One Afghan at the mosque said he fought in Chechnya in the 1990s
after being trained by the Pakistan-based Lashkar-e-Taiba Islamist
militant group which India says is behind the Mumbai attacks."I have the military training and I will do whatever possible to go
to Gaza to at least fire one bullet toward Israel," Mohammad Ayaas
said. "I will be the luckiest person to die beside my Muslim brothers
fighting for an honorable cause."... While reaching Gaza from Afghanistan is all-but impossible, many of the
volunteers said they would take revenge on U.S. troops inside
Afghanistan instead.
Afghanistan, Still Losing the War, Part 12
Sat, 2009-01-10 23:20
#1
Frustrated Mess
Afghanistan, Still Losing the War, Part 12
Sat, 2009-01-10 23:53
#2
YES-YES! The warfiteers must be counting their lucky stars for having funded the creation of these religious robots 30 years ago. And it's still paying off for them.
Sun, 2009-01-11 05:12
#3
Careful Fidel...we've been told it has nothing to do with religion. Here you are straying outside the official script.
Sun, 2009-01-11 06:08
#4
Lo, observe the hand of god. Who can make war with the beast? His number is 6...
Sun, 2009-01-11 06:24
#5
... While reaching Gaza from Afghanistan is all-but impossible, many of the
volunteers said they would take revenge on U.S. troops inside
Afghanistan instead.
What a great idea! Why stop at taking some pot shots, plant some IEDs and really show them US Soldiers what for.
But if you can't kill US soldiers just settle for SOMEONE in uniform over there.
Sun, 2009-01-11 06:30
#6
That's because the A list are so preoccupied these days, it's like pulling teeth to get them out consistently for the big events. But why cancel it entirely when the B list is full of willing has-beens and wannabes.
Sun, 2009-01-11 08:45
#7
What a great idea! Why stop at taking some pot shots, plant some IEDs and really show them US Soldiers what for.
But if you can't kill US soldiers just settle for SOMEONE in uniform over there.
Just imagine, those cowardly Afghans, taking pot shots and planting IEDs at those U.S. uniformed and armed aid delegations.
I'm going to write to them on your behalf, Realigned, and suggest they act like your more civilized U.S. and Israeli folk:
[b][i]Air strikes[/i][/b] are really the only way to go.
Sun, 2009-01-11 16:09
#8
Frustrated Mess
Funny how so many missed the wider implication that in supposedly safe Kabul, the US (and Canadian) cheering of Israel's crimes in Gaza will probably result in more US and Canadian deaths in Afghanistan. Way to win hearts and minds.
Sun, 2009-01-11 23:18
#9
Hey FM,
I read that article and I didn't see anywhere indicating that US or Canadian's in Kabul were "cheering of Israel crimes".
Does the article mean to say that Canadian and American support of Israel in general (r back home as it were) means that Afghani's will take it upon themselves to kill US and Canadians IN Afghanistan?
I wouldn't be that surprised, some people will use any excuse for violence. Then again what the media often fails to convey is context. It's common for pretty much anyone to make those kinda claims, kill the Taliban, Kill the americans, kill pakistan, kill Canada etc..
It's their version of 'I hate conservitives, I hate liberals, I hate harper'.
Sun, 2009-01-11 23:31
#10
Yeah, I disagree with FM.
I don't think Afghans will kill Canadian soldiers because they hate Israel.
I think they'll kill Canadian soldiers because they hate Canada.
Mon, 2009-01-12 00:02
#11
remind
Just imagine, those cowardly Afghans, taking pot shots and planting IEDs at those U.S. uniformed and armed aid delegations.I'm going to write to them on your behalf, Realigned, and suggest they act like your more civilized U.S. and Israeli folk:
[b][i]Air strikes[/i][/b] are really the only way to go.
Funny but dark!
___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"
Mon, 2009-01-12 01:12
#12
It would be awesome if instead of people trying to kill Canadians they just threw shoes at us.
I could start a chairity....
$5 to throw a shoe at a Canadian soldier (me! and I'd donate the proceeds to demineing programs in Afghanistan or some other kinda program)
Now don't hurt yourselves pushing each other trying to get first in line ladies and gentlemen =)
Mon, 2009-01-12 01:15
#13
It would be awesome if instead of people trying to kill Canadians they just threw shoes at us.
They're not throwing anything at me. Of course, I'm not trying to occupy anyone's country militarily. I think the Nazis were treated somewhat badly while sight seeing in France, Russia etc
Mon, 2009-01-12 02:34
#14
Post 9/11 Torture and Secret Detention
Abduction, Torture, & Repeated Raping of Aafia Siddiqui
This is really awful. Just terrible. The American inquisition must stop.
Mon, 2009-01-12 04:19
#15
They're not throwing anything at me.
No I'm sure they are not. BUT if they were I bet you'd rather be hit with a shoe than an IED. =)
I think the Nazis were treated somewhat badly while sight seeing in France, Russia etcI'm sure they were! I can't imagine the Nazi's paying for food or post cards or to use the wash rooms or anything while sight seeing.
Mon, 2009-01-12 06:16
#16
They're not throwing anything at me.
No I'm sure they are not. BUT if they were I bet you'd rather be hit with a shoe than an IED. =)
I think you know what I meant. One of the reasons the UN was created was to put a stop to aggressor nations from marching in to sovereign countries and occupying them militarily.
Personally, I have/had several relatives who fought in both world wars and who regretted it, all except for one or two of them who really didnt see much of the horror show themselves.
I've been a sport hunter, and I have no issues with taking food from nature in appropriate situations and manner. But I refuse to be cannon fodder for the sake of an international corporate agenda. Before I ever picked up a rifle for country and flag, I would have to answer some fairly serious questions about why I was shipping out to meet interesting people in exotic cultures so far away and to murder them on their own soil. For example:
1. Is Karzai's government just another US-installed puppet government in a desperately poor nation, and like all of the US-installed kleptocracies, narco-states, and the brutal right-wing dictatorships they've propped up around the world from last century to this one - will Karzai's municipal government in Kabul be just another U.S.-backed stoogeocracy running the country into the ground while he and his colonial administrators become rich at the expense of democracy?
2. Why in hell are the troops even over there? Because as far as I can tell, that desperately poor country had nothing to do with 9-11. There is no actual hard proof that Sheihk Khalid Muhammed or any of the so-called Hamburg Cell were responsible for orchestrating 9-11. Not if you disallow torture as a legitimate means of extracting confessions and stonewalling international courts of law from subpoena of witnesses and to give testimonials as per established legal procedure.
3. Is it possible that 9-11 was a false flag operation and orchestrated by more than one country's intel agency and US Military as a way to create an unseen enemy and justify enormous post-cold war era spending on military-Keynesianism? Because I think it's highly likely myself. The US and friends actually have an established history of perpetrating false flag terrorism and harbouring known terrorists for political reasons.
The Taliban and "al Qa'eda" are creations of the CIA and international friends. Independent Canadian and American sources say that the U.S. shadow feds did not sever ties with their Islamic Gladios from the 1980s and 90's. In fact, prominent Republican Party politicians have accused the Liberal Democrats of aiding and abetting their old Islamic Gladio allies well past 1992, into the mid 1990s, and even in the years and months leading up to 9-11-01. And various sources say it continues to this day. Some on the left and even the political right have said this is a "phony war on terror" And I tend to agree - this is definitely what it looks like.
I could never lie to myself that I would be traveling to another country to make things right, and especially not under the overall command of that country's military while our own stoogeocrats nod up and down in rapid agreement to whatever they are instructed to by Warshington. No God damn way. Colour me anything but a drone or a pawn for those idiots, those thundering nit-wits and yes-men on the take and with incredibly small minds - minds so small that they have to step outside to change them. You're better than them, Realigned. Get out while you still have your legs attached and your brain switched on. And If I've mistaken you for being a Canadian soldier and you're not, then excuse me.
Tue, 2009-01-13 11:44
#17
Obomba is [url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/12/AR200901... sending [/url] 30,000 more US troops to Afghanistan, but still doesn't think it will really make a difference anyways:
President-elect Barack Obama intends to sign off on Pentagon plans to send up to 30,000 more U.S. troops to Afghanistan, but the incoming administration does not anticipate that the Iraq-like "surge" of forces will significantly change the direction of a conflict that has steadily deteriorated over the past seven years.
Instead, Obama's national security team expects that the new deployments, which will nearly double the current U.S. force of 32,000 (alongside an equal number of non-U.S. NATO troops), will help buy enough time for the new administration to reappraise the entire Afghanistan war effort and develop a comprehensive new strategy for what Obama has called the "central front on terror."
With conditions on the ground worsening by nearly every yardstick last year -- including record levels of extremist attacks and U.S. casualties, and the expansion of the conflict across Pakistan and into India -- Obama's campaign pledge to "finish the job" in Afghanistan with more troops, money and diplomacy has encountered the daunting reality of a job that has barely begun.
Thu, 2009-01-15 21:26
#18
The decison on Captain Semrau's bail hearing:
Thu, 2009-01-15 22:35
#19
Hey Fidel, yes I knew what you meant. That was a good read ( views). I can see things from your point of view on the matter, mostly.
I feel the onis should be on the government and voters to make the right decisions. When to fight, when not to fight. Who to support and such.
A common belief here is that what's going on in Afghanistan is wrong and soldiers should say no I'm not going to be a part of that and quit. This too I can understand- I've often argued that German soldiers during WW2 should have said this is wrong and refused to fight (which in their case would be a death warrant).
It's a tricky debate-soldiers refusing to goto war. I don't really have an answer. In cases such as WW2 I think yes they shoud have refused but on the other hand how really effective would the military besoldiers pick and choosed where they would go?
What if the Canadian government decided that Israel needed help wanted to send soldiers to help protect Israel? 99% of the posters here would say thats wrong! And say soldiers should REFUSE to go support Israel (In their illegal and unjust war etc..) Canadian soldiers should do the right thing and refuse. Anyone who doesn't is a murderer.
BUT, what if Canada said what Israel is doing is wrong and decided to send soldiers to protect Gaza or help deleiver humanatarian aid? I bet our fellow babblers would most likely totally support that, right? BUT, what if the Canadian soldiers said you know what? I don't think it's our problem so nope I'm not going. Would a Canadian soldier who refuses marching orders to go protect gaza recieve the same type of support here? No way. People would say it's their duty to protect them and their letting innocent people die and the soldier should be throw in jail for refusing to go.
So when is it okay to refuse orders? It's all subjective. I don't think an army that picks and chooses where it will go and where it won't is effective from a strategic point of view (and reminds me of roman generals and their armies)
I hope this isn't to crappy of a reply for you Fidel, I'm not 100% sure the best way to respond to what you wrote. Also remember there is a lot I can't discuss here from security technic things (tactics & equipment) to especially politics, I'm definatly not ignoring you (or others)
Canadian soldiers can't critisize their chain of command, the current m.ission, the army etc.. without runningthe risk of serious punishment. I realise it may seem wrong (for lack of a more descriptive word) that Canaan soldiers can either say good things about "the mission" or nothing at all but really, anyone here with a job is under pretty much the same codes of behavior give or take
I'm not sure what you do Fidel, lets say you're a Catholic teacher. If you go into work one day and start saying the head guy at the board of directiors is an idiot, you're cirriculum (spelling?) is shit and you thik it's wrong that you're not teaching the students the theory of evolution- well chances are you might not have a job very long. In that the Canadian Forces is like any buisness across Canada. Talk shit about your boss, peers or what your company is doing (publically) and you're in hot water. On the other sid, of course, there are times whensomething bad or unethical IS going on and people need to step up and go public.
I'm saying this because I don't want you to think I'm ignoring your comments/views that you brought up about things political- it's just that I can't really disuss it having identified myself as a soldier.
No one wants to consider themselves a pawn or drone.
I'm not saying I consider myself a pawn or drone either BUT how long would a bee hive last if they didn't have drones? How hard is a chess game to win when you start the game without any pawns?
As for that Captian's bail hearing (Thanks for the link Slumberjack) it seems reasonable to give him bail considering the evidence that he isn't a flight risk or likely to reoffend. I know I know 'Of course you would Realigned' =) But it's true. Wht's your opinion on the decision Slumberjack? You know a lot about military law/justice it seems, do you think the decision was a fair one?
As for sending the additional soldiers, one very big complaint from Afghan locals is security. Things are okay once ISAF is around but when ISAF leaves the Taliban move in. Things are relitively safe around the police sub stations but past the "bubble" things becomeworse.
In theory, having more soldiers on the ground performing security duties and patroling and such would mean more villages and towns are under ISAFs security umbrella. Less oppertunity for insurgents to plant IEDS. Less shake downs and harassment, less illegal roadblocks.
Since security is one of the biggest issues in Afghanistan, providing MORE security, to me, might see support for ISAF by Afghan locals increase, no?
Fri, 2009-01-16 04:11
#20
It's a tricky debate-soldiers refusing to goto war. I don't really have an answer. In cases such as WW2 I think yes they shoud have refused but on the other hand how really effective would the military besoldiers pick and choosed where they would go?
But wouldnt that be the ultimate in democracy? If people were provided all the information they needed beforehand, or at least educated in large part about "the mission" well beforehand, they could better decide, dont you think? Soldiers who really believed in "the mission" would be there because they believe in "the mission"
On the other hand if soldiers could be presented with the other side of the story, or perhaps exposed to three sides of the same story, they might say to their employers, " No thanks gov, I'll sit this one out. I think we're being sacrificed for some flimsy corporate agenda, or colder war maneuvering that has absolutely SFA to do with freedom and democracy on the other side of the world. And you'd bloody well better record that as my vote and thought on the matter in this dodgy outfit, if you value my long term loyalty. Otherwise, you people will have to find some other flunky to replace me. My ass is too valuable to be left in the hands of total idiots who dont care what I think or have to say."
But that's an advanced concept - a democratic right which exists only in your mind as of... right now and from here on out.
As things are now though, your ass and where it's sent is the decision of a handful of people who most Canadians didnt vote for. And even if we consider the voter support for the two US-friendly big business parties favouring Crazy George II's phony-baloney war on terror in the stan and Iraq and globally, your ass is still in the hands of a few people who most registered voters didnt vote for. Either way, your life is in the hands of a few people who probably werent awarded a clear majority of the total votes in their home ridings. IOW's, they're illegit but making executive decisions on all our behalfs regardless of this brand new idea for democracy which is now etched in your brain forever and ever, amen. So now you're beginning to smell a rat and none too soon for your sake, I must say.
My father later regretted volunteering to go overseas in '39. Somewhere along the line he ended up in a British prison for attitude adjustment. He hit an American MP who tried to rifle butt him as dad was exiting the mess tent with some fruit. Dad did a number on him apparently. But dad said he breezed through PT and the obstacle courses in blistering heat. Dad was a natural athlete. Some of the other veterans in Northern Ontario who were at the D-day landings referred to dad's bunch as "D-Day dodgers" thinking they'd missed all the fireworks and bloodshed. Dad saw enough blood and gore with the three rivers regiment attached to Montgomery's 8th army in Africa, Italy, and Holland and Belgium in '45.
But my father wanted to see the world and get away from the boredom of unemployment in the quiet life in Northern Ontario. They were pretty poor then. Dad and thousands of other Canaidans and Americans were chomping at the bit to go overseas and fight fascism then. Our governments couldnt hold them back any longer like they attempted to during the war against fascism in Spain several years earlier.
All I can suggest to you, Realigned, is to use your noodle. Dad and those guys didnt have the information that's available to people today. They didnt have the power of the internet at their disposal in the 1930's. But you do. Choose wisely.
Fri, 2009-01-16 04:33
#21
I've had relatives land on the beaches of Normandy during WW2. Very interesting stories and experiences. For the longest time I didn't want to believe or accept that the allies did bad things too, like killing POWs because capturing and processing them was a hassle.
[I've also had relatives fighting FOR germany as well as a great uncle in the Russian resistance who was killed during a failed attempt to assassinate Hitler].
I think comparing the midset, economy etc.. of WW2 era to today is a stretch. You're right we have a lot more information on hand today. More than ever soldiers today aren't accepting the shut the fuck up soldier approach. AND today more than ever individual soldiers carry a lot of responsibility both in accountability for their own actions and how their single actions can effect things at a national level.
Speaking about soldiers being able to "sit this one out"- Under ideal circumstances I can see the merit of it. (ie you're example)
Soldiers who do not agree with a certain mission can refuse. Okay but how do you control that?
How do you stop soldiers from refusing to deploy for less than noble reasons liek you outlined?
-I'm having problems wth my girlfriend, I don't wanna go away for 6 months she might cheat on me so I'm not going.
-Um people are dying over thereyou want me to risk getting killed? um no thanks.
-Playing army is cool but doing it for real can be a real drag, I'd rather stay backin canada do paintballing play call of duty 4 and goto the bars and drink/chasegirls.
-I don't want to be away from good food or the internet.
If you allow soldiers to refuse to deploy for reasons you outlined how do you prevent soldiers from refusing to deploy for the reasons I outlined? It would be all too easy to cite ethical reasons for not deploying when one simply just doesnt feel like deploying half a year.
Lets say the average soldier makes $50'000 a year. They've been in the army for 10 years. (half a million in wages alone) Thats not taking into consideration the equipment a soldier is issued (in the thousands of dollars) and the training soldiers receive through out their career which easily lands in the hundreds of thousands of dollars. Taking all those numbers into consideration that's a hell of a lot of money to spend on someone who may or may not choose to actually peform their job.
Would we fire a police officer who refuses to arrest someone for drinking and driving because he doesn't really think it's a big deal?
I guess what I'm trying to say is that while your idea does have merit from an ethical point of view there are a lot of other considerations (ie should a soldier who has recieved half a million in wages be forced to repay that money for basically renegging on a contract) as well as the big possibility of people abusing the system.
Fri, 2009-01-16 05:35
#22
Would we fire a police officer who refuses to arrest someone for drinking and driving because he doesn't really think it's a big deal?
I think that this problem is straightforward. He's failed to protect the people he's paid to protect from a drunk driver.
But that drunk driver wasnt schooled in drunk driving by a US shadow government and Saudi princes funding madrassas for the indoctrination of driving drunk in the war on secular socialism in Canada. I know this is convoluted, but there are far more variables to consider with invading and occupy a sovereign country long term versus choosing to arrest a menace to society for his sake and everyone else's. When it comes to solving problems with mathematics, you first have to think through the problem in terms of English language thoughts, or whatever language you're comfortable with, and then translate it into logical statements, algebraic symbols for the knowns and unknowns, and plug them into something that might balance on both sides of an equality. But to tell you the truth, I dont do that. Because math is hard and a lot of work for me as elegant a language as it might seem. Many people are so good at thinking logically that they can solve problems and come to rational conclusions based on inference and arriving at solutions from thinking rationally. And it matters a great deal what and who your sources of information are. rabble has some very informed and clever people posting here as well as contributing columnists. I'm not saying we're all smarter than people you know in the military. I know one or two friends who are in the military and are very well educated In fact, they are too well educated to be dedicating their lives to what I think is a cause without a genuine purpose. I know they are well educated, but at the same time I think they are misinformed, and even deliberately misled about the military's goals, and especially in regard to lont term US interests in Afghanistan and Central Asia in general. And they are US interests not our own.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that while your idea does have merit from an ethical point of view there are a lot of other considerations (ie should a soldier who has recieved half a million in wages be forced to repay that money for basically renegging on a contract) as well as the big possibility of people abusing the system.
That's something to consider for sure. But then there is risk in every endevour. The idea is to take on as little risk as possible and manage your own risk, whether you're a contractor or sub-contractor to the government, private enterprise etc or in a marriage contract with long-term obligations to short people in your life. And dont let anyone tell you that flag and country have priority over those things, because they'll be lying to you. If the contractors themselves are not held to any obligations by sub-contractors(you) to provide full disclosure for the mission they want to volunteer your personal safety and sense of purpose to, then I think it's time to re-assess the mission and goal statements for both parties to the contract.
Fri, 2009-01-16 09:23
#23
BUT, what if Canada said what Israel is doing is wrong and decided to send soldiers to protect Gaza or help deleiver humanatarian aid? I bet our fellow babblers would most likely totally support that, right? BUT, what if the Canadian soldiers said you know what? I don't think it's our problem so nope I'm not going. Would a Canadian soldier who refuses marching orders to go protect gaza recieve the same type of support here? No way. People would say it's their duty to protect them and their letting innocent people die and the soldier should be throw in jail for refusing to go.
I'd be reluctant to assume the thoughts of babblers in this scenario. Its doubtful that the views would be homogenous. As you’ve probably encountered, several have questioned the need for a military at all, so as to the above, I’d hazard a guess to say that the provision of humanitarian aid would be more appropriately seen as the domain of NGOs, not the military. As for participating in future UN peacekeeping observer operations along the Gaza border for example, for those who would dispense with a military altogether, it’s not clear to me if they’d see that as a worthwhile endeavour, because if so, then we‘re looking at private security firms….yikes. Personally, I’d be inclined to support a change in policy that releases soldiers from military service on the spot, as an alternate to being forced to participate in missions that contradict their personal and political views, through a revision of conscientious objector regulations.
As for that Captian's bail hearing (Thanks for the link Slumberjack) it seems reasonable to give him bail considering the evidence that he isn't a flight risk or likely to reoffend. I know I know 'Of course you would Realigned' =) But it's true. Wht's your opinion on the decision Slumberjack? You know a lot about military law/justice it seems, do you think the decision was a fair one?
You’re welcome. I don’t know any more about law and justice than the next person, although during my time in, I have been involved in more than my fair share of summary trials, all while wearing my headdress of course. My take on it is that regardless of political spectrum views, the due process rights of the accused should remain the same. The determination of guilt or innocence should be unhindered by the biased pleadings of either the accused or the politically motivated public, arrived at based on fact and evidence alone. The military justice system, although it does contain the trappings of an adversarial based process, remains problematic in one aspect, even after the procedural changes within recent years to conform to the Charter and general Canadian law. The career progression of military lawyers and judges still depends on their performance as military service members. Their tenure in any position is at the discretion of chain of command concurrence. In fact, through preliminary proceedings at the Court Martial dealing with the death of Cpl Kevin Megeney, that apprehension of bias is currently being put forward by the defence as unconstitutional. It will be interesting to see the decision on that. Ultimately, the same sort of bias might be said of the civilian law system, especially at the Supreme court level, where the Governor General decides who will sit on the bench, from the advice of the Prime Minister. That advice would be influenced by the political views of the governing party. As to the Captain Semrau decision, there is enough precedence to support the decision, and as such, I believe it was a correct one. And besides, if he is found guilty, any pre-trial custody is normally counted at the sentencing phase as two for one. Minimizing freebies is consistent with a desire to see justice served I would think.
Fri, 2009-01-16 21:39
#24
I dont think Realigned has to worry about Stephen Harper coming to the aid of a nation of people under siege in the Middle East.
And he couldnt volunteer to go as a Canadian peacekeeper right now if he wanted to. He does have the singular option of participating in phony war in Afghanistan though. I could never be led by people with incredibly small minds, and who themselves are Yanqui'd around by the nose-hairs.
"You're an errand boy, sent by grocery clerks, to collect a bill." - Col. Kurtz
Tue, 2009-01-20 02:27
#25
I wonder if the world will end up sending peace keepers.
I feel bad for what's going on in Gaza but it's hard to get TOO worked up over it considering the shit thats going onin Africa and other places that probably see 100 times the amount of killing yet 1/100th of the press/media time.
Slumberjack you're right, I shouldn't paint with such a broad brush.
Some posters DO think we should scrap the military all together. To me that makes about as much sense as scraping police or firefighters or something but that's a whole different thread. I bet you were just like me when you served Slumberjack- you were probably one of the soldiers that saw how much food the CF wastes and wondered how come it wasn't being given to the homeless or poor.
Tue, 2009-01-20 02:39
#26
And what is NATO(North Atlantic Treaty Org) doing in Central Asia today, Realigned? Isnt that a bit far from their cold war era jurisdiction?
Realigned, you should ask around as to why NATO countries turned their backs on Afghanistan and the ensuing carnage that befell that country in the years following 1992. Millions fled the country as Islamic gladios tore that country apart from stem to stern.
Free e-book and download for Realigned. It's a must-have for every cold war-military history buff.
Tue, 2009-01-20 02:47
#27
Thanks for the link.
Whats NATO doing today? I don't really understand the question. Like why are we here??
I think it's shameful we turned our backs on them the same way it's shameful what we (or the US) did to the Kurds in northern Iraq following the first gulf war.
Question for you Fidel.
One of the buzz phrases often said by the left is that Afghanistan is an illegal war.
Yet I've also heard that NATO is in Afghanistan at the behest of the UN and NATO is carrying out it's mission which [i]i[/i] mandated BY the UN.
(Which peoplethen say ya well the UN is corrupt/disfunctional etc..)
So question 1, IS NATO in Afghanistan according to some kind of mandate or direction or orders from the UN?
If so, how does that make it an illegal war? And if the UN doesn't count in so far as what's legal or illegal, where do people get that the war is "illegal" then? Who decides the legality of such things?
I thought the UN does, and if the UN sends NATO to Afghanistan then I'm confused how it's illegal? I'm not begging the question here or anything I really don't follow.
Tue, 2009-01-20 04:41
#28
The U.S. military has occupied South Korea for more than 50 years under the guise of a UNSC resolution. The US military has threatened North Koreans with nuclear incineration several times since the 1950's. 2000 students and civilians were massacred while protesting US military occupation in S. Korea 1980. UN forces in the former Yugoslavia, the Congo, and Haiti have been little more than a ruse for U.S. and European military intervention and occupation. They have never been an instrument for peace and reconciling differences between countries. Various US military occupations remain to be the largest threat to peace in various "hot spots" around the world.
The US has actually been involved in Afghanistan since summer of 1979, about six months before the Soviets "invaded" Aghanistan.
So here we are with more US military intervention and occupation in Afghanistan decades from the CIA's operation cyclone. And they've used 9-11 as the reason for bombing and invading a desperately poor and strategically situated country in CEntral Asia. There is little evidence that desperately poor Afghans had anything to do with perpetrating 9-11. There is no actual proof that the five or six alleged 9-11 plotters held at Gitmo had anything to do with 9-11. Not if you discount "confessions" extracted by torture. Khalid Sheihk Muhammed actually held out the longest of these suspects - 5 years in all before "confessing" all. KSM has described the military tribunal at Gitmo as a farce. And wouldnt all of us agree that everyone deserves a fair trial and not trial by an American military inquisition? A German superior court judge actually handed down lesser sentences not in-line with the seriousness of the accusations to the so-called "Hamburg cell" due to a lack of real evidence tying them to 9-11. The Americans refused to provide the evidence needed and citing "national security" issues. And people around the world are saying things arent right with this American inquisition. People around the world are saying 9-11 merits a new investigative criminal trial - a real one this time, it's that important. Afterall, 9-11 was so important to the Cheney-Bush governnment that they declared within hours of it happening who the perpetrators were - their old Islamic gladio ally, Osama bin Laden. Michel Chossudovsky, globalresearch.ca, and several more people have written extensively about who Osama bin Laden is and what he and others like him have in common with the CIA and British interests in Central Asia, Africa and the Middle East.
Afghanistan, Another Untold Story by Michael Parenti
The Holy Crusade for Oil and Gas While claiming to be fighting terrorism, US leaders have found other compelling but less advertised reasons for plunging deeper into Afghanistan. The Central Asian region is rich in oil and gas reserves. A decade before 9/11, Time magazine (18 March 1991) reported that US policy elites were contemplating a military presence in Central Asia. The discovery of vast oil and gas reserves in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan provided the lure, while the dissolution of the USSR removed the one major barrier against pursuing an aggressive interventionist policy in that part of the world.US oil companies acquired the rights to some 75 percent of these new reserves. A major problem was how to transport the oil and gas from the landlocked region. US officials opposed using the Russian pipeline or the most direct route across Iran to the Persian Gulf. Instead, they and the corporate oil contractors explored a number of alternative pipeline routes, across Azerbaijan and Turkey to the Mediterranean or across China to the Pacific. . . //
In sum, well in advance of the 9/11 attacks the US government had made preparations to move against the Taliban and create a compliant regime in Kabul and a direct US military presence in Central Asia. The 9/11 attacks provided the perfect impetus, stampeding US public opinion and reluctant allies into supporting military intervention.
One might agree with John Ryan who argued that if Washington had left the Marxist Taraki government alone back in 1979, “there would have been no army of mujahideen, no Soviet intervention, no war that destroyed Afghanistan, no Osama bin Laden, and no September 11 tragedy.” But it would be asking too much for Washington to leave unmolested a progressive leftist government that was organizing the social capital around collective public needs rather than private accumulation
It's a phony war on terror, Realigned. Some US hawks have said so themselves. The US has bombed over 20 some odd nations since Nagasaki and Hiroshima. And very few of them are better off or more democratic for it today. There is something about war and fascist aggressions that make it profitable though. The US is a vicious empire, Realigned. It's not Canada's business or the North Atlantic Treaty Org's business on that side of the world either.
Tue, 2009-01-20 08:32
#29
We should withdraw from NATO and NORAD, and become a non-aligned nation.
Tue, 2009-01-20 15:04
#30
like Mexico.
Tue, 2009-01-20 21:41
#31
Nader Calls/called For New 9/11 Investigation last September
“I was there when they were collecting signatures in the audience and I supported it.” Nader commented, referring to We are Change’s activities at the meeting.
“The 9/11 Commission, first of all, it took the members of the great families to push the administration even to have an inquiry, can you imagine an attack like that and the government didn’t even want to have an inquiry?” stated Nader.
“And second, the ground rules for the 9/11 Commission were that they weren’t going to name names, or hold anybody responsible, that’s a real investigation,” he added with irony.
“So right from the get go it was flawed and there needs to be another one, and the best place to have it is New York City.” Nader concluded.
Tue, 2009-01-20 22:16
#32
M. Spector
One of the buzz phrases often said by the left is that Afghanistan is an illegal war.
Yet I've also heard that NATO is in Afghanistan at the behest of the UN and NATO is carrying out it's mission which [i]i[/i] mandated BY the UN.
(Which peoplethen say ya well the UN is corrupt/disfunctional etc..)
So question 1, IS NATO in Afghanistan according to some kind of mandate or direction or orders from the UN?
Here's [url=http://www.islandnet.com/plethora/wtc/mandel.html][color=mediumblue][u]one of many legal opinions[/u][/color][/url] explaining the illegality of the NATO attack on Afghanistan.
The attacks began on October 7, 2001. It was not until December 20 that the Security Council passed Resolution 1386 authorizing the establishment of ISAF. The NATO campaign, by then over two months old, and known as Operation Enduring Freedom, was never part of ISAF, and continued separate and apart from it, under NATO (US) command, without Security Council authorization.
Tue, 2009-01-20 22:26
#33
Not everyone says the UN/UNSC is corrupt and unaccountable. Some people are saying that it's a US plutocracy who are corrupt, unaccountable and still havent proven beyond a doubt who was responsible for 9-11, directly or otherwise. And it took someone's maneuvering to scab togther a coalition of willing third world friendlies before saturation bombing of the last sovereign, oil-rich country attacked for not having nuclear weapons to counter-threaten Murder Inc. with.
Tue, 2009-01-20 22:33
#34
saga
One of the buzz phrases often said by the left is that Afghanistan is an illegal war.
Yet I've also heard that NATO is in Afghanistan at the behest of the UN and NATO is carrying out it's mission which [i]i[/i] mandated BY the UN.
(Which peoplethen say ya well the UN is corrupt/disfunctional etc..)
So question 1, IS NATO in Afghanistan according to some kind of mandate or direction or orders from the UN?
Here's [url=http://www.islandnet.com/plethora/wtc/mandel.html][color=mediumblue][u]one of many legal opinions[/u][/color][/url] explaining the illegality of the NATO attack on Afghanistan.
The attacks began on October 7, 2001. It was not until December 20 that the Security Council passed Resolution 1386 authorizing the establishment of ISAF. The NATO campaign, by then over two months old, and known as Operation Enduring Freedom, was never part of ISAF, and continued separate and apart from it, under NATO (US) command, without Security Council authorization.
Thanks for clarifying that. It explains why some US actions seem at cross purposes with what our troops are trying to do.
In example:
The people depend on the poppy crop for their living, so the Canadian soldiers (UN?) promised to leave the poppy crops alone and instead tried to provide security so the farmers could sell them to legitimate buyers, not to the drug trade Taliban/warlords. Then the US came and firebombed the crops. Left our soldiers in a tenuous postion as it violated their agreement with the farmers, not to mention leaving the farmers unable to feed their families. Many of them then had no choice but to join the Taliban.
Also, the US bombing of the school in Pakistan was not helpful to our soldiers. Again, many of the families theresimply have no other place to go.
So the Afghanis and UN troops are fighting the Taliban, but it looks like the US is fighting the Afghanis, or at least making life so difficult for them that they have to join the insurgents. It's a self-perpetuating war. I'll bet the war industry boys love that!
Tue, 2009-01-20 22:49
#35
The US-CIA is the biggest dope delivery service in the world. Dont make us laugh too hard, saga.
Wed, 2009-01-21 10:21
#36
Saga I think you're exactly right.
Local Afghans farm poppies. I don't think they really care WHAT it's used for, their feeding their famlies and they don't give a shit beyond that.
When the US came, following the war on drugs doctrine, they started eradicating poppy fields but didn't replace it with anything. Basically they destroyed the farmers livelyhood.
Canadians understand the type of situation this creates and have/are trying to address it. I don't know all the details but as mentioned one concept is to harvest poppies and sell them to legit buyers. Another is a flat buy out. Canada would pay 10'000 or whatever and burn the field to the groud. Both these options have pros and consbut bith are better than just burning the poppy fields and saying tough shit.
I thought Operation Enduring freedom gave command over to ISAF in July/August 2006.
Wed, 2009-01-21 16:55
#37
When the US came, following the war on drugs doctrine, they started eradicating poppy fields but didn't replace it with anything. Basically they destroyed the farmers livelyhood.
Here's something interesting written by independent US journalist Mike Whitney quoting Ruppert:
War, the CIA and Narco-Trafficling
"Before 1980, Afghanistan produced 0% of the world's opium. But then the CIA moved in, and by 1986 they were producing 40% of the world's heroin supply. By 1999, they were churning out 3,200 TONS of heroin a year nearly 80% of the total market supply. But then something unexpected happened. The Taliban rose to power, and by 2000 they had destroyed nearly all of the opium fields. Production dropped from 3,000+ tons to only 185 tons, a 94% reduction! This enormous drop in revenue subsequently hurt not only the CIA's Black Budget projects, but also the free-flow of laundered money in and out of the Controller's banks"
The American CIA have been deeply involved in drug trafficking ever since aiding and abetting Chiang Kai-shek's drug dealing gangsters in SE Asia. And even long before that when US sailors were being ShangHai'd in Portland and shipped off for the drug running business in and around China competing with the Brits. The CIA is the biggest dope delivery service in the world
Their boy Thaci installed in Kosovo heads up a criminal regime for the distribution of illicit drugs into Europe and all points west, prostitution, trafficking in slaves etc. He's a toady for US and European gangsters connected to people in high places.
Sat, 2009-01-24 15:08
#38
With the coalition of opposition parties appearing to have died, will Afghanistan become an issue again on the political landscape?
No single party has releases any serious statements on the subject in several weeks if not months.
______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.
Tue, 2009-01-27 20:53
#39
B.C. doctor disciplined for writing about soldier's death
"VANCOUVER — The B.C. doctor has been fined for unethical conduct for publishing a graphic account of the death of a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan.
Dr. Kevin Lee Patterson admitted to unethical and unprofessional conduct for writing the story about Corporal Keven Megeney's death in March 2007.
The B.C. College of Physicians has ordered Patterson to pay $5,000 for the cost of his hearing and make a charitable donation of $7,000 — the amount he received for the story published in Mother Jones magazine.
He will also get a formal reprimand from the college and will have to participate in ethics education.
The Canadian Forces did not charge Dr. Patterson for writing the account, but Cpl. Matthew Wilcox faces multiple charges in connection with the death.
Cpl. Megeney, a 25-year-old reservist from Stellarton, N.S., died after he was shot in the chest in his tent at Kandahar Airfield, the main NATO base in southern Afghanistan."
____________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.
Tue, 2009-01-27 21:18
#40
With the coalition of opposition parties appearing to have died, will Afghanistan become an issue again on the political landscape?
No single party has releases any serious statements on the subject in several weeks if not months.
The NDP's position on Afghanistan remains the same.
And those two old line parties are still the vicious toadies to Crazy George and US imperialism that they were before. If Obama said, Let's invade Canada!, tomorrow, our old line party lap dogs would nod up and down in rapid agreement - and more than likely volunteer Canadian troops to US-led sieges of Vancouver, Calgary, Ottawa. and Toronto.
Tue, 2009-01-27 21:41
#41
Fidel, my point is the NDP has remained silent on the subject for well over 8 weeks.
There has not been a single press statement. The only person has mentioned anything about Afghanistan was Dawn Black, and she was talked about the need for security in country.
"What the people of Afghanistan really have needed is clean water, electricity, the ability to improve their lives. Of course, there's the security component around that as well, but we don't believe that counter insurgency is a security component that works."
And from the article the main focus of the NDP will be the coalition
"NDP Defence critic and MP for New Westminster-Coquitlam Dawn Black said that while her party's stance on Afghanistan hasn't changed, part of the compromise reached with Liberals will prevent the issue from being pushed."
Ousting Harper won't end Afghan mission early - NDP
______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.
Tue, 2009-01-27 21:52
#42
Double Post
_______________________________________________________________
We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.
Tue, 2009-01-27 22:06
#43
Fidel, my point is the NDP has remained silent on the subject for well over 8 weeks.
Our vicious toadies of the day refused to show up for work for the last eight weeks or more, too. Did you mind at all that Canada's troops were there at work while our toadies were off toboganning and apres-ski beering it at the eagle's nest? These lazy louts in Harper's exaggerated minority government have spent a grand total of 13 days at work since last frigging June! It's nice work if you can get it.
Do you really think the NDP has had a change of heart on opposing this Loco George-led mission in the stan? News media jackals and old line party supporters alike would salivate at the thought of Jack Layton actually supporting the same pro-USA policy on Afghanistan that our two lame duck, big money old line parties so willingly supported since the Reichstag fire.
The Coalition Deserves to Live
And critics who say the NDP is folding on Afghanistan are wrong
So I sympathize with Murray Brewster who, in the rush to cover last month's coalition agreement, reported that "New Democrats will stop opposing Canada's war in Afghanistan while the party is in league with the Liberals." This, the veteran Canadian Press journalist concluded, was "a significant concession for a party that has been the standard-bearer for the peace movement in Canada."
Other observers then relied on Brewster's account. In these pages, Bill Tieleman wrote, "the NDP now faces the challenge of explaining to supporters why they were willing to jettison key 2008 election positions -- like wanting Canadian troops out of Afghanistan...."
The explanation is easy: no concession was ever made.
Tue, 2009-01-27 22:14
#44
When Obama comes knocking he'll say "I'm putting tens of thousands of troops into Afghanistan, what is Canada prepared to do?". If Harper is still in power he will extend the mission yet again and possibly add more troops, if he can find any. If it's PM Iggy, I suspect he'll do the same. The Canadian people won't agree with this and the NDP and Bloc will scream bloody murder, but that won't make a bit of difference. At least that's my greatest fear.
Tue, 2009-01-27 22:31
#45
M. Spector
The Coalition Deserves to Live
Ah, yes, wannabe-Liberal Michael Byers in full rhetorical flight.
Trouble is, what he says is a lie. The NDP has agreed not to push the issue of Afghanistan if the Koalition forms a government. Dawn Black says as much in the link Webgear provided. She's in the caucus; Byers isn't.
Byers says the NDP has "agreed to disagree" on Afghanistan, but in fact they have agreed to [b]agree[/b]. There will be no disagreement within the Koalition on Afghanistan.
Tue, 2009-01-27 22:36
#46
Red T-shirt, I doubt the army will be in Afghanistan in large numbers by 2011, the army is broken both in the terms of personnel and equipment. If there are more then 500 soldiers in Afghanistan post mid-2011 I will be very surprised.
Fidel, if the NDP can not change the outcome now, they are not worthy to govern. They have well over 6 months to prepare statements and organized a detailed plan yet they remain silent and without a plan. If the NDP is the working man's party, they are doing a very poor job if they are unable to change the public mind on a single subject.
The NDP could have done better in the election if they faced the subject with a hard stance. Instead every since the summer they have remained fragmented at best for press statements and critical planning.
______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.
Tue, 2009-01-27 22:38
#47
I believe the NDP will support Obama's request.
______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.
Tue, 2009-01-27 22:49
#48
Instead of being a formed battle group performing kinetic operations (like company sized raids) they (canadians) will for the most part be a part of the OMLT and POMLT. Small mentoring teams tasked with training platoon and company sized elements of the Afghan army or small 12 sized afghan police detachment. Little security bubbles around the province.
Just what I think might happen in the next few years.
Tue, 2009-01-27 23:06
#49
...if the NDP can not change the outcome now, they are not worthy to govern.
Their communications strategy, if they have one, is dreadfully ineffective. The ability to be out there front and center, always searching for a microphone on the issues, was one of the more notable things about Layton earlier on when he wasn’t making deals with the Liberals. Regardless though, their fitness to govern has little to do with the inability to change outcomes as the fourth party. They’ve demonstrated far more substantive reasons as to why they cannot be trusted with power.
Tue, 2009-01-27 23:10
#50
Small mentoring teams tasked with training platoon and company sized elements of the Afghan army or small 12 sized afghan police detachment.
The El Salvador option. So training death squads is your idea of "security".
Wed, 2009-01-28 00:37
#51
So your saying that western military doctrine is basically just death squads? And everything we've taught the ANA & ANP is more or less El Savadorian death squad drills?
So you're a teacher AND a military tactician? You my friend wear a lot of hats! What else do you do?
I'm a little in the dark here, what are some of the training methods we employ in training these death squads?
I've seen RCMP and OPP training local police. I'm guessing you're figuring they are teaching them how to beat up suspects with phone books, train dogs to get false positives when searching for drugs and explosives. How to cover up police abuse cases and such?
I'm going to suggest we call them happy squads because they are happy when performing their job. Death squad sounds so dark doesn't it? Hearts and minds..