The Afghan people will win - Part 2

129 posts / 0 new
Last post
Frmrsldr

Fidel,

The reasons why Afghans do what they do is called survival.

For over 7 years we have been fighting the Afghan war. Yet, every year has seen an increase in violence and an increase in the amount of ground captured by the Taliban. We are losing both the ground battle and the battle for the 'hearts and minds'.

Why? 

Europeans (ethnically speaking, so as to include Canadians, Americans, Australians and New Zealanders - those who have troops fighting in Afghanistan) are going to see European troops as the 'good guys'. Afghans are going to see mujihadeen freedom (from foreign occupation) fighters as the 'good guys'.

Ignoring the argument from propaganda and taking the argument from human nature, it is basic human nature that, in order to fit the 'we are the good guys' paradigm, the Western media is going to report incidents where Afghan insurgents and suicide bombers killed fellow Afghans more than when ISAF and OEF soldiers kill Afghans.

Fidel, imagine that you are an Afghan and a friend or a family member tells you that your wife and children have just been killed by gun fire or by an explosion. Without being told who were responsible, wouldn't your immediate reaction be that it was the foreign 'white guys' with guns who did it?

Realigned, do you intend to live the rest of your life in Afghanistan? I'm guessing probably not. Most Afghans do, however, intend to live their lives in their home country.

The point I'm making is that the Afghan people know that when the foreign troops leave, the Taliban will still be there.

Here's why I believe the Taliban is going to win.

1. The Taliban are the only group I know who have a national vision of Afghanistan. The other groups are just war lords who are the lord of their feudal fiefdoms.

2. The Karzai government is corrupt. While they are enriching themselves, they are impoverishing the ANA and ANP, turning them into roving bands of armed bandits preying upon the Afghan people to survive and (in some cases, get rich) through breaking the laws and attacking the people they are supposed to defend.

3. The Afghan people fear, loathe and hate the Karzai government, the ANA and ANP (as described in 2, above). Guess what? We are supporting the Karzai government by propping it up and we are training the ANA and ANP. Whatever money we are sending, meant to shore up the Afghan economy (which we can easily afford to do in these times of economic crisis) is going into the pockets of the corrupt regime. Don't you just love to see our government give our tax dollars to such worthy causes? Wow! Hey Realigned, doesn't this just sound like a sure fire strategy for success?

The Taliban have 'nostalgia' in their favor. When they were in power, Afghans point out that the Taliban:

<><>

4. Were/are not corrupt.

5. Virtually eradicated opium production, which today is causing social problems not only in Afghanistan, but also in Russia, China, Iran and Europe.

6. Save for sporradic fighting in the Northeast between Taliban government troops and Kyrgyz and Tajik war lord armies, Afghanistan was peaceful.

7. In the Taliban justice system, people can have grievances redressed often within 48 hours. Under the current government, if corrupt officials don't get bribes, you don't get justice.

As Unionist likes to point out:

When we're watching breaking news of the fall of Kabul to the Taliban, we are going to be treated to the spectacle of the last helicopter flying off the roof of the U.S. embassy. Hamid Karzai's arm and leg will be wrapped around the landing skid of the Huey. The hand of his dangling arm will be clutching a suitcase. Karzai's pockets and suitcase will be stuffed with Yanqui 'greenbacks'. 'Ben Franklins' will be fluttering out of his suitcase and pockets. The hands of the starving and impoverished Afghan people grasping for this money. People left behind, buffeted in the wake of the departing Hueys' wind turbulence.

WHY? 

 

 

Frmrsldr

Realigned,

It was reported that Capt. Semrau was part of an OMLT/POMLT operation. He was teaching Afghans, not British soldiers 'how to war'.

Of the 2,700 Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, how many are stationed in Kandahar province?

In Helmand province where the incident took place, (aside from roving U.S. forces) British forces are predominant.

The first question that came to my mind was, "What, the British can't do this training themselves?" The British have a few thousand more troops in Afghanistan than we do.

Either this was an OMLT operation or it was something else.

Realigned, judging by your comments on this site, you are more intelligent than the officer class to whom you've given the right to make decisions over your life, death and physical and mental well being.

Think about it, a trainer executes a suspected insurgent within visual and audible range of his Afghan trainees (and possibly British troops), how smart is that? And yet you trust these guys with your life?

This incident raises questions, I dunno, like; "If Canadian soldiers do this, then how does that make us any different from the Taliban?" and "We are in Afghanistan to do WHAT?".

I didn't directly say Capt. Semrau was JTF 2 (Special Forces). I argued that if it was not an OMLT operation, then it was something else. That 'something else' was to make a comparison with "Operation Phoenix". "Operation Phoenix" was a CIA programme used in Vietnam. Airborne/Green Beret/Special Forces/CIA field operatives were given information about Vietnamese 'persons of interest'. These persons were either captured where they would be tortured for information, or they would be selectively assassinated to disrupt the leadership of the Viet Cong's organization.

This particular so called 'OMLT incident' has all the hallmarks of "Operation Phoenix".

For more information on these kinds of operations in Afghanistan, go to http:www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2008/05/21/cia-death-squads-killing-with-8...

 

Fidel

The Taliban may well have reduced opium growing when they were in power. Apparently there was a glut on black markets, and the price was depressed for several years. The Taliban seem to understand capitalism and the advantages for creating artificial scarcity of supply.

But to suggest that the Taliban are considered the homeboys in Afghanistan is misleading. Yes, they are not Eurethnic invaders. I suppose that is a plus in their column. But Afghans would probably be favouring the homeboys under conditions of extreme duress and war. We lefties should remember that democracy is the right's most hated institution, and the CIA and friends have overthrown and assassinated democracy around the world since before WW II.

Taliban religious fundamentalism is new to Afghanistan and Pakistan since the 1980s. Khaled Ahmed, a news reporter based in London, said that Taliban extremism went out to Afghanistan from madrassas based in Pakistan in the 80's. While this Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan occurred, Pakistan was ruled by a US-backed military dictatorship. Very many Pakistanis today are angry about the Talibanization of their country. And according to several sources, still blame Talibanization of their country on Afghans. It seems there are people in both countries who do not understand that militant Islam was forced on them by third and fourth party countries with help of their own military dictatorship and Saudi princes, like CIA asset Osama bin Laden et al.

Women in Kabul wore whatever they wanted and enjoyed more basic rights in the 1960's, 70s and 80s though compared to life under Taliban rule. This whole situation began with a women's rights movement and proliferation of secular socialist thought in Afghanistan. Enter the American CIA intervening on the other side of the world:

[url=Pakistan:">http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=10015][... "The Taliban's Godfather"?[/url]Documents Detail Years of Pakistani Support for Taliban, Extremists

Quote:

These newly declassified documents on Pakistani covert support to the Taliban and Kashmiri separatist groups confirms the hisotric role of Pakistani intelligence and its covert operations since the onslaught of the Soviet Afghan war.

What the declassified documents do not mention, however, is the role of US intelligence.

In carrying out these covert operations, Pakistani intelligence was acting "as a go between" on behalf of the CIA. . .

Pakistan remains a training ground for the US sponsored Islamic brigades in the Middle East, Africa, Central Asia, South and South East Asia

President Pervez Musharraf, is described by the Western media as "a U.S. ally in its battle against terrorism" Realities are turned upside down. The Pakistani military regime has consistently, since the late 1970s, abetted and financed "Islamic terrorist organizations" on Washington's behalf.

Pakistan's ISI was always acting in close liaison with Washington. The Taliban would not have been able to accede to political power and form a government without US military aid, channeled through Pakistan

It's not ordinary Afghans who will win.

Not women like that one depicted above taking a bullet to the head in a soccer stadium Pinochet style.

Not children in Kabul, like the one begging on the sidewalk in a photo published by RAWA.

The fix was in a long time ago.

Quote:
As Unionist likes to point out:

I think it's fair to say that Unionist is not a socialist, However, just to be clear of where we are coming from, I am a proud and impenitent socialist. He has spent some amount of time supporting the crazy George regime's official government lies wrt 9/11, and somewhat furtively I might add. He's openly intolerant of Catholics, and he frequents threads like this one and supportive of US-backed militant Islam in Central Asia. I recommend a large grain of salt with your serving of Unionist.

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

I think it's fair to say that Unionist is not a socialist, However, just to be clear of where we are coming from, I am a proud and impenitent socialist. He has spent some amount of time supporting the crazy George regime's official government lies wrt 9/11, and somewhat furtively I might add. He's openly intolerant of Catholics, and he frequents threads like this one and supportive of US-backed militant Islam in Central Asia. I recommend a large grain of salt with your serving of Unionist.

Thank you, Fidel. The day I meet your definition of "socialist", I will walk run to the nearest CF recruiting centre and sign up for  a tour of duty to bring Democracy, Socialism, and Catholic Schools to Afghanistan.

 

Slumberjack

Fidel's talking points seem oddly reminiscent of the media response lines used by the invaders in depicting the Taliban as a foreign invading influence in the region, that the mission is about protecting women and children, about sending girls to school.  One might expect a true socialist to throw off hegemony's burden and excuses.

Unionist

Fidel believes that George W. Bush created both 9/11 and the Afghan insurgency. He is "impenitent" in that belief.

And having created them, on the seventh day, He did rest.

 

Fidel

Slumberjack wrote:

Fidel's talking points seem oddly reminiscent of the media response lines used by the invaders in depicting the Taliban as a foreign invading influence in the region, that the mission is about protecting women and children, about sending girls to school.  One might expect a true socialist to throw off hegemony's burden and excuses.

This is what a Pakistani news journalist said about it to a University of California-Berkeley history studies group. Khaled expresses sympathy for Afghans at the same time he laments the US-backed military dictatorship in his country: 

 

Quote:

Let's explicate this a little. These warriors, these surrogates, were fighting the Russians in Afghanistan. Is that how this process begins? And Zia, in terms of his strategic concept, thought that by winning in Afghanistan, he would acquire for his country strategic depth.

[url=http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Ahmed/ahmed-con5.html][=me... came along as the war progressed. He definitely benefited from the largess of the United States. The economy was in a crisis when he took over, and the money that came later was a price for his cooperation in Afghanistan.[/color][/url] In Afghanistan, he encouraged the formulation of religious militias, headed by people who were of dubious character but who served his purpose. Pakistan also chose its favorites, which I think was a shortsighted policy, which finally fragmented Afghanistan as a country. If there was a feeling that Afghanistan should become the strategic depth for Pakistan, that was defeated, because we allowed that country to become disunited. As events later shwed, it was Pakistan which became the strategic depth to the Taliban ideology.

In a way, this furthered the process of "Talibanization" of Afghanistan.

That's right. I think Afghanistan was most unfortunate. They had seven major Sunni militias who were then resident in Peshawar. We chose the most radical ones and the moderate ones we rejected. Out of the seven, five were actually in favor of the Shah coming back. We didn't want the Shah to come back. We thought that we would control Afghanistan much better if we had our own man there.

So, once again, they are not my words.  You people will continue talking past and below us when we reference what real people have to say about what happened. You people will continue supporting US-backed versions of history if you want to. I'm different. I'm Canadian and capable of thinking for myself and using the power of the internet to support what I'm saying. All you people have so far is your vapid rhetoric.

Socialists tend to consider what the non-white people have to say about circumstances in general. This, unfortunately, isnt true of  political conservatives and their groupees.

Fidel

If the Taliban win, will there be singing and dancing in the streets?

Or will those people be given a truck ride to the soccer stadium and dealt with Pinochet style?

 

 

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

If the Taliban win, will there be singing and dancing in the streets?

Or will those people be given a truck ride to the soccer stadium and dealt with Pinochet style?

 

These are the questions asked by those who are against immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops. They are not the questions asked by those who respect the right of the Afghan people to self-determination.

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
Fidel wrote:

If the Taliban win, will there be singing and dancing in the streets?

Or will those people be given a truck ride to the soccer stadium and dealt with Pinochet style?

 

These are the questions asked by those who are against immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops. They are not the questions asked by those who respect the right of the Afghan people to self-determination

Wrong again. It's not necessarily a binary choice, or, "we're either with or against" this so-called wisdom that says the people must win.

The people of Cambodia, Thailand. Laos, and Indonesia didnt win much before losing plenty.

The Vietnamese took some winning over ten thousand days of neocolonial warfiteering. Something neocon groupees arent usually aware of today is that Viet Nam is also situated at the rim of the China Basin, with oil and gas deposits, and another militarily strategic location in their gun sights more than likely the focus of conservatives and their big energy pals even then. The doctor and the madman needed a pretext for bombing Viet Nam and Cambodia to kingdom come though, and later  orchestrating the slaughter of several hundred thousand in Indonesia and East Timor. But these were brown people not the few thousand whites who lost their lives in NYC on 9/11 and so tend to be forgotten by most conservatives who find neocon plots of mass murder somewhat difficult to digest for some reason.

This tale that says Afghans will win is reminiscent of the predatory capitalist economic long run in thirdworld countries and colonialism before that. The general notion says that the brown people must put in their time as slave labourers in a hewer and drawer economy to benefit the imperial master nation, or in modern times, the western world banking cabal in to them for several billion dollars worth of loan debt,  which is typically siphoned off by colonial administrators in the form of kick-back and graft, corporate welfare handouts that tend to be passed back to marauding multinationals in a round trip manner.

The [insert the latest colonized people] will win is basically a terrible lie repeated over and over by conservatives in providing succor for desperately poor masses on the receiving end of their brutal colonialism. "Afghans will win" is a fairy tale that requires faith, and like the capitalist economic long run in perpetually developing countries, it never materializes. And the evil doers never seem to reap their just rewards. The parasites simply move on to the next most vulnerable country. Capitalist dogs will tend to cock hind legs up in any old port in a storm.

Unionist

[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7945413.stm]Policemen killed in blasts; U.S. and U.K. troops killed[/url]

Quote:

A suicide bomber has killed 11 people, including nine police officers, and wounded many others in an attack in Helmand province, officials say.

The bomber, wearing a police uniform, blew himself up near a police building in provincial capital Lashkar Gah.

Another policeman was killed in a similar attack in the south-western province of Farah, officials said.

On Sunday, two British soldiers and four US troops died in separate attacks in Helmand and Nangarhar provinces.

 

The Afghan people will win!

 

Frmrsldr

Although there are many similarities, there are a few significant differences to Vietnam.

Vietnam is a (significantly) ethnically homogenous society. The North Vietnamese government and the Viet Cong were fighting for ideals that inspired party members and the Viet Cong guerrillas: The Vietnam War was a war of national liberation. They were fighting for a utopian socialist socety.

Afghanistan is a multi ethnic country. When we leave, they will fight a civil war to determine who rules the country. The Taliban have a national vision of Afghanistan. The other war lords do not. Victory will go to the strongest, the most dedicated, the most numerous. If the other mujahideen are defeated, their war lords will be content to accept Taliban rule if they are allowed to rule their own fiefdoms without interference from the central government.

The Greeks came to Afghanistan. Then they left. It was as if they had never been.

The Mongols came to Afghanistan. Then they left. It was as if they had never been.

The Indians came to Afghanistan. Then they left. It was as if they had never been.

The Persians came to Afghanistan. Then they left. It was as if they had never been.

The British came to Afghanistan. Then they left. It was as if they had never been

The Russian came to Afghanistan. Then they left. It was as if they had never been.

Now we are in Afghanistan. We too, shall leave. It will be as if we had never been.

My heart supports Unionist because he is an idealist. My brain supports Fidel because he is a realist. You are both right, just in different ways. 

Fidel

Quote:

The British came to Afghanistan. Then they left. It was as if they had never been

The Russian came to Afghanistan. Then they left. It was as if they had never been.

I believe neither the British nor the Russians were on the side of operation cyclone and billions of dollars in US taxpayer funding to prop up militant Islam and theocratic feudalism in Afghanistan. If the Russkies or Chinese began supplying the home boys with heat-seeking shoulder rockets, those countries would face the consequences for economic warfare and sanctions. The CIA-ISI and Saudis simply wanted it more than the Soviets were able to deal with in the 1980s. The Afghan PDPA government actually outlasted the USSR by more than a year, and held out against the mujahideen and well armed mercenaries from 40 countries for over two years while NATO countries turned their backs on the carnage.

Taliban are the creation of the American CIA and Pakistan's Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI). The Taliban government was set up in 1996 as an Anglo-American client regime.

The Americans and British have discussed plans for "negotiating" with and propping up their old business partners, the Taliban, or what remains of the core Taliban, and even their old favourite Islamic gladio from the WTC bombing of 1993 infamy, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, in recent months. Hawks and Brits know the Taliban and have dealt with these same theocratic feudalists before. Hawks will deal with the devil to get what theyre after. The Taliban, or what's left of them, are still influenced and supplied with weapons by uncle Sam through Pakistan's army intel agency controlled by elites, the ISI.

The CIA-ISI controlled Taliban may win after much bloodshed and warfiteering.  Ordinary Afghans will not win soon.

[url=America">http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=12716][...'s Search for the "Good Taliban"[/url]

Ghislaine

I agree with Fidel's overall point that regualar Afghan people will not win soon, ie those who don't want religious fundamentalism or military occupation.  However, Canada should still leave. This is a necessary first step.

 It is interesting to consider all of the many things our federal government cannot find the funds for, however [url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090317.wafghanpolic...  this [/url] is somehow affordable:

 

Quote:

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan — Canada will pay the equivalent of all the police salaries in the province of Kandahar for two years, two federal cabinet ministers announced Monday after touring law-enforcement sites in Kandahar city.

Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon and International Trade Minister Stockwell Day, who also chairs the cabinet committee on Afghanistan, announced that $21-million would be spent to strengthen the rule of law in this country where security conditions have markedly deteriorated.

Wonderful. Considering some of the things one can still be charged for in Afghanistan and the horrible situation of human rights under Karzai, it is horrifying that our tax dollars are supporting this "rule of law". 

 What about Vancouver and the gang violence there? What about seniors whose pensions have disappeared and who are living in rundown housing? To name just two examples of where these funds could be better spent. Instead we are sending them down the black hole of the war our own PM admitted we cannot win. And Iggy has no disagreements with any of it.

 Even Jack Layton seems [url=http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=1396155&p=2] happy [/url]:

 

Quote:

I'm glad Prime Minister Harper now sees that stability and peace require negotiation. New Democrats have been trying to convince him of that for some time. But what matters now is determining our next steps.

Our skills and reputation as a peacemaker give Canada the basis for an active role after our troops withdraw in 2011. We must begin laying the foundations for that diplomatic role now. I believe that a special envoy, who may be more concerned with our national interest, will not have a significant impact.

For any peace initiative to work, informal discussions have to prepare the ground, identify regional partners and discover and test new political ideas and solutions. Canada can take the lead on this by appointing an eminent persons group to take on this task, as recently and similarly proposed in these pages by Professor Fen Osler Hampson.

 Is there any politician out there who thinks that Afghanistan, not Canada, should take the lead? Argh!

Fidel

Actually, my own heart is with Unionist's vision for Afghanistan, and that NATO does the right thing and withdraws. Perhaps it would be a step up from the sewer to the gutter for Afghans, if they had someone as progressive as Iran's former Ayatollah running things as fundamentalist theocracies go. Perhaps the old Iran-Contra gang would be defanged by that time and Afghans free to determine their own future without  interference from the US and proxies. Anything's possible.

Jingles

Quote:
Our skills and reputation as a peacemaker give Canada the basis for an active role after our troops withdraw in 2011. We must begin laying the foundations for that diplomatic role now.

Quick! Someone get him a pith helmet and a monacle. If you wanna be a old school colonialist, you gotta look the part.

More of the same from the three old-line stoogeocrat parties, right Fidel?

Fidel

Jingles wrote:

Quote:
Our skills and reputation as a peacemaker give Canada the basis for an active role after our troops withdraw in 2011. We must begin laying the foundations for that diplomatic role now.

Quick! Someone get him a pith helmet and a monacle. If you wanna be a old school colonialist, you gotta look the part.

More of the same from the three old-line stoogeocrat parties, right Fidel?

That's right, the two stooges made with the Warshington-Tel Aviv friendly hands off policy on genocide in Gaza.

And Saakasvilli couldve really kicked ass in S. Ossetia if it hadnt been for those meddlesome Russian peacekeepers butting in.

We need more of that around the world for sure. I wonder what Malalai Joya and RAWA have to say about the need for international assistance in their country(as opposed to "military solutions")

Will Afghanistan become a repeat of 1989 to 1996 when NATO countries turned their backs on the carnage in that country? God help them.

Sometimes it's good to use our heads for something more than tuque racks

Frmrsldr

"Now we are in Afghanistan. We too, shall leave. It will be as if we had never been."

"When it's all over and we finally do leave, ... the Afghans of Bamiyan province will be at least as poor as they ever were in what will remain a devastated country."

http://www.antiwar.com/engelhardt/?articleid=14422

 

Frmrsldr

Pakistan is predominantly Sunni as are the Pashtuns and Taliban located in southern Afghanistan.

The Hazaras, Turkmen, Uzbek, Tajik and Kyrgyz people living in the north are predominantly Shia, as is Iran which borders Afghanistan and Pakistan to the West.

Iran initially cooperated with the U.S. in its war in Afghanistan. After Bush's "Axis of Evil" speech, the election of President Amadinejad and the U.S. war against Iraq, the Bush White House relations with Iran soured.

Hopefully, Obama can improve U.S. relations with Iran. Iran's improved relations with the U.S. and greater involvement in Afghanistan will provide a balance and bring stability to Afghanistan and will be of some benefit to the people who have suffered the most in this war.

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

Will Afghanistan become a repeat of 1989 to 1996 when NATO countries turned their backs on the carnage in that country?

Wow... I never thought of that. We should have had our troops in there 12 years earlier! Brilliant! Then we might have been out by now (the survivors, that is)!

Was anyone calling for NATO intervention in 1989? Now that you think of it, it's absolutely obvious. Who was supposed to run the country after the Soviets got their asses whipped, anyway?

 

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
Fidel wrote:

Will Afghanistan become a repeat of 1989 to 1996 when NATO countries turned their backs on the carnage in that country?

Wow... I never thought of that. We should have had our troops in there 12 years earlier! Brilliant! Then we might have been out by now (the survivors, that is)!

The Shawinigan strangler was only following a direct order from Warshington.

And then Paulie with the scabby steamships workers was only following instructions delegated to Ottawa from Warshington.

And then ...

 

Quote:
Was anyone calling for NATO intervention in 1989? Now that you think of it, it's absolutely obvious. Who was supposed to run the country after the Soviets got their asses whipped, anyway?

What about the all Afghan PDPA government of the time? Or was that too obvious?

 But no, the CIA and Saudis continued with the multi-billion dollar aid and weapons shipments to the mujahideen(and some of who are Northern Alliance commanders in Karzai's government today). According to Pakistani and western news journalists, the PDPA government would fall to the well-armed mujahideen whithin four months of the Soviet pullout, which actually began in 1987 and all clear in 1989.

Over two years and billions of US taxpayer dollars later, and a little over a year after dissolution of the Soviet Union, the muhahideen finally took Kabul, and Jalalabad where mujahideen and mercenaries from 40 countries suffered humiliating defeat at the hands of men and women volunteers of the then isolated Afghan PDPA army several months earlier.

More civil war broke out, and this time the CIA and Saudis began bypassing Pakistan's ISI and funding the most ruthless characters and drug dealers directly and who proceeded to tear Afghanistan apart from stern to stem. One of their favourite thugs, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar from bombing of WTC in 1993 infamy, continued raining rockets on Kabul even after he was designated prime minister of the country.

But you know all this already, unionist. And youve never objected to any of it except, perhaps, in one post I remember that didnt make much sense. In your opinon, it was the "Afghan people" who threw Soviets out of the country. Well, that's an oversimplification of what really happened, and I think you know that. The PDPA made the mistake of declaring a ban on opium growing, and the CIA took full advantage of that.

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Ghislaine wrote:
 

Even Jack Layton seems [url=http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/story.html?id=1396155&p=2] happy [/url]: 

Well, of course he is!

Spending money on strengthening racist and classist police forces is [url=right">http://challengingthecommonplace.blogspot.com/2009/03/mr-layton-you-blew... up Layton's alley![/url]

He wants more federal funding to hire more police for the discredited and brutal Vancouver police, just in time for the big Olympics martial law crackdown. He wants to give them more powers, including the power to spy on citizens who are deemed "potential" criminals. And he wants longer sentences for drug-related offences, rather than decriminalization and rehabilitation programs.

Fidel

And all of the NDP's stance on white collar and corporate crime costing the country $20 or $30 billion a year and for federal accountability tends to be overlooked by progressives in favour of making the NDP out to be something it's not for some reason. Oh yeah, that would be for the purposes of a smear job in order to pull votes away from the NDP. I love progressives like that.

They express concern for democracy as if perfection is a baseline in a country that was sold off to US interests decades ago by our two on-the-take old line parties, corporate hirelings all and far from perfection when examining even small fractions of their records of corruption and traitorous acts in power. I think if Trotskyists want the perfect revolution, they'd better get good at Sim City on their puters, or something.

Fidel

Frmrsldr wrote:

Hopefully, Obama can improve U.S. relations with Iran. Iran's improved relations with the U.S. and greater involvement in Afghanistan will provide a balance and bring stability to Afghanistan and will be of some benefit to the people who have suffered the most in this war.

I'm wondering how Iran's cooperation with Afghanistan might benefit Afghans? Isnt Iran a more complete ideologically driven Islamic(Shia) state compared with Af-Pak's half-baked Talibanization(Sunni) since the 1980s?

The support to Afghan minorities received from Iran took the form of proxy fighters during the 1980s and 90's. Thousands of proxy fighters from dozens of surrounding countries crossed into Afghanistan in the 1980s, and increasingly in the 1990s when their respective religious minorities were threatened by mercenaries and US-backed thugs who turned their weapons on each other and Afgans in a Darwinian battle for territory. Apparently a shipment of stinger missiles was seized by Iranian soldiers taken from mercenaries who crossed into that country during the US-Af-Pak proxy war in 1980s.

Frmrsldr

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/03/18/taleban-grab-share-of-reconst...

Ha ha ha ha. Never underestimate the resourcefulness of Afghans. 

Frmrsldr

Iran seems to have played a dual game of supporting both Sunnis and Shia in Afghanistan during the 1979 to prior to "Axis of Evil" speech period.

"What, the Pentagon, the state department and various U.S. administrations were covertly in cahoots with Iran - even though the U.S. has no official relations with Iran?"

You bet. Remember Iran-Contragate during the Reagan years, where the U.S. officially supported Iraq and their buddy Saddam Hussein and simultaneously supported Iran during the 1980-1988 Iran Iraq War?

Pakistan's ISI, Saudi Arabia and Iran also were involved in the Pentagon's meddling in Sebia and Kosovo in the 1990s.

From the U.S.'s self vested interests, it is better to have Iran involved in Afghanistan in a 'friendly' manner, rather than to have Iran allow Afghan insurgents bring in stinger missiles to use on U.S. and ISAF aircraft and Predator drones.

Although not an ideal situation, but if U.S. interests and Iran's interests converge, and if Afghans can derive some benefit from it, I'm not opposed to that.

On the other hand, if the U.S. continues a hard line against Iran, and Iran responds by allowing more Stinger missiles into Afghanistan and more U.S. and ISAF aircraft get shot down, in turn resulting in an advanced withdrawal from Afghanistan - well, I'm all in favor of that too. 

Unionist

Please continue [url=here[/url]">http://rabble.ca/babble/international-news-and-politics/afghan-people-wi..., before this thread is closed for length.

 

contrarianna

Oops, moved to part 3

Pages

Topic locked