The Afghan people will win - Part 2

129 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Sun, 2009-03-08 17:11

Unionist

[url=http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2009/03/08/afghanistan-soldiers.html][colo... bomb kills 1 Canadian soldier, wounds 4[/b][/color][/url]

Quote:

The soldiers were conducting security operations in the Sha Wali Kot District when the explosion occurred at about 1:15 p.m. local time on Sunday, the military said.

Trooper Marc Diab, 22, from the Royal Canadian Dragoons was killed. He was serving as a member of the 3rd Battalion, the Royal Canadian Regiment Battle Group, which is based in Petawawa, Ont., the military said.

Has anyone noticed that the Canadian Forces are utterly incapable of detecting roadside bombs (except the ones the [s]Taliban[/s] villagers tell them about)?

Get them out of there before this affair turns from tragedy to farce.

Sun, 2009-03-08 23:04

Fidel

Too late, it was a farce from day one. And because jihadis were attacking uncle Sam's main supply routes through Pakistan, the ISI has instructed mullah Omar to call on jihadis to cease and desist with attacking Pakistani army and US supply lines. The fix is in. Next think we know, the ISI(and CIA) will have achieved "strategic depth" in Afghanistan and having shovelled a lot of taxpayers' money to corporate friends along the way.

Sun, 2009-03-08 23:07

Scott Piatkowski Scott Piatkowski's picture

http://blog.macleans.ca/2009/03/08/psychic-jack/

Quote:
First the Prime Minister says the insurgency can’t be defeated, now the President says he might be open to negotiating with the Taliban.

Does this mean we have to do away with the basic assumption that everything Jack Layton says is ridiculous

Um, yeah, Aaron. That seems like a pretty good idea.

Mon, 2009-03-09 00:15

Fidel

I thought Afghans won when they singlehandedly threw the meddling Soviets out? What's taking desperately poor Afghans so long to win with the ISI-controlled Taliban leading the way?

Tue, 2009-03-10 11:37

Rikardo

All the Afghan people will never win. That`s the nature of a civil war which is what has being going on for 30 years. If it ever ends at the least the losers will be better off than they are in a war even if the women must wear burkas and can`t go to school.

Tue, 2009-03-10 12:34

remind

Scott Piatkowski wrote:

http://blog.macleans.ca/2009/03/08/psychic-jack/

Quote:
First the Prime Minister says the insurgency can’t be defeated, now the President says he might be open to negotiating with the Taliban.

Does this mean we have to do away with the basic assumption that everything Jack Layton says is ridiculous

Um, yeah, Aaron. That seems like a pretty good idea.

You know what I love about this? It is the fact that all the CON supporters defaming Layton for his negotiation stance now are exposed for the idiots that they were/are, even to themselves. I hope every time they look in the mirror, they say "idiot" to themselves. ;)

Tue, 2009-03-10 13:14

Slumberjack

Well, they were exposed as idiots long before that, and then just as now, people are not paying attention in sufficient enough numbers to bring about the reaction that systemic idiocy calls for. Either through inattention or blind ignorance, the end result is that collectively, people generally wind up with what they deserve.

Tue, 2009-03-10 13:39

Fidel

Rikardo wrote:
All the Afghan people will never win. That`s the nature of a civil war which is what has being going on for 30 years. If it ever ends at the least the losers will be better off than they are in a war even if the women must wear burkas and can`t go to school.

Imperialists are fighting a phony war on terror. What powerful imperialists are really doing in Afghanistan is fighting a war against the desperately poor and powerless. There is no war on terror. If there was, then marines, US army rangers, and SAS would be storming the beaches of Florida where more CIA-funded terrorists, ex-Latin American dictators and torturers, are given sanctuary from justice than anywhere else.

Tue, 2009-03-10 23:26

Frmrsldr

Until now, whenever Harper would be asked by the press, "How is the Afghan war going?", he would respond with, "We are making great progress."

What I don't understand is,

1. Why haven't all Canadians (not just the neocons) seen this contradiction; seen what a hypocrite Harper is?

2. If we cannot win the war in Afghanistan (by military means), then why didn't Harper introduced a resolution in the House on Monday 10 March, 2009 to bring our troops home now?

What is the point in having our troops continue to fight and die until 2011 (possibly longer) in a war that Harper has admitted we cannot win? As far as I am concerned he is an American sock puppet and a war criminal.

Wed, 2009-03-11 00:17

#10

Realigned

Unionist wrote:

Has anyone noticed that the Canadian Forces are utterly incapable of detecting roadside bombs (except the ones the [s]Taliban[/s] villagers tell them about)?

Villagers are probably the number one way we hear about road side bombs. These guys don't wan the IEDs around anymore than we do.

Utterly incapable of detecting roadside bombs though?

Not true. There are numerous ways we detect IEDs including our soldiers looking for them and find them ourselves, to vehicles specifically designed to find them. We even use helicopters to swoop in and look at culverts and such looking for signs of digging. Our guys actually find a lot.

I think one reason you may not hear about *us* finding IEDs lies in the fact that some of the equipment is classified and we definately don't want to broadcast HOW we find IEDs bcause that makes it easier for the Taliban to counter it.

Wed, 2009-03-11 00:29

#11

Frmrsldr

Some guys in my unit who returned from a tour in Afghanistan described "soldiers exiting the vehicles and looking for IEDs method".

Talk about a 'shit detail'.

You'd think the officer class was treating the soldier class as their disposible 'working hands' or something. Like a pair of gloves or equipment that when worn out or broken, are discarded.

Wed, 2009-03-11 00:34

#12

Fidel

Thanks Realigned. I get the feeling that all those CIA-Saudi funded religious schools in Central Asia continue to provide instruction on a little more than how to live a strictly religious lifestyle since the 1980s.

Wed, 2009-03-11 01:07

#13

Realigned

Frmrsldr wrote:

Some guys in my unit who returned from a tour in Afghanistan described "soldiers exiting the vehicles and looking for IEDs method".

Talk about a 'shit detail'.

You'd think the officer class was treating the soldier class as their disposible 'working hands' or something. Like a pair of gloves or equipment that when worn out or broken, are discarded.

Umm, huh?

Looking for IEDs any and every time you get out of your vehicle is a great way to stay alive. There is a video on ogrish I believe of an American soldier getting out of his humvee and NOT looking under it/around it. 10 to 15 seconds later an IED goes off. I believe he died and the other guys in the vehicle did too.

Sticking your head in culverts to take a peek however does suck :)

Fidel, you're welcome! One oddball thing I've heard taught is that Taliban "drill instructors" teach their recruits that Canadian soldiers are created in test tubes and grown in giant glass jars. We don't have parents. I guess it's to help make it easier to plant IEDs and kill Canadians.

Pretty clever brainashing if you ask me.

Wed, 2009-03-11 01:13

#14

Fidel

Im afraid theyve learned guerilla warfare, torture, and dirty tricks from da best. operation cyclone only cost American taxpayers a few billion dollars over ten years and counting.

Wed, 2009-03-11 01:49

#15

Frmrsldr

Fidel,

Why do the Taliban "drill instructors" need to go to such lengths?

U.S., U.K., Canadian, Australian, etc., soldiers are doing a good enough job on their own with all the innocent Afghan civilians they are killing.

Wed, 2009-03-11 02:09

#16

Realigned

Yes Fidel what's up with that?

Wed, 2009-03-11 02:31

#17

Fidel

I watched a US docu-report on how a unit of highly skilled marines went on a night owl somewhere in the stan at night. They got about 300 yards from camp and were surrounded by surprisingly well trained Taliban. One or two marines didnt think they would make it back to camp, and few were shot up pretty bad. They wouldnt have made it if it wasnt for an attack helicopter shining a ten feet wide swath of light for marines crawling through the grass back to camp, and saturating the grass either side of the light path with automatic cannon fire and everything else they had in reserve.

Wed, 2009-03-11 04:21

#18

Frmrsldr

Kinda sounds like 'Blackhawk Down', huh?

Have you read the reports of U.S. and U.K. Special Forces units that are conducting a Vietnam 'Operation Phoenix' program, where they descend on an unsuspecting Afghan village in the heat of the night to selectively 'hit' (assassinate) insurgent leaders. The infallible information is provided by intelligence. More often than not (way too often), innocent Afghans are being killed.

Wed, 2009-03-11 09:17

#19

Unionist

Frmrsldr wrote:

Fidel,

Why do the Taliban "drill instructors" need to go to such lengths?

U.S., U.K., Canadian, Australian, etc., soldiers are doing a good enough job on their own with all the innocent Afghan civilians they are killing.

Fidel believes there is no actual native armed insurgency in Afghanistan. He doesn't feel the Afghan people have enough determination or strength to expel the invaders without help from some outside powers. He also believes that in order to fight a "phoney war on terror", the CIA and ISI have created and trained the Taliban and instructed them to produce this sideshow. He considered the "Talibanization" of Afghanistan as a far greater threat to the Afghan people than foreign invasion and occupation. He has posted amply on these subjects. That's one reason he continues to defend the Soviet invasion as having been benevolent, and it's also why he didn't support immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops until shortly before the NDP changed its policy in 2006. Unfortunately he seems to be veering back to his previous stands on that point.

If you want to understand his individual posts (like this one), you'll need to appreciate the perspective that he comes from.

Wed, 2009-03-11 11:47

#20

Realigned

Frmrsldr wrote:

Kinda sounds like 'Blackhawk Down', huh?

Have you read the reports of U.S. and U.K. Special Forces units that are conducting a Vietnam 'Operation Phoenix' program, where they descend on an unsuspecting Afghan village in the heat of the night to selectively 'hit' (assassinate) insurgent leaders. The infallible information is provided by intelligence. More often than not (way too often), innocent Afghans are being killed.

Yup. I think the practice was called into question too as local Afghan villagers are starting to get really pissed off about bystanders getting hurt and even just having their sleep screwed with. I'd be pretty pissed too.

The amount of these operations though are considerally less with NATO having took over the mission from OEF back in 2006.When it was OEF an American pilotfriend of mine was saying this stuff was going on about 10 times more.

In my little opinion these kind of midnight raids aren't worth the damage and destuction to Afghan villages and the injuries caused to the people.

Wed, 2009-03-11 13:01

#21

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
Frmrsldr wrote:

Fidel,

Why do the Taliban "drill instructors" need to go to such lengths?

U.S., U.K., Canadian, Australian, etc., soldiers are doing a good enough job on their own with all the innocent Afghan civilians they are killing.

Fidel believes there is no actual native armed insurgency in Afghanistan. He doesn't feel the Afghan people have enough determination or strength to expel the invaders without help from some outside powers. He also believes that in order to fight a "phoney war on terror", the CIA and ISI have created and trained the Taliban and instructed them to produce this sideshow. He considered the "Talibanization" of Afghanistan as a far greater threat to the Afghan people than foreign invasion and occupation. He has posted amply on these subjects. That's one reason he continues to defend the Soviet invasion as having been benevolent, and it's also why he didn't support immediate withdrawal of Canadian troops until shortly before the NDP changed its policy in 2006. Unfortunately he seems to be veering back to his previous stands on that point.

If you want to understand his individual posts (like this one), you'll need to appreciate the perspective that he comes from.

I think if you actually took the time to read the opinions of people who actually lived through the period you make loose reference to on occasion here on babble - and tried to understand what actually happened in 1980s Afghanistan and Pakistan - your inane notes to us might make sense to someone other than yourself.

And once again, [url=http://globetrotter.berkeley.edu/people2/Ahmed/ahmed-con0.html][color=me... California-Berkeley history studies group interview with Khaled Ahmed[/b][/color][/url]

[url=http://www.hartford-hwp.com/archives/51/104.html][color=red][b]Afghanistan: A Forgotten Chapter[/b] by John Ryan,[/color][/url] Canadian Dimension

[url=http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/309/joya_interview.html][color=red][u]Malalai Joya,[/u][/color][/url], another knowledgable Afghan with enough nerve to talk about our resident "lefties" favourite ISI/CIA-backed Taliban

I believe that actual recent history of Afghanistan and Central Asia, and what unionist claims is true, are incompatible and conflicting ideas altogether.

Wed, 2009-03-11 14:04

#22

Frmrsldr

The reason why the Soviet Afghan war occured was due to Russia's swallowing the bait that the Pentagon laid for it in Afghanistan.

The CIA, Pakistan's ISI, Saudi Arabia and Iran built and funded madrassas that indoctrinated radical jihadists - the more radical the better. It was considered this was the most effective way to hurt the U.S.S.R.

It would have been better for the U.S.S.R., Afghans and us - the U.S., Canada and the Western world, if this hadn't happened.

The radical jihadists are intolerant of Communism, democracy, women's equality and education, religious tolerance or any other tolerance.

As Ahmed Rashid in his book, "Descent Into Chaos" points out, during the Soviet Afghan War (1979 - 1989) and during the Afghan Civil War (1990 - 1996) these radical mujahideen assassinated moderate democratic Afghan leaders in both Afghanistan and Pakistan.

What is amazing and increadibly tragic, is that we have now swallowed the bait that Zebigniew Brzinzski originally laid down. We are fighting the jihadists (or their 'offspring') that were created by the CIA, ISI, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

When the U.S.S.R. collapsed, the U.S. made the claim that America had won the Cold War and that the U.S. is the world's remaining superpower. The U.S. made that pronouncement too soon. Not only did Afghanistan (the graveyard of empires) destroy the Soviet Empire, it is now destroying the American Empire.

It is extremely unfortunate that many Canadians and Afghans have to die for this stupid bullshit. If America wants to destroy itself, fine. We should not allow ourselves to get dragged into this as well. The sooner we get out, the better.

Wed, 2009-03-11 14:19

#23

Realigned

Fidel wrote:

I think if you actually took the time to read the opinions of people who actually lived through the period you make loose reference to on occasion here on babble

Like a kid who won't change the channel even though the same TV program has played 9 times in a row eh? Get up and change the channel and they change it right back heh.

Frmrsldr what's your user name short for?

Wed, 2009-03-11 14:53

#24

Fidel

Who is [url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/SCO410A.html][color=mediumblue]Moh... Sheikh Saeed[/color][/url], and was he a paymaster for [url=http://islamicterrorism.wordpress.com/2008/12/05/lashkar-chief-hafiz-moh... efforts in Mumbai[/b][/url] recently?

Wed, 2009-03-11 15:03

#25

It's Me D

Realigned: Add vowels.

Wed, 2009-03-11 15:16

#26

Fidel

Realigned wrote:
Fidel wrote:

I think if you actually took the time to read the opinions of people who actually lived through the period you make loose reference to on occasion here on babble

Like a kid who won't change the channel even though the same TV program has played 9 times in a row eh? Get up and change the channel and they change it right back heh

So what, in your personal opinion, should be discussed about Afghanistan in a thread about Afghanistan? Which mortars are more effective, and merits of the AK-74 versus 47? - a preferred rifle of the Taliban when putting in orders for weapons from Northern Alliance commanders in Karzai's government? Because Canadians are dying to know

Realigned wrote:
Frmrsldr what's your user name short for?

It's short form for, supercalafragalisticexpialadocious, which is secret army code for, I'll give you three guesses. And the first two dont count

Wed, 2009-03-11 15:17

#27

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

It's obviously Farmerslider.

Wed, 2009-03-11 16:03

#28

Realigned

Fidel wrote:

So what, in your personal opinion, should be discussed about Afghanistan in a thread about Afghanistan? Which mortars are more effective, and merits of the AK-74 versus 47? - a preferred rifle of the Taliban when putting in orders for weapons from Northern Alliance commanders in Karzai's government? Because Canadians are dying to know

Hi Fidel,

I think you thought I was making my comment towards your post. I wasn't. I was refering to Unionist and how he seems stuck on the same channel and refuses to watch anything else.

To answer your question about what to talk about in a thread about Afghanistan? Well I guess the cheating answer would be all things Afghanistan. I really enjoy your posts on the subjectespecially the material about the CIA and Pakista. I find myself agreeing with you a lot.

My 'boots on the ground' input doesn't seem that interesting a subject to talk about- mostly I try and correct wrong "facts" uch as Canada stopped sending out patrols during the election or Canadian soldiers aren't finding any IEDs.

Quote:

It's short form for, supercalafragalisticexpialadocious, which is secret army code for, I'll give you three guesses. And the first two dont count

I assumed it was former soldier but wondered. I was just curious, he comes across as well spoken and knowledgeable about politics but if I were to guess is military experience is or was light.

That in itself isn't a big deal but if someone's initial method of identifying themself as former soldier it just makes me wonder what they did as a soldier.

Wed, 2009-03-11 16:13

#29

remind

Funny, I did not get that impression, but I did get the impression you are purely a propagandists for the military.

Wed, 2009-03-11 16:36

#30

Fidel

Sorry Realigned. I was getting tired of the Afghan people will win theme of this thread, too. They obviously havent won anything since 1992, and have been chronic losers comparable with most of neocolonial Africa for decades. However, as one UN official put it, even some of the poorest of poor children in desperately poor African countries seem to have a few more rights than Afghan children do today. It's been one seamless tragedy for Afghans for far too long, and I think that kind of poverty and despair and basic human rights violations lasting more than a generation for them is bound to destroy hope for very many. I think Afghanistan is not far from the way it was in the 1990's.

Afghanistan is a good country to come from. This is how an older fellow who grew up in Afghanistan, was trained as a metallurgist and now lives in this northern Ontario town flipping pizzas for a living, described it to me.

Wed, 2009-03-11 18:58

#31

Realigned

remind wrote:
Funny, I did not get that impression, but I did get the impression you are purely a propagandists for the military.

Fidel wrote:

Sorry Realigned. I was getting tired of the Afghan people will win theme of this thread, too. They obviously havent won anything since 1992...//

Agreed.

I read the Afghan people will win and said whaaat?

What are they going to win exactly? IS that to say the Taliban will win and NATO will withdraw with it's tail betwene it's legs? The Taliban take the county over? I don't see that as any sort of winning situation.

The people of Afghanistan will win if [i]everyone[/i] decides to leave them the heck alone.

I'd like to see everyone out of Afghanistan.

Afghanistan left with a professional military and police force. (In BOTH those cases locals would not be afraid of shake downs or any other intimidation/criminal like behavior by the army or police.)

Constant power (no more blackouts)

Improved hospitals, sanizatation system etc..

That's getting a bit off topic though.

I think there is a big capability for them to vastly improve their quality of life if everyone just left them alone.

Wed, 2009-03-11 19:07

#32

Unionist

Realigned wrote:
Fidel wrote:

I think if you actually took the time to read the opinions of people who actually lived through the period you make loose reference to on occasion here on babble

Like a kid who won't change the channel even though the same TV program has played 9 times in a row eh? Get up and change the channel and they change it right back heh.

Well done, Fidel, you've finally found a soulmate! You can go back to 2006 completely now, before you figured out that Canada should not have troops in Afghanistan, because the Taliban needed to be defeated. You must feel really good now that you've been realigned.

Wed, 2009-03-11 19:58

#33

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
Realigned wrote:
Fidel wrote:

I think if you actually took the time to read the opinions of people who actually lived through the period you make loose reference to on occasion here on babble

Like a kid who won't change the channel even though the same TV program has played 9 times in a row eh? Get up and change the channel and they change it right back heh.

Well done, Fidel, you've finally found a soulmate! You can go back to 2006 completely now, before you figured out that Canada should not have troops in Afghanistan, because the Taliban needed to be defeated. You must feel really good now that you've been realigned

And I think you understand full well that you and I are on different sides of the fence when it comes to recent history, from 1979 forward, in Afghanistan. And we diverge again on colder war period Central Asia is that I think you believe the Taliban represents revolutionary change and liberation for ordinary Afghans. I strongly disagree with that, and so does Malalai Joya.

Theocratic feudalists in Afghanistan are still working toward "strategic depth" for Pakistan's military and intelligence apparatus controlled by elites in that country as well as by western allies. As Khaled Ahmed said several years ago, it was Pakistan which became the strategic depth to Taliban ideology.

Where I think we all share common ground is with the belief that North Atlantic Treaty Org continues to be a tool of the vicious empire and reaching far beyond its cold war era boundaries. I think so called western democrats were completely surprised by the end of the cold war and lacked real imagination as to the prospects for world peace and prosperity since that time in 1989-91.

Wed, 2009-03-11 21:33

#34

Frmrsldr

I am a former soldier who politically woke up.

What is war? After all, it is/was our profession, Realigned.

War is killing, injuring and destroying.

"We are there to help the people of Afghanistan" is the big lie that our government, the military and the sold out corporate owned mainstream media tell us.

Only the arms industry benefits from war.

Fidel is right when he says the Afghan people will not 'win' the war. The Russians did not win the war. Foreign soldiers (us) will not win the war. The Taliban and/or their allies will win the war.

Like Vietnam, we will so thoroughly destroy Afghanistan before we pull out that the Taliban's victory will be an hollow one.

In the end, it is the Afghan people who suffer.

As I said in another rabble thread, "We don't give a fuck about the people of Afghanistan. Never did. That's not why we are there."

Wed, 2009-03-11 22:30

#35

Realigned

Thats cool man I respect that.

You just had me curious. I got the feeling that you base your previous service as a defining point on of your character or at least a very big part of your online profile here. The comments you made about IEDs and officers really had me wondering though. Obviously you haven't deployed (which isn't a big deal and people here will cheer you for, their gonna love you) but the comment you made regarding officers and such mixed with the lack of training reminded me of someone who might have spent a year or two in the army, full time or even part time, and got out.

If thats the case and as you say politically you woke up, then thats great good on you for not staying when your heart wasn'tin it. Can someone with a year in the military say war is their profession? I don't know. You haven't said 'in my exprience' so maybe I'm jumping the gun dude. Maybe that's for another thread

When you say we don't care for Afghanistan though who exactly do you mean? We the Canadian people?

Hopefully the Tliban don't "win" either but honestly I can see the powers that be coming to some kind of truce.

Thu, 2009-03-12 02:06

#36

Frmrsldr

Realigned,

It goes back to my question of what, as soldiers, are we doing in Afghanistan?

How does waging war - shooting, shelling and dropping bombs on Afghans - how does maiming and murdering innocent Afghans help them?

As I said, war is killing, injuring and destroying.

How does sending soldiers to a war (sending soldiers into harm's way) that Harper has just admitted "We can never win", support the troops?

As a soldier, if I were you Realigned, I would be asking the question (as I have done), "What are we doing in Afghanistan? What are we fighting, killing and dying for?" I'd be calling Harper the war criminal that he is.

It never fails to amaze me how those who have never been to war or served in the Army, are often the ones who are the strongest advocates of war.

If you want to know what our priorities in Afghanistan are, 'follow the money': of the money that is spent on Afghanistan by the Canadian government, 90% goes directly or indirectly to prosecuting the war. Only 10% goes to reconstruction, development and humanitarian aid. 10% is the gross, the majority of that is siphoned off through wages of NGO employees, expenses, waste, theft, etc.

<>Who do I mean when I say we don't care about the Afghan people. I mean EVERYBODY: The government, the military, the mainstream media, and a sufficiently large minority of the Canadian public who seem to quite easily digest the precooked pablum the government, the military and the mainstream media is feeding them.
<><>

Thu, 2009-03-12 03:51

#37

Realigned

Good questions mate.

I'll try and come up with a good answer (when it's light out heh) but one thing you said;

Quote:
It never fails to amaze me how those who have never been to war or served in the Army, are often the ones who are the strongest advocates of war.

Incidently I agree.

Out of curiosity, have you served in Afghanistan or another theater of operations?

Thu, 2009-03-12 04:27

#38

Frmrsldr

Existence is a life long learning process.

I joined the military looking for intelligence.

17 years later (there was a 3 year period when I was out of the military),I am still looking - for military 'intelligence' that is.

As I was, you are. As I am, you (hopefully) will become.

"Dyin' ain't much of a livin'." - Clint Eastwood in "The Outlaw Josey Wales".

Thu, 2009-03-12 09:01

#39

Slumberjack

What Realigned is attempting to do Frmrsldr, is to discredit any criticism you may have about military activities by questioning the depth of your experiences. Essentially he's comparing chest medals and presenting himself to be more of a subject matter expert than yourself. He's also taunting whatever it is you have in the way of military exposure when he says it doesn't matter about the number of tours under one's belt, but in reality with him it does. This is standard barracks mentality, as you know.

Thu, 2009-03-12 10:49

#40

Realigned

Yes and no Slumberack.

His comments just didn't come across as someone who has been in the military very long. Theres other ex and current serving members on the forum who might think I'm right out to lunch.

Now get over here to my barracks and let me whip you with a towel and drink some beers eh huzzah

Thu, 2009-03-12 13:59

#41

Frmrsldr

The CO of my unit showed a video montage made by guys who were over there. After the presentation, the CO asked, "Is anyone thinking of doing a tour?" Then he asked, "Does anyone have any questions?"

I raised my hand and asked, "What is our strategy for victory in Afghanistan?"

The CO replied, "I've talked to guys who've been over there and they tell me that, sometimes when they fight the Taliban, they offer this much resistance,", at this point the CO stopped talking and raised his hand about 8 inches above his head. Then he continued, "other times, they offer only this much resistance," at this point he lowered his hand to about 8 inches above his knee, "and after a fire fight of only a few minutes, they throw down their weapons, put up their hands, come out of their caves and surrender." "Does that answer your question?"

I looked around at my fellow soldiers in disbelief and answered, "Um, no." By then the CO had moved on to others who had questions.

Here are some people in my unit who have not nor ever will go to Afghanistan:

The CO, as already mentioned.

The (Adj)utant, a Captain.

The Regimental Sergeant Major (RSM).

When it comes to people who support the war and who encourage others to risk their lives and their physical and emotional well being (and that of others ie., Afghans) to fight in them, yet who they themselves will never participate in the war they support, I have a word for that.

How would you describe such people, Realigned?

Thu, 2009-03-12 15:21

#42

N.Beltov

"... US's agricultural reconstruction work in Afghanistan and Iraq not only gives easy entry to US agribusiness and pushes neoliberal policies, something that has always been a primary function of US development assistance, but is also an intrinsic part of the US military campaign in these countries and the surrounding regions....Humanitarian aid is regularly conditional on the adoption of neoliberal policies, and, perhaps more troubling, there has been a recent trend in the case of war to interweave this aid, classified as "reconstruction", closely with the military machinery of the invading powers....In the war in Afghanistan, bombs and food are a package deal."

Agricultural "aid" is a veneer to cover the atrocities of the occupying military powers. Canada is one of those powers. "No matter how good aid work is, it will not contribute towards genuine reconstruction if it is also being used to reinforce the military interests of the principal donor country and to maintain its hegemonic dominance."

http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=217

http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/grain110309.html

Thu, 2009-03-12 16:07

#43

Frmrsldr

In spite of U.S. Gen. John Craddock's (Commander of NATO and U.S. troops in Afghanistan) "shoot drug dealers on sight" policy, the Pentagon is behind the opium production, sale and distribution in Afghanistan to fund its 'black operations' - Operations that the American public is unaware of because they would never approve or accept - If they did, there would be a revolt by the people against the government. Consequently, Congress is unaware of these operations, and therefore does not provide the money to fund them.

Thu, 2009-03-12 16:19

#44

remind

Frmrsldr wrote:
Remind, you probably know quite a few.

Me?

Thu, 2009-03-12 22:05

#45

Frmrsldr

A poem by Bertold Brecht

General, your tank is a powerful vehicle/ It smashes down forests and crushes a hundred men/ But it has one defect:/ It needs a driver.

General, your bomber is powerful/ It flies faster than a storm and carries more than an elephant/ But it has a defect:/ It need a mechanic.

General, man is very useful./ He can fly and he can kill./ But he has one defect:/ He can think.

I'm sure there are many 'no hook' Privates in the Armed Forces who are much more intelligent than the CO of my unit. Realigned, you probably know quite a few.

Thu, 2009-03-12 22:08

#46

Frmrsldr

Sorry, I meant Realigned.

Thanks for the remind, Remind.

<>Next thing you know, I'll be talking to a non-existent(?) "Rewind".

Fri, 2009-03-13 00:10

#47

Fidel

Scott Piatkowski wrote:

http://blog.macleans.ca/2009/03/08/psychic-jack/

Quote:
First the Prime Minister says the insurgency can’t be defeated, now the President says he might be open to negotiating with the Taliban.

Does this mean we have to do away with the basic assumption that everything Jack Layton says is ridiculous

Um, yeah, Aaron. That seems like a pretty good idea.

Well here is another issue which I actually dont agree upon with Jack Layton and the British. Could these backchannel talks be described as taking place between rightwing imperialist invaders and leftwing rebels?

Not at all. These are closed door negotiations between rightwing imperialists and rightwing theocratic feudalists. Uncle Sam and friends have propped up dozens of brutal rightwing dictatorships of all kinds from last century to this one.

Fri, 2009-03-13 00:31

#48

Realigned

Frmrsldr wrote:

Here are some people in my unit who have not nor ever will go to Afghanistan:

The CO, as already mentioned.

The (Adj)utant, a Captain.

The Regimental Sergeant Major (RSM).

When it comes to people who support the war and who encourage others to risk their lives and their physical and emotional well being (and that of others ie., Afghans) to fight in them, yet who they themselves will never participate in the war they support, I have a word for that.

How would you describe such people, Realigned?

Good question.

I understand where you're going with your train of thought but I think it has some faults so it.

You've mentioned a Colonel, Captain and CWO not willing to deploy to Afghanistan. I think you're implying that they are sending the young privates out to fight and die but they are too afraid to go.

There are SO many officers in KAF who never leave the wire that it's not really an issue. Educated guess, if your CO deploys he or she won't be leading soldiers in combat- It'll be a job inside the wire for 6 to 9 months with Pizza hut (delivery)burger king, thai massages (well thats closed down now due to livig condition issue, dutch restraunt, french bakery, subway, rumors of mcdonalds.

Even if they participated they still won't be facing the same danger as the augmentees they send over. But I do get your point, it seems hippocritical doesn't it?

IT sounds like you have some serious issues with your CO, I'm glad I can't complain about mine he's the best I've seen. Same can be said for my Company commander and RSM.

I believe leaders should lead from the front. If a reserve unit's leaderhip (If I guess correctly) wants to give 'come on and join the fight' talks then they should, at the least, put their names in the hat too.

On the other hand though, what's going to happen to the over all functionality of yourunit when the CO, RSM, ADJ all deploy? What's going to hurt a unit more, the absence of a CO and RSM for a year or a half dozen corporals?

What's even wrse in my opinion than an RSM or CO not deploying is when a unit sends their "junk" to get rid of them for a year.

That and other nations sending soldiers to Afghanistan to make the Americans happy yet not letting them leave the wire. Jut sit around and eat all day. Either you support the war and choose to send soldiers to soldier or you don't support the war and you don't send any troops. Don't pay lip servce.

Fri, 2009-03-13 01:14

#49

Unionist

Frmrsldr wrote:

Realigned,

As far as I am concerned, these guys are the same as the CEO and board members of the tobacco industry:

Aw Former, now you're just paying lip [s]cancer[/s] service, which Misaligned specifically warned you against!

Fri, 2009-03-13 01:15

#50

Frmrsldr

Realigned,

As far as I am concerned, these guys are the same as the CEO and board members of the tobacco industry: In both cases, they derive 'benefit' from encouraging others to engage in self injurious behavior. They are the 'Captains of death'.

Fri, 2009-03-13 01:24

#51

Frmrsldr

Remember Unionist,

I'm "Former Soldier". The reason being the Army didn't 'dig' what I had to say about Afghanistan: "We don't want you as a member of our club anymore. Thanks for coming out. Nice knowing you!"

Frmrsldr: "Your club has a great membership. Nothing personal, but I just think the leadership sucks."

Pages

Topic locked