The Afghan People Will Win - Part 18

120 posts / 0 new
Last post
Catchfire Catchfire's picture
The Afghan People Will Win - Part 18

Continued from here.

NDPP

Cold Irons Bound: All Together on the Road to Ruin

http://www.chris-floyd.com/articles/1-latest-news/1965-cold-irons-bound-...

"Every day, day after day, some father or mother finds their children's limbs hanging in the trees, some child finds his parent's broken bodies smoking in the rubble, some ordinary, innocent human being sees their loved ones beaten, chained, abused and killed. Every day, day after day.

Only a fool--a bloody minded, arrogant, puffed up, pig ignorant fool--could not see the horrific harvest of hate and destruction that will spring from such evil seeds. Only a fool--or an elitest so wadded in wealth and privilege that he believes these monstrous fruits will never touch him personally and doesn't care what happens to the rabble below, as long as his profits--and his primitive, psychosexual lust for forcible dominion remain safe.

We are ruled today by just such fools together with just such cold, deadened, malevolent spirits.

But we seem to be content with this.."

NDPP

Abu Ghraib Photos Frame Afghanistan Prisoner Problems

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/806194--travers-abu-ghraib-ph...

"Canadian decisions took root on a fine spring day in the oval office. It's known that some Canadian detainees [POWs] 'disappeared' in Afghan jails.."

Siddiqui: Afghan Mission has become incoherent

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/806420--siddiqui...

"there's little logic left in Canada's military mission in Afghanistan. That's because the NATO mission itself has become incoherent. Meanwhile despite pledges to avoid civilian deaths, the carnage continues, and also the lying that often accompanies such incidents.."

Statement of the Afghan Resistance Leadership Council: On the Commencement of Al-Faath Operation

http://inteltrends.blogspot.com/2010/05/islamic-emirate-of-afghanistan_0...

"The Al-Faath Jihadic operations will start on 10th May, 2010 this year to include operations against the defeated foreigners and their surrogates all over the country. Mujahideen will destroy and wipe out every thing that is considered supporting the foreign invaders.."

Afghanistan's Karzai to Ask Obama for Billions to Fight Taliban

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/afghanistan/7692289/Afgha...

"Afghan President Hamid Karzai will ask for billions in aid when he travels to Washington next week on a trip aimed at improving relations with Barack Obama.."

Canadian Military Officers Describe some Afghan Police as 'no better than criminals'

http://www.canada.com/news/Canadian+military+officers+describe+some+Afgh...

neither are some Canadian military officers of course

7 in 10 Canadians say Afghan Detainee Issue Should Not Lead to an Election: Poll

http://www.canada.com/news/Afghan+detainee+issue+should+lead+election/30...

after all what good would that do?

NDPP

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=3006329

"A solid majority of Canadians believe prisoners detained by Canadian soldiers have been tortured after being transferred to Afghan authorities, a new Ipsos Reid poll suggests. A fat majority also say if torture occurred, it was not only wrong but that they believe there was widespread knowledge of it within the Canadian government.."

NDPP

Training That Makes Killing Civilians Acceptable

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article25425.htm

The Real News vid

 

NDPP

Bound to Fail: The Inevitable Collapse of McChrystal's Afghan War Plan

http://www.counterpunch.org/spinney05132010.html

"...General McChrystal's war plan is in the early stages of unravelling. To appreciate why this was entirely predictable, consider please, the following.."

Victory At All Costs in Afghanistan

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/LE13Df01.html

"Isn't it time to call what the US Congress will soon vote on by its right name: war escalation funding? The fact is that military spending is destroying the US economy.."

Unionist

[url=http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCATRE64D0Y720100514]Hundreds demonstrate against raid that killed 11 civilians: "Death to Americans, long live the Taliban!"[/url]

Quote:
Police shot dead a an Afghan protester in eastern Afghanistan on Friday after hundreds of villagers demonstrated against NATO raids which they said killed 11 civilians overnight, a local official said.

Crowds of men marched through the streets of Surkhrod district in Nangahar province, with chants like "Death to Americans, Long Live the Taliban" and pelted stones at government buildings before they were fired on by police.

NDPP

Afghan President's Half-Brother to Play Key Role in Battle for Kandahar

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/afghan-presidents-half-brother...

"NATO couldn't get rid of Ahmed Wali Karzai so it's forging an uneasy relationship with him...

'The more Americans the better,' Mr Karzai said of the 30,000 US troops currently surging into southern Afghanistan. He believes he can use his connections to persuade low-level fighters to lay down their weapons in exchange for jobs and amnesty. 'It's difficult but not impossible,' he said. However, he dismissed the $160 Million pledged by the international community for such a campaign as

'a drop in the bucket'."

no wonder the Afghan people are rising in resistance against this dirty occupation. May they prevail against their enemies.

NDPP

More Troops Hospitalized For Mental Health Than Any Other Reason

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0515/troops-hospitalized-mental-health-reason/

"More US troops were hospitalized for mental health disorders than any other reason in 2009. Mental health hospitalizations throughout the military topped injuries, battle wounds and even pregnancy and childbirth..Obviously PTSD, depression, anxiety and substance abuse are not limited to American soldiers.."

war crimes' collateral damage

NDPP

Afghans Protest Deadly Nightime Raid: 'If the Americans Do This Again, We are Ready To Shed Our Blood Fighting Them'

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/5/17/afghans_protest_deadly_nighttime_r...

"If the military keeps doing this, the people will go into the mountains to fight them. When I saw my daughter injured all I could think about was putting on a suicide jacket.."

NDPP

Bill For Afghan War Could Run into the Trillions

http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=51468

"Nobel prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda Bilmer estimated that the longterm costs of taking care of wounded soldiers and rebuilding the military - of the war in Iraq, will ultimately cost three trillion dollars.."

Unionist

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/06/07/afghanistan-gaudreault.html]Ano... Canadian soldier killed while strolling on a country road, more than 8 years after the Taliban were "overthrown"[/url]

[url=Kandahar">http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/06/07/afghanistan-police-attack.html]... police compound hit by suicide bombers[/url]

[url=Two">http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/06/06/afghan-officials-attack.html][c... top officials of Afghan government quit or are fired after security breach[/url]

Polunatic2

Ten foreign troops killed in Afghanistan

Quote:
Ten servicemen with the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) for Afghanistan were killed in separate incidents on Monday, the alliance said.

Two foreign civilians working for an American security company contracted to help train Afghan police were also killed in a Taliban suicide raid on a training camp in Kandahar, officials said.

 

 

NDPP

Afghan Withdrawal Plans 'Clear': Natynczyk

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/07/afghan-mission-natynczyk.html

"We have got very clear instructions from the government of Canada to move out on the withdrawal and that is what we're going to continue to plan on.."

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

This is the same story that Polunatic linked to ... but the headline is worth noting.

NATO suffers deadliest day this year in Afghanistan.

Go home, NATO soldiers. Go home and live.

Frmrsldr

What do you make of this?

My understanding is that the political parties involved are sucking up to the Cons - and I have no idea why. From the above link:

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/07/afghan-mission-natynczyk.html

CBC News wrote:

Opposition MPs returning from an all-party trip to Afghanistan last week suggested they would be willing to come to an agreement with Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives over a continued role for Canadian soldiers in the country beyond next year.

... At the end of their five-day visit to Kandahar and Kabul last week, most members of the special parliamentary committee on the Afghan mission said they believe Canadian troops should have a role in Afghanistan beyond 2011, but one that would focus on training instead of combat.

The article then contradicts itself when it continues:

CBC News wrote:

But when asked about the MPs' comments, the prime minister would only say they were "noted with interest," and then reaffirmed the government's view that the resolution adopted by Parliament in 2008 "continues to be our work plan."

The motion calls for Canada to "end its presence in Kandahar as of July 2011" and for all forces to have left by the following December.

Harper subsequently said the vast majority of troops would be out of Afghanistan, and not just Kandahar, by the deadline.

But Defense Minister Peter MacKay has said Canada [ETA: the Conservative government] is willing to continue mentoring Afghan police [and soldiers] after the troop disengagement begins next summer.

Keep in mind that the Conservative government will have 90 soldiers stationed in Kabul and Kandahar beyond 2011 training the Afghan National Army and Police (ANA and ANP) and that this troop presence and the civilian surge will not be brought before Parliament.

So what are these "opposition MPs" playing at?

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

The so-called "training" of Afghan police is anything but,  AFAIK. The police are essentially support for the occupation troops of NATO and their training matches their role in that regard. Lotsa people here in Canada are being misled on this issue.

Compare it to the Israelis who have few, if any, police in the occupied territories. They're not interested in policing the population. They're interested in ethnically cleansing them. In Afghanistan, the fig leaf is larger and the aims not quite so ... genocidal.

So that's the first point. Training is ... more occupation by a different name. Make the locals pay for it. Autonomy! Ha ha. An occupier's joke.

Secondly, if the Conservatives are sounding more left wing than the Liberals (and some of the other opposition parties) then I would immediately suggest that they have quietly agreed to continue "the mission" . Perhaps it will have a "new" wrapping. In return, the Conservatives will "compromise" on some inconsequential issue.

That's parliamentary "democracy" for ya.

Fidel

Liberals volunteered Canadians for imperial duty in the Stan back in the early 2000s, and their cousins the Tories are keeping us there with support of the other wing of the same Bay Street party ever since.

Unionist

More foreign friends giving their lives for Afghan liberty:

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/06/08/afghanistan-nato-deaths.html]2 NATO troops killed in Afghanistan[/url]

Quote:

Two more American troops were killed in Afghanistan on Tuesday, the military said, just a day after 10 NATO troops were killed in a string of attacks.

The latest deaths came as insurgents step up bombings and other attacks ahead of a major NATO operation in the Taliban stronghold of Kandahar that Washington hopes will turn the tide of the war.

Monday was the bloodiest day this year for international forces in Afghanistan, when seven American troops, two Australians and a French Legionnaire were killed in five separate insurgent attacks in the south and east of the country.

Two civilian contractors training police, an American and a Nepalese, also died in a brazen suicide attack Monday in the southern city of Kandahar.

NDPP

posted this to the 'coalition' thread but it belongs here too. Looks like the 'representatives' have 'played' us again...

A Look at Reality in Afghanistan

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/peter_worthington/2010/06/0...

"Rae went further and pledged the Liberal party to back serious discussions between Canada and NATO and alliance allies about a future role for our troops in Afghanistan..If Rae is right when he says the Liberals think a post 2011 role in Afghanistan for our military is 'very important', and if a motion is presented in the Commons to extend our stay in some way, it's hard to see Harper rejecting it..

NDP MP Jack Harris also noted it's important Canada not forsake Afghanistan so the sacrifice will not be in vain for the 146 soldiers, one diplomat and 1 journalist who's been killed..

General Stanley MChrystal, commanding upwards of 100,000 NATO troops in AFghanistan and a fighting soldier himself has made it clear he'd relish Canadian troops staying without a deadline.."

Ah so that's what 'opposition' means...they 'oppose' leaving Afghanistan - now i get it!

 

 

Frmrsldr

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

"Rae went further and pledged the Liberal party to back serious discussions between Canada and NATO and alliance allies about a future role for our troops in Afghanistan..If Rae is right when he says the Liberals think a post 2011 role in Afghanistan for our military is 'very important', and if a motion is presented in the Commons to extend our stay in some way, it's hard to see Harper rejecting it..

 

Personally, I think there is a conspiracy among the Liberals, NDP and Conservatives to cooperate amongst themselves.

Why the hell else would Liberal and NDP MPs snatch defeat (Canadian military disengagement from Afghanistan) from the jaws of victory? All they had to do was 'sit on their hands' (do nothing) and 'hold their hands over their mouths' (say nothing) while Haper blathered on about respecting the 2008 War Resolution passed by the House where military disengagement would begin in July 2011 and all troops would be out by December 2011.

Now, they've handed Harper a political victory on a silver platter: Harper can say to the Canadian public, "See, for the past six months, I was all for complete military disengagement from Afghanistan. But as both the Liberal and NDP parties are so strongly in favor of escalating Canada's military engagement in Afghanistan and (possibly) since the House voted yes to the latest (2010 or 2011) War Resolution, who am I [ETA *cough* *cough*] to ignore the will of Parliament [ETA I mean, it's not like I haven't done it before]?

I also think an election is going to be sooner rather than later. I think the Liberals, the NDP and the Cons are pandering to the wealthiest companies that have interests in the war: the arms, oil and mining industries. I think they're also "waving the bloody shirt" with that "If we walk away from Afghanistan now, then those 147 Canadian soldiers who lost their lives will have died in vain.", to pander to the yahoos in Canadian society who support (the) war.

So, unless the U.S.A. and NATO achieve victory in Afghanistan (they won't), then those 147 soldiers have died in vain. So what now, more Canadian soldiers can die in vain, in an immoral, unjust and illegal war we can't win?

NDPP

I agree with you - clearly they're operating in tandem and we'll get a little dance and soft-shoe and then all will agree that the job is not done yet and we'll be stuck. It's not about making it work but keeping it working...endless war remember?

Frmrsldr

Our friend Fidel is right.

Kucinich: "We may be funding our own killers in Afghanistan."

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0608/kucinich-war-critics-rebuke-usfunded-br...

Fidel

Well I'm not surprised. And thanks to Former Soldier for pointing us to some very informative alternative news sites, like antiwar.com and rawstory etc. From FrmrSldr's linked-to news piece:

Dennis Kucinich wrote:
"The American people are paying to prop up a corrupt government that may be using our money to pay private companies to drum up business by paying the insurgents to attack our troops," he said.

Robert Greenwald wrote:
Robert Greenwald, an ardent war critic and director of the 2009 documentary "Rethink Afghanistan," viewed the Times story as vindication for his message.

“Supporting a corrupt elite in a civil war does nothing to make us safer, costs the United States billions of dollars, and it’s not working,” Greenwald told Raw Story.

It "confirms what we have heard numerous times from our friends, co workers and producers in Afghanistan. The United States is effectively funding both sides of the war all too often," he said.

Sibel Edmonds is right, Washington is more corrupt than most people know. And our followers in Ottawa just play along with the charade. War! What's it good for? Those on the receiving end of kick-back and graft understand full well what war is good for.

Slumberjack

Which makes Jack Harris' recent comments about finding another role there all the more puzzling, eh?

Webgear

 I believe there were a few threads about Dawn Black indicating there is a role for Canadian's in Afghanistan after the halting of the combat mission next spring. Now Jack Harris has been spinning plans about what Canada should be doing next summer and combat operations have ceased.

What exactly is the NDP's position on Afghanistan, because they do not seem to have a clear message?

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:
 I believe there were a few threads about Dawn Black indicating there is a role for Canadian's in Afghanistan after the halting of the combat mission next spring. Now Jack Harris has been spinning plans about what Canada should be doing next summer and combat operations have ceased.

What exactly is the NDP's position on Afghanistan, because they do not seem to have a clear message?

In 2006, Jack Layton talked about complete military disengagement from Afghanistan. He also talked at that time about Canada having a humanitarian (civilian) role in Afghanistan.

Currently, (subject to change, of course) Harper is talking about almost all the troops being disengaged from Afghanistan by December 2011, the troops remaining (90 being the latest figure) will train the ANA and ANP. Some of those troops will be in Kandahar (the others in Kabul.)

While Harper is extolling the virtues of a proposed civilian surge: Civilian experts who will assist with administration, government, reconstruction, redevelopment and humanitarian aid. Bob Rae and Jack Harris are proposing an escalation of troops beyond 2011 - to engage in non combat duties, such as training the ANA and ANP - as mentioned above.

Remember that the 2008 War Resulotion was largely the handiwork of Stphane Dion and the Liberals. Now they are destroying both the spirit and the letter of that Resolution.

Indeed, different MPs from the NDP are sending mixed and contradictory messages about our future role in Afghanistan.

N.Beltov N.Beltov's picture

RE - NDP position  ... Perhaps it's "emerging" as the situation becomes more clear. After the next election, things will become very clear, I predict. lol.

Frmrsldr

NATO allies poised to slash military budgets; Gates urges other cost savings:

Craig Whitlock wrote:

Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates, on a trip to London and Brussels this week, is pressing allies to hold the line as Pentagon officials fret they could be stuck with an even bigger share of the burden of the war in Afghanistan or future NATO missions.

Good, I say. Let Uncle Sam shoulder more of the burden for the wars he starts. Maybe this way, the U.S.A. will start and become involved in fewer wars and maybe the world will become a more peaceful place.

Craig Whitlock wrote:

For many European governments trying to recover from the global financial crisis, their armed forces are prime candidates for the chopping block.

... "We have to take care not to cut too much or in the wrong way, that we might jeopardize our security in the future," NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen said Monday in Brussels. "After all, economic prosperity depends on security too."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/08/AR201006...

Bullshit.

Frmrsldr

N.Beltov wrote:

RE - NDP position  ... Perhaps it's "emerging" as the situation becomes more clear. After the next election, things will become very clear, I predict. lol.

The NDP should do what the Harper administration and the Cons have been doing and what the Liberals are failing miserably at: The NDP's policy should be to shape public opinion; not allow public opinion to shape NDP policy. Like the Cons, the NDP need to shape the narrative and try to get the public on board to what the NDP party strives to accomplish. In other words, unlike the Liberals; be proactive toward, not reactive to, public opinion.

It's all in the message and the messaging.

Frmrsldr

I detect a slight change in (American) media coverage of the Afghan war.

Ernesto Londono wrote:

KANDAHAR, AFGHANISTAN -- Four U.S. soldiers were killed in southern Afghanistan on Wednesday when their helicopter was shot down, officials said, and a fifth member of the military from the NATO coalition was killed in a roadside bombing.

Wednesday's attacks added to what has been one of the deadliest weeks for the U.S.-led international military force in the nearly nine-year war. Since Sunday, 23 NATO troops have been killed in Afghanistan.

The journalist continues to state nervously:

Quote:

Allied aircraft crashes in Afghanistan due to enemy fire have been relatively rare during nearly nine years of war. The lack of Taliban surface-to-air capacity has given the United States and other foreign powers a major tactical advantage over insurgents, enabling them to fly at fairly low altitudes, even over insurgent strongholds in the south and east.

In contrast, the U.S. decision in the 1980s to supply mujaheddin in Afghanistan with Stinger missiles marked one of the major turning points of the Islamic rebels' fight against Soviet forces. Russian aircraft were forced to fly at much higher altitudes -- or risk being shot down.

... American helicopters are particularly vulnerable to Taliban attack when operating in areas such as Sangin, where there is a relatively light presence of U.S. or NATO forces. In many areas of remote valleys in eastern Afghanistan, where the United States maintained a small presence, earlier Taliban shoot-downs of Chinooks and Black Hawks forced U.S. commanders to change tactics.

Both the rocket-propelled grenades and the heavy machine guns that the Taliban has used to shoot down helicopters are relatively crude weapons. To counter them, U.S. helicopter crews flying into remote valleys increasingly shifted to flying only at night and only on evenings when there was little to no illumination from the moon. The restrictions made it much harder to continue to resupply some of the more remote U.S. bases, which received supplies only a few times a month. But by operating after nightfall and during hours in which there was little moonlight, U.S. forces have been able to mitigate the Taliban attacks.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2010/06/09/ST20100609...

Webgear

Frmrsldr wrote:

The NDP should do what the Harper administration and the Cons have been doing and what the Liberals are failing miserably at: The NDP's policy should be to shape public opinion; not allow public opinion to shape NDP policy. Like the Cons, the NDP need to shape the narrative and try to get the public on board to what the NDP party strives to accomplish. In other words, unlike the Liberals; be proactive toward, not reactive to, public opinion.

It's all in the message and the messaging.

Isn't shaping public opinion another phrase from propaganda?

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

Isn't shaping public opinion another phrase from propaganda?

Sure. You can call it a lot of things like propaganda, indoctrination or conditioning.

If you want to win against Harper, you've got to beat him at his own game.

In the world of politics (sadly) it boils down to who has the better propaganda and (hopefully) who has the better policies. Better in terms of their benefit for Canada and the majority of Canadians.

Fidel

N.Beltov wrote:

RE - NDP position  ... Perhaps it's "emerging" as the situation becomes more clear. After the next election, things will become very clear, I predict. lol.

But that's just it. Things are not clear wrt Canada's role in Afghanistan. The governments of other NATO countries have shared information with their citizens. Not so in Bananada. Most Canadians are in the dark about our colonial administrative duties in Afghanistan. The NDP has called for transparent Parliamentary debate since Paulie Martin changed the Canadian role from one of peacekeeping to that of aggressive US-style combat beginning in 2005, in the lead up to young Canadians coming home in plastic bags to their families in increasing numbers.

None of the vicious toadies in previous Liberal Government or this ReformaTory-Liberal coalition government have been very transparent or accountable to the Canadian public at all with respect to Ottawa's kow-towing to Uncle Sam in the Stan.

RE: Taliban Jack Layton

Would it really be enough for a federal government to pull troops out of Afghanistan and not push for international diplomacy toward ending the illegal US-led Military occupation altogether? Or do Marxists think that doing as little as possible to inconvenience Uncle Sam's Military agenda would be the Marxian thing to do, or not do in this case? Our stooges in Ottawa are let off easy by Marxist babblers time and time again. Why should our elected stooges not be held to higher standards by self-described leftists and anti-war advocates? Is contributing to the end of war not a noble ideal for the left? Is working to use established diplomatic channels to bring about resolutions for ending war and international conflict not in our federal stooges job description?

Who thinks the fascist agenda in Europe and Spain of the 1930s and 40s was nobody else's business but Spain's and then that country which stood alone against Nazi Germany for over two years behind the Russian front?

Who among the leftists here think NATO countries made the right decision in turning their backs on the carnage and crimes against humanity that took place in Afghanistan from 1992 to 1996? Was that an indigenous matter for Afghans to sort out themselves with the US-CIA and Pakistani ISI funding the Mooj and then Taliban who took turns raping and pillaging with every city and town they razed to the ground as millions fled the country? Were our elected stooges in Ottawa just doing the right thing then, too?

Unionist

Fidel wrote:
Things are not clear wrt Canada's role in Afghanistan.

Wow. 8.5 years of kill and get killed in the service of western imperialism, and you're still foggy about it. Take your time, don't rush to judgment.

Quote:
The NDP has called for transparent Parliamentary debate since Paulie Martin changed the Canadian role from one of peacekeeping to that of aggressive US-style combat beginning in 2005, in the lead up to young Canadians coming home in plastic bags to their families in increasing numbers.

Oh yes, the MPs will sling partisan insults at each other, out of which we will at last figure out what the Liberals and Conservatives have been hiding from us: Why are we there!? And who knows, if the transparent debate goes on long enough, we may actually find out we're doing something good there! Or not! Oh to be all grown up and wise and be able to understand what the world is really about! Parliament will let me know!

Quote:

Would it really be enough for a federal government to pull troops out of Afghanistan and not push for international diplomacy toward ending the illegal US-led Military occupation altogether?

Not quite. Don't forget the payment of reparations and war crimes investigations.

Quote:
Or do Marxists think that doing as little as possible to inconvenience Uncle Sam's Military agenda would be the Marxian thing to do, or not do in this case?

"Marxists"? They have their own take on Afghanistan!? A majority of Canadians want Canada out now. I trust the "Marxists" aren't with the minority on this one?

Quote:
Is contributing to the end of war not a noble ideal for the left?

No, every warmongerer and their cheerleaders says they are bombing, occupying, and slaughtering in order to "end the war". Our noble ideal is to "leave the war" and stop killing the Afghan people.

Quote:
Is working to use established diplomatic channels to bring about resolutions for ending war and international conflict not in our federal stooges job description?

Yes, they're doing that. NATO. ISAF. The UN. They're using all the channels to try to rig and remote control the future of the Afghan people. Fortunately, they will die trying, until they get weary and run away.

Quote:
Who thinks the fascist agenda in Europe and Spain of the 1930s and 40s was nobody else's business but Spain's ...

The elected government of Spain invited anti-fascist heroes from around the world to come and fight against the fascist insurgents. Is that your metaphor for Afghanistan?

Quote:
... and then that country which stood alone against Nazi Germany for over two years behind the Russian front?

Russian never invited Canadians to come do their fighting, and Canada never offered.

Quote:
Who among the leftists here think NATO countries made the right decision in turning their backs on the carnage and crimes against humanity that took place in Afghanistan from 1992 to 1996?

Me! I do!

Quote:
Was that an indigenous matter for Afghans to sort out themselves with the US-CIA and Pakistani ISI funding the Mooj and then Taliban who took turns raping and pillaging with every city and town they razed to the ground as millions fled the country?

Ummm... Yes. When people are being raped, you don't go in there and do just a little bit of raping of your own. Would you like to borrow my Idiot's Guide to Rocket Science?

Quote:
Were our elected stooges in Ottawa just doing the right thing then, too?

When they weren't invading Afghanistan? Yes, friend, they were doing exactly the right thing. How much earlier would you have like them to go in there and self-destruct? Would that have been a "phoney war" like the current one, or a genuine holy crusade? I do have trouble following which side you're on at times.

Webgear

Frmrsldr wrote:

Sure. You can call it a lot of things like propaganda, indoctrination or conditioning.

If you want to win against Harper, you've got to beat him at his own game.

In the world of politics (sadly) it boils down to who has the better propaganda and (hopefully) who has the better policies. Better in terms of their benefit for Canada and the majority of Canadians.

 

So you have no problem with propaganda as long it is your message being published to the masses.

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Fidel wrote:
Things are not clear wrt Canada's role in Afghanistan.

Wow. 8.5 years of kill and get killed in the service of western imperialism, and you're still foggy about it. Take your time, don't rush to judgment.

You may be clear. I know I am clear. But what about transparency and accountability to the Canadian public? Remember them? No, our stooges have not been straight up with Canadians regarding their vicious toadying. They don't want Canadians thinking that Jean, and Paulie and now Steve have been boot-licking the way they have.

Unionist wrote:
Oh yes, the MPs will sling partisan insults at each other, out of which we will at last figure out what the Liberals and Conservatives have been hiding from us: Why are we there!? And who knows, if the transparent debate goes on long enough, we may actually find out we're doing something good there! Or not! Oh to be all grown up and wise and be able to understand what the world is really about! Parliament will let me know!

So in your view, Canadians don't need transparent or accountable government. Not when they have you to wise them up. In the mean time our stooges are doing excellent work, and especially those old line party hacks working part-time for full-time pay and gold-plated pensions in our non-elected and non-accountable Senate.

Fidel wrote:
Is contributing to the end of war not a noble ideal for the left?

Unionist wrote:
No, every warmongerer and their cheerleaders says they are bombing, occupying, and slaughtering in order to "end the war". Our noble ideal is to "leave the war" and stop killing the Afghan people.

And the Yanks should be free to slaughter Afghans willy-nilly once we're gone? It's only been 30 years' worth of US meddling to Talibanize Pakistan and Afghanistan. You say it's not enough time - that the neoliberal regime backed by NATO need even more time to lay the law down for tens of millions of desperately poor people. I think I understand where you're coming from now.

Fidel wrote:
Is working to use established diplomatic channels to bring about resolutions for ending war and international conflict not in our federal stooges job description?

Unionist wrote:
Yes, they're doing that. NATO. ISAF. The UN. They're using all the channels to try to rig and remote control the future of the Afghan people. Fortunately, they will die trying, until they get weary and run away

It's a phony war. This is what Afghans and a few Americans, including Dennis Kucinich have been saying for years.

You seem to think this is a real war on terror. I don't agree. And apparently very many Afghans agree that this is a phony war to extend the US Military occupation of Central Asia. See Zbigniew "Mackinder wannabe" Brzezinski's grand chessboard strategy for Central Asia.

Unionist wrote:
The elected government of Spain invited anti-fascist heroes from around the world to come and fight against the fascist insurgents. Is that your metaphor for Afghanistan?

Afghanistan has no democratically elected government. Ottawa's bosses in Warshington made sure of this over the last 30 years and counting. Are you saying that we should recognize feudal warlords and drug traffickers in the Taliban, former US proxies from 1996-2001(and apparently still on the CIA's payroll still today according to news reports) as to what Afghans want?

Unionist wrote:
Russian never invited Canadians to come do their fighting, and Canada never offered.

My father signed up to fight fascism in North Africa, Italy, Holland and finally Brussels by '45. And so did tens of thousands of Yanks who were chomping at the bit but were held back by Roosevelt ni that country. A weak and ineffective federal Liberal PM here described Hitler as trustworthy before the start of war in Europe. And Stalin demanded a second front for over two years before it happened.

Fidel wrote:
Was that an indigenous matter for Afghans to sort out themselves with the US-CIA and Pakistani ISI funding the Mooj and then Taliban who took turns raping and pillaging with every city and town they razed to the ground as millions fled the country?

Unionist wrote:
Ummm... Yes. When people are being raped, you don't go in there and do just a little bit of raping of your own. Would you like to borrow my Idiot's Guide to Rocket Science?

No, but you can borrow my post-WW II UN Guide to preventing human rights disasters and fascism in general for dummies.

Fidel wrote:
Were our elected stooges in Ottawa just doing the right thing then, too?

Unionist wrote:
When they weren't invading Afghanistan? Yes, friend, they were doing exactly the right thing.

Again you've sided with the CIA and our elected stooges' non-decision to intervene in the CIA-Pakistani Military dictatorship's business in Afghanistan from 1979-92. Well I'm not surprised for some reason. Some lefty you've turned out to be. It's disappointing.Wink

Slumberjack

You see Unionist, with merger, coalition, hand holding, courtship, or whatever it ends up being described on the horizon, one has to lay the groundwork toward certain commonalities with the prospective partner. Colonialism and offshore economic exploitation at gunpoint tend to be fairly visible and unwieldy portfolios to contend with in their own right. The harmonization of policy becomes a matter of practicality, in order to avoid needless impediments to the mutual interests at stake.

Polunatic2

[9/11 trivia] More than 6 soldiers have died for each of the 24 Canadian who died in the Twin Towers on 9/11.  [/9/11 trivia]

Slumberjack

Fidel wrote:
And the Yanks should be free to slaughter Afghans willy-nilly once we're gone?

This is a new one on me.  Apparently after having driven the Taliban and Al Qaeda from our line of sight on the good days,  rescuing the population from themselves, saving women and children from patriarchy, and overseeing Potemkin construction projects, our continuing presence is now required in order to protect people from the excesses of our erstwhile allies, by convincing them that slaughtering the indigenous citizens wholesale probably isn't such a good idea after all.

Unionist

Fidel has finally found the reason for us to stay in Afghanistan - to fight the U.S. invaders.

It's original, I'll give him that.

 

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

Sure. You can call it a lot of things like propaganda, indoctrination or conditioning.

If you want to win against Harper, you've got to beat him at his own game.

In the world of politics (sadly) it boils down to who has the better propaganda and (hopefully) who has the better policies. Better in terms of their benefit for Canada and the majority of Canadians.

So you have no problem with propaganda as long it is your message being published to the masses.

It's not an ideal set of circumstances. But if it results in the NDP forming a government, a defeat of the Conservatives and the achievement of policies that will greatly benefit the majority of Canadians, you bet!

Fidel

Slumberjack wrote:

Fidel wrote:
And the Yanks should be free to slaughter Afghans willy-nilly once we're gone?

This is a new one on me.  Apparently after having driven the Taliban and Al Qaeda from our line of sight on the good days,  rescuing the population from themselves, saving women and children from patriarchy, and overseeing Potemkin construction projects, our continuing presence is now required in order to protect people from the excesses of our erstwhile allies, by convincing them that slaughtering the indigenous citizens wholesale probably isn't such a good idea after all.

You must have wind burn from the wording of the question which hath eluded you. Canada's combat troop presence is gone in the theoretical end goal proposed by the ill thought out anti-NDP rhetoric.

The YANKS are still there though in the theoretical excellent move by Ottawa to remove troops and with our elected stooges in Ottawa apparently continuing to remain silent on the world stage with regard to what our largest trade partners are doing in Afghanistan. They've just put diplomatic pressure on Britain's weak and ineffective Tory-"Liberal Democrat" High Street coalition in London to send more troops to Afghanistan.

According to the rabid, frothing at the mouth anti-NDP rhetoric in this thread, Jack Layton is not supposed to even use Parliamentary procedure to pressure our stooges into doing their jobs as national leaders of a recognized country to work toward international peace talks and ending the slaughter of what have been mainly desperately poor innocent Afghans and Pakistanis in addition to the soldiers murdered on either side of the situation(sometimes referred to as workers by middle of the road lefties but only when convenient). Jack Layton and the fourth political party - the effective opposition in Ottawa and making both Canada's two stoogeocratic old line parties look like the colonial administrators that they are - are the root of all evol in the colonial outpost of Ottawa today.

I'm sorry, but the constant deflecting of blame from the two lap poodles leading the Tory-Lib coalition and onto the NDP so slavishly is starting to wear thin. At some point we need someone in a leadership role in Ottawa and unafraid to pursue international diplomacy, even if it does mean stepping on Uncle Sam's toes.

Webgear

 

Your ethics and principals are truly amazing.

Frmrsldr

Webgear wrote:

Your ethics and principals are truly amazing.

I guess one could say that of most (if not all) politicians.

"All is fair in love and war."

Politics is like "war". If you're in it to win it...

A marriage of dogmatism and pragmatism; realism and idealism.

Propaganda or "Indoc[trination]". There's a lot of it in the military. Had too much. Don't like the 'smell' of it?

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

Fidel has finally found the reason for us to stay in Afghanistan - to fight the U.S. invaders.

It's original, I'll give him that.

To be clear, it's YOU who thinks Uncle Sam should be free to stay in Afghanistan without our stooges in Ottawa interfering in Uncle Sam's right to march into a sovereign country and commit war crimes willy-nilly unchallenged by anyone, and especially not by our bought and paid-for stooges in Ottawa. You think it natural for vicious toadies of the day to avoid cutting Uncle Sam's grass. YOU can't imagine what a real leader in Ottawa should do in this situation... because you wouldn't recognize a real leader if he was draped in orange. I think it's the colour orange that fools you so.

I, on the other hand, am not so willing to let our vicious toadies off the hook for their toadying ways. Someone has to act like a real leader of a real country, and Jack is volunteering to do just that. Our colonial administrators in the two same-same parties just aren't up to the job. Steve and Iggy have their heads so far up Uncle Sam's derriere that they've gotta pump air to 'em.

Bec.De.Corbin Bec.De.Corbin's picture

Meanwhile... At least 40 people were killed and 77 injured by a suicide bomb attack on a packed wedding party in insurgency-plagued southern Afghanistan, officials said on Thursday

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100610/wl_nm/us_afghanistan_violence#mwpphu...

Unionist

Quote:
"We condemn such a brutal act," Taliban spokesman Qari Yousuf Ahmadi told Reuters from an undisclosed location. "The Taliban wage Jihad (holy war) in order to free the people from the hands of occupiers. How can we kill them?"

 

Webgear

 

That is correct, the Taliban would never injure or kill anyone that opposes them, they have never killed police officers, government officials, tribal elders, political opponents, teachers, aid workers in the past.

Unionist

Webgear. Your side is losing. After a war longer than WWII. You thought you overthrew the Taliban almost 9 years ago. The insurgents still run more of Afghanistan than your "officials" do. Smell the coffee. Call for withdrawal.

skdadl

[URL=http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-fg-bagram-20100609,0,655425,full... eternal prison colony at Bagram[/URL]

 

A commenter on a Merkin site where we were discussing that article yesterday asked a prescient question: what is Obama (or whoever is in office at the time) going to do when the Taliban retake either the site or (more likely imho) the government of Afghanistan?

 

The longer I think about that question, the more I remember how GTMO came to be. Man, did Marx underestimate the number of historical replays of just about anything or what?

Pages

Topic locked