

Why should borderline Liberal or even iffy Tory party voters take any notice of this mantra? Don't get me wrong, it's a good one. But I really think people want to be informed as to the why.

Because simple mantra's work.  It is not better to get somebody to ask "Why?" before offering them the information? Then at least you have a receptive audience.

If leaving Afghnistan NOW is going to leave a mess, at least a worse one then is there now, at least those who oppose an immediate withdrawal will have to give some pretty good reasons why.  That would be like a mission statement, right? Do we have one now?

Fidel

Diogenes wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Diogenes wrote:
"Bring our troops home now"

Why should borderline Liberal or even iffy Tory party voters take any notice of this mantra? Don't get me wrong, it's a good one. But I really think people want to be informed as to the why.

Because simple mantra's work.  It is not better to get somebody to ask "Why?" before offering them the information? Then at least you have a receptive audience.

But I vote Liberal or Tory. Or maybe I don't vote thinking democracy is safe with our obsolete electoral system. Besides, I know very little of what the NDP or Greens or Bloc says about this war to bring democracy to all Afghans forever amen. Why should we bring the troops home? They're doing what they are paid to do - fight the enemy on their soil so we don't have to face them here at home. And, remember 9/11! We don't want that happening again, do we?

Diogenes wrote:
If leaving Afghnistan NOW is going to leave a mess, at least a worse one then is there now, at least those who oppose an immediate withdrawal will have to give some pretty good reasons why.  That would be like a mission statement, right? Do we have one now?

 Bring the troops home now doesn't do anything for me. I need to know why we should give up on this necessary war on the evil doers[/not Fidel]

Eureka! Iv'e got it! [url=http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2009-2010/the_unofficial_story/]The UNOFFICIAL STORY[/url] Eight years after 9/11, why are doubts growing about the official record of that day?

EIGHT YEARS? Has it been that long? Surely they must have produced some evidence that "al Qa'eda" done it? Legitimate/legal evidence would be super if it's not too much trouble, Uncle Sam. Something other than the tortured confessions extracted from the latest 9/11 patsies?  Or was it al CIA'duh?

It seems more Americans - a majority - don't believe the crazy George version of 9/11 events than Canadians. Only a third of Canadians think there isn't something right about the false pretext for waging a war on terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia etc

Perhaps Canadians need to catch up to where Americans are in dissecting this war on terror and the false pretext for waging it. And here I thought Canadians were better informed than Americans.

Unionist

Can we please not feed this debate and destroy another thread in this series, Diogenes - please?

 

Diogenes Diogenes's picture

?? - How is this off topic?

Unionist

I'll quote what I said before (you may not agree with it, but at least give it some thought), then I'll give up, because that's how these threads get hijacked - "the Libs and Cons, the phoney war on terror, the truth about 9/11" - holy mary mother of god:

Quote:

These threads have been going on for a very long time in "International News and Politics". The intended subject matter was news about the developments in Afghanistan and how the invaders are losing, in particular.

Canadian politics surrounding the Afghan "mission" properly belong in National News or Canadian Politics, and there have indeed been many such threads also.

So please please, why not just open a thread in Canadian Politics or Activism called "Getting out of the war", or "Selling peace to Canadians", or "Canada and Afghanistan", or whatever.

Or, maybe the best method is to open a discussion thread in Rabble Reactions as to how to best structure the discussion of this issue.

Diogenes Diogenes's picture

Oh you mean like this thread that was closed down? Hey, I did try!

As Maysie might say in such a situation - Sheesh!

Unionist

Yes, Diogenes, exactly like that thread that was closed down - only it was obviously opened with the intent of just RENAMING this series of threads, as you can easily see from the original title and the debate afterwards. Just open a thread called "Canada and Afghanistan", or whatever title suits you, in one of the forums I suggested. I hope you'll agree that news from Afghanistan and discussion on the Green Party's position on the war and everything in between would be hard to fit within one single linear discussion.

ETA: Never mind, I'll do it:

[url=Canada">http://www.rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/canada-and-afghanistan][co... and Afghanistan[/url]

 

Diogenes Diogenes's picture

Afghans warn Dutch over pull-out, James Blitz, Financial Times, UK, Nov 25, 2009

Quote:

The governor of the Afghan province of Uruzgan is pleading with the Dutch government not to withdraw its deployment of 1,300 troops from the region next summer, warning that the Netherlands would be pulling out with its "job only half finished".

In an interview with the FT, Asadullah Hamdam, the governor of the province, said he has been pleading with the Dutch government to reverse the decision, which will see the Netherlands end its role as lead nation in the Uruzgan provincial reconstruction team (PRT) from August 1, 2010.

The Dutch decision is also causing concern at Nato headquarters in Brussels. A senior official said: "The Dutch have achieved a lot in the last three years and we hope they reverse their decision. If they stick with the decision to withdraw, it will have important consequences, not least because it will encourage Canada to press ahead with withdrawal from the Nato mission in 2011."

Assuming this meets all the criteria ...

PraetorianFour

I agree with all the comments about IEDs I've read in previously. Their unbelievably easy to find. Just look at these pictures. You would have to be an idiot not to spot them.
[img]http://www.pactradio.com/_images/_news/Kandahar%20Street_5.jpg[/img]
[img]http://www.captainsjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/Street_in_Kandahar.jpg...
[img]http://www.state.gov/cms_images/Kabul-Kandahar3_600.jpg[/img]

As you can see it should be easy to find them when they can be hidden in any garbage bag any car any truck any motorcycle basket on any man woman child or pack animal. Every culvert and bridge? No problem. Piles of dirt and under pavement. No excuse for missing obvious and easy to find IEDs.

So this is where I'll probably get banned lol.

I was not going to post in this for a bunch of reasons. Looks like 14 threads of the exact same comments being made by the exact same people. I don't see how that is interesting or even worth posting so to alleviate some of the monotony and repetition I'll throw in my opinion where I will promptly be told how very wrong I am.

The people of Afghanistan are not going to win and I'll tell you why. There are two [four] players in Afghanistan.
1.The United States and;
2.Taliban insurgents who's leadership and big players are largely from Pakistan. [A LOT of what Fidel talks about here is the same we hear during our INT reports. It's actually kinda creepy how similar it is]

The two minor players are the rest of the NATO countries and the "local" Taliban.
Some of the NATO countries are still big contributors [UK, Canada given our military strength] who have members fighting and dying but others, a large portion of others send their soldiers over there to be able to say they have a few hundred or a thousand soldiers supporting the USA which makes the US happy but to make their own people happy those soldiers are not allowed of base or anywhere dangerous. Meaning no soldiers home in body bags. Win win.
Last but not least are many of the "taliban" locals who don't really care for the bigger picture. They are not trying to eject the evil invaders from their soil. Not trying to protect the people of Afghanistan. They like the money the big dog Taliban throw at them. They also happily turn around and work for NATO. Not as spies but anything really. It's common to find someone working for blue hackle [a local security force] one week who turn around andwork as taliban next week only to turn back and sell out their Taliban friends. There isn't a lot to do in Afghanistan and believe it or not a lot of young men "join" the Taliban out of bordem. They want something to do during the summer until farm season comes around. Young guys pissing around. Now that isn't to say some of them believe in kicking the invaders out, no doubt they do. But by and by the impression I got was many of them weren't political or patriotic, it's something to do.
Agree with me or not that's my opinion. take note US, want to reduce the taliban numbers? Stabilize the power grid and import some HD TVs and XBox 360's...

So why won't they win?
The United States is there for the long haul. Oil pipeline looking for Osama a strategic base to central asia recruits for zombie experiments. Whatever. The US is not going anywhere. Their building up. A lot of you have clued in to the wording that Canada will pull out of combat operations. I can tell you members of the OMLT teams are there as instructors and advisers. Not technically combat. They get in a lot of fights. A LOT. Just wait for it. Out of a combat role can mean a lot.
On the other hand the Taliban. They are not going anywhere either. They want Afghanistan and they want to be in control.
One of those two groups WILL be in Afghanistan.
If the west wins then there will be constant issues with us trying to westernize Afghanistan. Case in point. Executing prisoners without even so much as a trial and sexual abuse on young boys. Both of these hot topics have been in the news. Both of these we in the west won't or cannot accept and thus will try and change. Add to that the issue of women rights. Womans rights abuse isn't a Taliban thing. Yes they do it to the extreme but it was still prevalent in Afghanistan pre-Taliban. That's something else we will undoubtedly push onto their culture.
So Obama says FUCK it we're done and pulls out of Afghanistan, NATO follows. Taliban sweep in and take control. Maybe they turn over a new leaf and forgive anyone who worked with the west. Maybe they do like they do now and kill people who work with us. Either way once again the people of Afghanistan have a foreign body running their government dictating rules and laws and telling them how to live. Ultra religious law gets inforced.
The people of Afghanistan WON'T win because they will ALWAYS unfortunately have a foreign power telling them what to do pushing their views on them and trying to change their culture. That will only change when they figure out how to come together as a nation and kick EVERYONE out.
If you think the people of Afghanistan are winning anything you're sorely mistaken and clearly oblivious to the ever increasing death toll inflicted by both sides be it accidental or purposeful. What exactly are they going to win? Either the US pushing pushing them around or the Taliban. Sounds great.

I was disapointed when the Canada and Afghanistan thread was locked. Unionist I'm glad you started a new one and I hope you're successful when you said you will try and keep the issues seperate.

Somewhere I read a comment about Malalai Joya who is fighting for both invaders and insurgents to leave Afghanistan. Someone made a comment that she is doing it without guns. Not true. She is alive thanks to a whole bunch of bodyguards, with guns. A better way to word it may be she is doing it without fighting or killing people.

I hope my comments and opinion do not get me banned. I'm not going to be like those posters who make a huge rant then state they won't be back to read any replies. I really hate that. At the same time I doubt I'm going to impress my views on anyone. Everyone here seems VERY set in their views and do not seem open or interested in hearing anyone else on the subject unless it very closely coinsides with what they are saying. Chances are I am in the same boat too.

Fidel

clicky happy

Fidel

Diogenes wrote:
?? - How is this off topic?

Don't antagonize him. We'll take it to Unionist's new thread.

Frmrsldr

PraetorianFour wrote:
The United States is there for the long haul. Oil pipeline looking for Osama a strategic base to central asia recruits for zombie experiments. Whatever. The US is not going anywhere.

This may be the Pentagon's and the arms industry's pipe dream, but a number of elephants in the room are being ignored:

1) These wars, the Pentagon's and the military's budgets are what destroyed and are what are continuing to destroy the U.S. economy. The U.S. simply won't be able to wage eternal war. The American Empire will be destroyed economically, just like the Soviet and British Empires.

2) The more these clowns push for eternal war, the more American (and other countries whose governments act the same way) society will become like the 1960s: Not only will you have the people decidedly turned against the war, you will have the military decidedly turned against the war as well.

Saybhan Samat wrote:

The insurgency in Afghanistan is spreading rapidly as the latest survey conducted by the International Council of Security and Development (ICOS) shows. Its latest research indicates that 80% of the country has a permanent Taliban presence up from 72% in 2008, and that 97% of the country has "substantial Taliban activity."

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/11/30/the-us-and-nato-sinking-in-af...

Unionist

Navigating from Frmrsldr's RAWA link led me to these International Council on Security and Development maps showing insurgent activity and control in Afghanistan. Tread carefully, Barack!

[url=http://www.icosmaps.net/]ICOS maps[/url]

Here is the latest - but there are lots more at the link:

 

And this shows the progress of the invaders and their puppets:

Frmrsldr

Diogenes wrote:

Afghans warn Dutch over pull-out, James Blitz, Financial Times, UK, Nov 25, 2009

Quote:

The governor of the Afghan province of Uruzgan is pleading with the Dutch government not to withdraw its deployment of 1,300 troops from the region next summer, warning that the Netherlands would be pulling out with its "job only half finished".

In an interview with the FT, Asadullah Hamdam, the governor of the province, said he has been pleading with the Dutch government to reverse the decision, which will see the Netherlands end its role as lead nation in the Uruzgan provincial reconstruction team (PRT) from August 1, 2010.

The Dutch decision is also causing concern at Nato headquarters in Brussels. A senior official said: "The Dutch have achieved a lot in the last three years and we hope they reverse their decision. If they stick with the decision to withdraw, it will have important consequences, not least because it will encourage Canada to press ahead with withdrawal from the Nato mission in 2011."

Naturally the governor of Uruzgan doesn't want the Dutch to pull out. If he's a toady of NATO troops, then he's afraid for his life if NATO/ISAF/U.S. troops pull out of Afghanistan. The insurgents (Taliban or otherwise) could very likely execute him for being a traitor.

Diogenes Diogenes's picture

Frmrsldr wrote:

Naturally the governor of Uruzgan doesn't want the Dutch to pull out. If he's a toady of NATO troops, then he's afraid for his live if NATO/ISAF/U.S. troops pull out of Afghanistan. The insurgents (Taliban or otherwise) could very likely execute him for being a traitor.

Hey - that's what they call an Improvised Incendiary Comment. Please read the full article.

By most accounts, the Dutch have done a pretty good job in Afghanistan.  They even have bicycle patrols now. Richard Colvin mentioned the Dutch model several times in his testimony regarding the transfer and tracking of "detainees".

The Dutch are scheduled to pull out in 9 months.  If the job is "only 1/2 done", as some argue, maybe the Dutch are asking "What Job?  And why do you need the military to complete it?"

I hope they remain on schedule.

Fidel

They're stringing us along with the 2011 timeframe. It'll be whenever Uncle Sam instructs our fearless followers in Ottawa's halls of powerlessness to withdraw from Afghanistan. 22% of the registered vote and backup from the Liberals is all they need. 

Diogenes Diogenes's picture

Fidel wrote:

clicky happy

Fidel wrote:

Diogenes wrote:
?? - How is this off topic?

Don't antagonize him. We'll take it to Unionist's new thread.

real classy Fidel, first rate House of Commons heckling.  I was going to ask Unionist why he pointed the finger at me when he asked that "we not feed the debate and destroy another thread", but you know how things turn out here.  It was a WTF moment for me, having had only made a handful of posts in this entire series.

Sorry for being thick. A simple "DO NOT FEED THE TROLLS" sign would have been more effective.

Diogenes Diogenes's picture

Thanks for a good post FrmrSldr. I like how you cut through the shit and call them POW's instead of "detainees".

The Brits, being the Brits, probably took pictures and DNA samples before discarding their POWs, but Canada seemed to do nothing of the sort. Get rid of them ASAP seemed to be the policy. Hillier was at least partially responsible for this.  His conduct last week makes him anything but a war hero.

I just keep thinkin' "Col. Nathan R. Jessup, Commanding Officer, Marine Ground Forces, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba" whenever I see his picture now.

NDPP

Human Terrain Systems: Anthropologists and the War in Afghanistan:

A Better Way to Kill?

http://www.counterpunch.org/price12012009.html

"While political science was the academic discipline which the wars of the twentieth century drew upon, the asymmetrical wars of the twenty-first century now look toward anthropology.."

NDPP

A 'Necessary War' for a Gas Pipeline

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp11302009.html

"Because make no mistake about it, this is Barack Obama's war now...We should respond: 'No it's not necessary' in the streets until we force Obama to end what are now unmistakeably his criminal imperialist wars.."

no1important

So basically the Taliban just have to wait keep a low profile for a short 18 months, then NATO/US will be gone and Karzai will be toppled and probably executed and things will be back to the way they were pre 9/11.

30,000 more troops ain't gonna do the job either. USSR had over 200,000 at their peak and we know how that ended.

The funny thing about his speech was the cadets in the audience sleeping and looking like they were falling asleep.

As well strange as this sounds the first part of his speech sounded like it could of been written by Bush.

American is great at portraying themselves as victims and expecting everyone to jump onside, and they were in this case but they 'forget' they have caused much greater tragedy's to many other countries and a great many people around the world. Including the first 9/11 in 1973 in Chile...

Frmrsldr

Diogenes wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

Naturally the governor of Uruzgan doesn't want the Dutch to pull out. If he's a toady of NATO troops, then he's afraid for his live if NATO/ISAF/U.S. troops pull out of Afghanistan. The insurgents (Taliban or otherwise) could very likely execute him for being a traitor.

Hey - that's what they call an Improvised Incendiary Comment. Please read the full article.

By most accounts, the Dutch have done a pretty good job in Afghanistan.  They even have bicycle patrols now. Richard Colvin mentioned the Dutch model several times in his testimony regarding the transfer and tracking of "detainees".

The Dutch are scheduled to pull out in 9 months.  If the job is "only 1/2 done", as some argue, maybe the Dutch are asking "What Job?  And why do you need the military to complete it?"

I hope they remain on schedule.

I read the article. It needs more information. A good scanario would be to compare it with Kunduz province where the Germans are located. Like the Dutch, the Germans were very wary about posting troops outside of NATO's normal area of operations. Germany chose the location very carefully: a peaceful area in the north, away from the Pashtuns and the insurgency and violence in the south.

Until recently, German troops could do foot patrols and move among the people in cities and towns without incident. That was until the U.S.A. decided on its 21,000 troop surge. Escalating the war in Helmand moved insurgents into other provinces and caused a change in strategy. Now some Afghan insurgent commanders see Germany as a 'weak link' and have stepped up attacks on German troops. German rules of engagement were that they could only fire in self defense after they were fired upon first and first gave ample warning in Pashto, Dari, German and English. Insurgent commanders hoped the Germans would either stick to their rules of engagement or engage in aggressive war through 'hot persuit' and search and destroy patrols. Either way, it was hoped that opposition to the war would rise in Germany and Germany would soon disengage from Afghanistan.

Another thing that has turned the German people against the war is the German General who called in the airstrike against the two stranded fuel tankers where 70 - 100+ civilians died. German troops now tend to travel and do patrols in armored vehicles for protection. Like Canada, the German government, military and mainstream media has lied to the public, describing the German effort as an humanitarian peacekeeping mission. The word "war" was never used.

The Germans have the third largest number of troops (app. 5,000). The Dutch have roughly half the number of troops as Canada. Most Afghans don't even know Canadian troops are in Afghanistan. Most think they are either American or don't care their nationality - just that they are hated and unwanted non Asian or non Arabic and non Muslim foreign invaders who are murdering and maiming their people and destroying their homes and country.

In Uruzgan, there are also Danish, Australian, New Zealand, British and American troops. I wonder how many of the Afghan common folk know that they are Dutch and not Americans or just feared and hated foreigners?

The more American escalation of war, the more violence will spread to more parts of Afghanistan and risk reversing whatever good the Dutch were able to accomplish. Here's another problem with the article, it gushes about and makes the assertion that the Dutch have accomplished good, without specifically proving what "good" they actually accomplished.

The article states that the governor doesn't want the Dutch to go. Because it also points out that the Dutch are likely to go, with Canada following shortly after that. It sounds like NATO propaganda to me. We can't have the Netherlands and Canada leaving because if that happens, then there will be a domino effect and NATO will collapse. We don't want that to happen because um, "well look at all the good the Dutch (a NATO member hint, hint) accomplished."

Concerning Richard Colvin: He talks about the British in the context of how many prisoners they took and how it was six times less than that taken by Canadian troops. The British had their own prison in Iraq. My guess is, they also keep their prisoners in Afghanistan. In Iraq, there were accounts of prisoner abuse at the hands of the British - wait for it concerning Afghanistan.

The British and Dutch were smarter than Canada. They had their civilian governments draft and conclude their treaties concerning what to do with Afghan PoWs. In Canada, we had former Gen. "The Taliban are detestable murderous scumbags" Rick Hillier draft and sign his own PoW treaty. Look at the (not surprising) results: That war criminal doesn't give a shit about Afghan lives. He claims that his mission in life was to restore the honor of the Canadian military. Everything he has done has had the opposite effect. He is either too much of a moron to realize this or has too much foolish pride to admit it.

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

Frmsldr, I think you should conduct some research about Karzai and his forces. He is a tribal elder and does carry some weight.

If you have info that he has troops personally loyal to him (ie., that he is a warlord) please let me know.

Don't make me laugh. Karzai's palace guards and personal bodyguards are American contractors. He doesn't even trust Afghans with that position.

Members of his family/clan are rewarded with plum positions in his kleptocratic government. His brother/half-brother Ahmed Wali Karzai is a corrupt druglord who is the real power in Kandahar province and who is on the CIA payroll. It seems members of his family would rather make money through patronage appointments and live in their heavily fortified narco-architecture palaces rather than live in barraks and risk their lives in a low paying job in the ANA.

Karzai was a member of the board of directors of the U.S. big oil company Unocal, he is still a major shareholder in this company and he was/still is(?) on the CIA payroll himself.

Yeah, he's our little puppet in Kabul. If any major warlord(s) were to turn against him or if he were to lose favor from the White House and/or the Pentagon << POOF >> goodby Karzai!

When the U.S./NATO/ISAF troops leave Afghanistan, we will be witness to the spectacle of Karzai, his family members and people like him - members of the wealthy Afghan oligarchy clinging onto the struts of the last helicopters evacuating the U.S. embassy in Kabul, clutching stuffed suitcases with Yanqui dollars escaping out of them and fluttering earthward toward those Afghans left behind. That is if the CIA doesn't abandon them and the insurgents or Afghan people don't get to them first. There ain't going to be any loyal armies to protect them then.

http://news.antiwar.com/2009/11/30/us-looks-to-bypass-karzai-in-running-...

thanks

seeing a couple of transport military aircraft overhead made me think that the NATO attack on the Afghan people won't ultimately be successful. 

you can beat people into submission for a while but it usually backfires in the long run.

truth outs and then people work for better solutions to problems.

aggression for private gain and ecological destruction are not ethically valued.

Jingles

Quote:
Most Afghans don't even know Canadian troops are in Afghanistan. Most think they are either American or don't care their nationality

Really, they are American troops. They are under American command and control, rely on American air support, have American Special Forces embedded in their formations (and, no doubt, wearing Canadian uniforms). The generals are all American trained and sympathetic to American interests over Canadian. In short, our military has comfortably reverted back to its role as loyal colonial mercenaries.

That's what pisses me off about the "support our troops" crap. They ain't ours, they belong to Robert Gates.

Dangle a shiny Silver Star or Purple Heart in front of them, and they pee themselves with excitement like a poorly trained puppy.

Fidel

no1important wrote:

30,000 more troops ain't gonna do the job either. USSR had over 200,000 at their peak and we know how that ended.

Wikipedia says 118,000 Soviet troops in 1985. But there are NATO soldiers from over 50 countries in Afghanistan today. And the US Military is making bombing runs into Pakistan. They're aren't bombing nearly the way the doctor and madman did in Cambodia. But had the Soviets wandered into Pakistan similarly, it probably would have meant WW III. The Soviets actually began pulling out in 1987.

Unionist

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/12/09/afghan-kabul-mayor.html][=...'s mayor still running the city after being sentenced to four years in prison for corruption[/color][/url]

Quote:
Afghanistan receives billions of dollars a year in international aid since the fall of the Taliban and the establishment of Karzai's first government. But it was recently named by international watchdog group Transparency International the second-most corrupt country in the world, ranking behind only Somalia.

Unionist

[url=400">http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/12/09/afghan-nato-civilian-deaths.htm... villagers protest U.S.-NATO air raid deaths of 6 civilians[/url]

 

Quote:
The protest turned violent as the demonstrators clashed with police and one protester was killed, Safi said.

Statements from Canadian politicians mourning the murdered Afghans? Whoops, not our theatre of operations...

 

NDPP

Thousands of Afghan Students Protest

http://rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/12/09/thousands-of-afghan-students-prot...

Kabul: "Thousands of University students protest. Hundreds of villagers on Tuesday brought the bodies to Mehtarlan and placed them in front of Government House."

[your tax dollars at work..]

Pages