The Afghan people will win - Part 1

Some Canadian soldiers fire mortar shells; others fire e-mail messages. Brothers in arms, sharing hatred for Afghan resistance... all will be defeated.

Fidel

I believe in one of Robert Fisk or Stephen Tanner books, they make mention that the Soviets in the 1960/70s did an extensive natural resource survey that discovered additional large amounts of natural resources that were not known in previous surveys.

They also make note of a new natural gas line running from northern Afghanistan into the USSR.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

A waste of lives, of those who are led to believe that they are involved in an honourable cause.  I recognized his picture immediately on the news, it seems that when one has spent time together in the same regiment, it matters little how long ago it's been.  WO Brown was a decent guy.

It appears the QRF hit a secondary device on the return leg of their mission, the device was likely planted to targeting the first responders to the other IED event.

This is a classic tactic; bait the enemy into ambush zone and hit them when it is not anticipated.

It is part of Murphy's Law.

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

I'm sure our MSM figured that out; they just happen to be embedded which sounds an awful lot like " in bedded".

Unionist wrote:

Webgear wrote:

What if the sovereign people of Afghanistan have decided to choose the some officials at this time such has the Chief of Police for Kandahar province, would you accept his statement?

Not before the invaders leave. In case you didn't notice, even Peter Mackay has a say in who is in charge in Kandahar. It's brutal when you invade a country. Let them all leave, then we can see who truly has the people's confidence. Can't tell now.

Quote:

Would you accept a statement from someone elected before the King Mohammad Zahir Shah was overthrown in 1973? Or does the offical have to be elected after 1973 but before the Soviet invasion?

I was thinking more like 2009. The invaders leave, then the Afghan people send everyone a text message saying who their representatives are. Or, they may use Twitter or Facebook. The invaders must leave. 

In the meantime, if I have to trust anyone, I will trust the slogans shouted by angry Afghans risking their lives to denounce Canada and Amerika in the streets, long before I trust any Canadian military investigators. I believe the Canadian military received the same kind of Honesty Seminars as the RCMP currently testifying in the Dziekanski inquiry.

 unionist, I fully agree that Canada should not be there. Harper's recent comments make this even more crystal clear. Obomba's commitment of more troops and desire to apparently be there forever make this 1,000 times more difficult to support. The anti-war left was (far too easily) duped and helped elect Obama and are not inclined to protest him in large numbers. This is despite the fact that his military policies seem indistinguishable from Bush's.

However, I think we should be honest about what this means for Afghans. Yes, the Taliban is misogynist, medieval, fascist, kills gays, throws acid on girls for daring to educate themselves etc., etc.  Regardless of whether we can "win" and change this situation is irrelevant. We should not be there. Admitting anything less than the reality of the situation provides an opening for continual support of the war. I would rather point out the many other countries that are governed in the same manner. (let the chickenhawks use this as an argument to invade half the globe).  We are not the world's police officers and should be taking care of our own human rights issues here at home. Last time I checked the situation for FN people was still an (ignored) international embarassment. A FN woman has no standing under the Charter and we are trying to force another country to treat women a certain way at the point of a gun?

Using language like "once we leave, Afghans will be free to choose their representatives" is disengenuous. You know as well as I do this is not true, there will be violence, fear and repression. There will be no freedom or selection of leaders, etc. in the near term. The point is that we cannot make them free at the point of a gun - the point is that Afghans have to bear the responsibility of what their freedom (or lack thereof) will look like.  RAWA existed under the Taliban and will hopefully continue to exist when we finally abandon this ridiculous waste of money. 

Our responsilibity as a country is to decide whether to have relations with them and have a strong refugee program for those fleeing the area. Just as I think we should tell Saudi Arabia to bugger off and have no relations with them until they treat women as human beings.

Quote:

This is a classic tactic; bait the enemy into ambush zone and hit them when it is not anticipated.

Hold that Cohiba for a minute, Unionist. Webgear missed an important link in that chain:

Quote:

The soldiers were sent into the area as part of Canada's Quick Reaction Force to respond to a [b]call by the Afghan National Police[/b] after an IED was found on the main supply route

Are you thinking what I'm thinking?

Yeah, I'm sure.

Unionist wrote:

Ghislaine wrote:

Using language like "once we leave, Afghans will be free to choose their representatives" is disengenuous. You know as well as I do this is not true, there will be violence, fear and repression. 

When I say "free", I mean free to make the choices among Afghans. Those choices may include religious dictatorship, violence, repression. They may include what we outsiders view as more enlightened government, such as Afghans enjoyed before the U.S. and Soviet Union started their invasions/subversion in the late 1970s.

OK - free, as in free from outside international influences.  

Unionist wrote:

To predict that a people will fail, once the outside "helpers" have been chased out, is an act of condescension. Even though I know you oppose the foreign intervention, that kind of preconceived notion sometimes can betray attitudes similar to those which send the Saviours in there in the first place. That's why I limit my perspective to getting the invaders out. Whether RAWA carries on, or not, will really depend on whether they have enough popular support and fill enough of a need to survive. But it's none of my business.

 I am not predicting that they will "fail". I am simply commenting based on the facts about the forces at play on the ground. Whoever holds the most power weapon-wise will take control when we finally leave.  You are defining "failure" based on a Western understanding. Who are you to call my prediction a failure. It is very possible that for those who end up as leaders, a theocratic patriarchal repressive society would most likely be considered a success.  It is not for us to call this a failure based on our own Western standards. What has happened in the Swat Valley of Pakistan is also considered a success by some and has only been termed a failure by our frustrated military leaders still clinging to the notion of "Victory". 

Unionist wrote:

Ghislaine wrote:

Whoever holds the most power weapon-wise will take control when we finally leave. 

See, now, Ghislaine, you're doing it again!

The ones with the "most power weapon-wise" are the U.S., NATO, Canada, the Afghan National Puppets! And they're [b][i]losing[/i][/b] (in case anyone hadn't noticed).

If the people can defeat these Great Powers (which they can, they have, and they will), do you really think they're so puny that they will fall under the sway of whoever has the most [b]weapons[/b]?

Maybe you would. Maybe I would (I hope not). But for you to say [i]they[/i] would, besides being counterfactual and counter-historical, reflects exactly the same spirit to which I referred earlier.

The Afghan people, whether by elections or by traditional selection processes or by force of arms, will choose whom they want. Weapons have never been decisive and never will be.

unionist, when I say the most power "weapon-wise", I mean that they may decide who is in power by force of arms - which you agree with in your 2nd last sentence. That is what I meant. I am not saying they will fall under the "sway" of whoever has the most weapons - I am saying that whoever has the most weapons will possibly gain power by force of arms.

 You put words in my mouth, as I did not describe this possible outcome as a "failure" - you did. Whatever Afghans end up with or however they get there - it is not to us to accuse them of being a failure. I may accuse them of being anti-woman or whathever, but at least Canadians' lives and tax dollars are not being used to prop it up, as they are now.

Jingles does make a valid point, yes it could have been a set up.

Is it not then a possiblility that the Taliban fired the mortar shell that killed the 3 children, in order to blame the Canadians?

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

Unionist wrote:

Ghislaine wrote:

 You put words in my mouth, as I did not describe this possible outcome as a "failure" - you did.

You said:

Quote:

You know as well as I do this is not true, there will be violence, fear and repression.

you're right, I tagged that as "failure". You didn't. But you predicted that outcome. That's what I questioned. You don't know what those people can do once they are left alone.

 Well, I hope I am wrong. The point I wanted to make is that we have to admit that this is a possibility, but irregardless of this - we should not stay in Afghanistan.  I have no idea what will happen once those people are alone. I do know how girls and women are treated and given the situation for women in surrounding countries that are not being occupied by us, I have little hope that it will become a bastion of women's rights. My point is that that is irrelevant. We should not be there.

 Your comments above about the Canadians dying for nothing are so true they send shudders up one's spine - the specific situation (which confirms a lot of what Malalai Joya speaks about) and the overall situation.

Ghislaine wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Ghislaine wrote:

Using language like "once we leave, Afghans will be free to choose their representatives" is disengenuous. You know as well as I do this is not true, there will be violence, fear and repression. 

When I say "free", I mean free to make the choices among Afghans. Those choices may include religious dictatorship, violence, repression. They may include what we outsiders view as more enlightened government, such as Afghans enjoyed before the U.S. and Soviet Union started their invasions/subversion in the late 1970s.

Afghans did get rid of a repressive monarchy. And then, according to [url=http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/104.html]Canadian John Ryan[/url], got rid of another repressive regime by the end of the 1970's. Women were gaining rights and freedoms, which in any normal population represents a little more than half of everyone concerned. The muslim clergy and land barons didnt appreciate the new women's rights or land redistribution laws. But at the same time, moderate clerics didnt object so much as to want to declare jihad against the Afghan PDPA government. The CIA and Saudis went out of their way to fund and arm religious extremists, and send mercenaries from 40 different countries to Afghanistan and ignoring religious moderates entirely.

And at the time, Afghanistan was actually part of the Soviet Union. The country's feudal social structure was undisturbed from the Stalinist era through to the 1970's. By comparison, eleven southern US states decided to break from the union in the 19th century. The North sent troops to reverse that decision immediately. Over half a million people died in the process. No Asian country intervened in US affairs at the time though.

Unionist wrote:

Another thread down the drift drain. My fault. I mentioned the word "Soviet". Never again.

I think it ties in nicely to all those other threads where you raise holy old jihad on Catholic school funding here in Ontario, another part of the world where you dont live.

Apparently unionist thinks it was perfectly alright for the CIA, Saudis and one US-backed military dictatorship in Pakistan at the time to cause the Talibanization of two countries in forcing a militant brand of Islam on people that was never their own. And yet unionist wont stand for Catholic schools here in his own backyard. I have every reason to believe that unionist is really Taliban himself!!! :-)

Unionist wrote:

Webgear wrote:

Jingles does make a valid point, yes it could have been a set up.

Imagine the families reading that news story.

Quote:

Is it not then a possiblility that the Taliban fired the mortar shell that killed the 3 children, in order to blame the Canadians?

Sure it's possible, although it seems unchallenged that the invaders do kill a whole lot of civilians, no?

But it's possible, because the Taliban are a lot smarter than the Canadians and have a lot more support among the population. That's why, despite their complete lack of significant firepower,  their influence and control is increasing daily, [s]seven years[/s] 7.5 years after they were allegedly "defeated".

Is there any proof of the ANP operating or betraying the Canadians in this manner?

Does the Taliban have the support of the population? Do the Taliban have the same level of support as did the Mujahedeen as against the Soviet?

Do the Taliban control more of the country than they did in 2005?

Defeat only happens when the war is over.

______________________________________________________________________________________________ We are like cloaks, one thinks of us only when it rains.

dbl post

It looks like Harper and his US and British handlers have succumbed to the idea that the Taliban are there to stay in Afghanistan. Oh darn. Because now it looks as if Afghans are about where Iranians were at the end of the 1980s war with the US and company arming both sides of that conflict to the eye teeth. Maggie and crazy George I both denied complicity in their respective houses of parliament, which means they were lying their heads off at the time. Afghans are only set back by a few decades as far as determining their own progressive future is concerned. That's how neocolonialism works with turning back the clock on whole nations of people. In the mean time, war and warfiteering reign merrily.