The Afghan people will win - Part 2

129 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Fri, 2009-03-13 01:33

remind

realigned wrote:
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?

Do you people never stop to think? To really understand what it is you are saying? What it means? And what it WILL mean in the future?

First off I am going to leave Afghans out of the equation, as I believe that they are not "human" to you, if indeed anyone is, and only speak to the Canadians, your fellow military peoples.

Units are people, they are not things. Those people have family and friends who are impacted if they are wasted like dixie cups, and thinking about them as if they were less important and thus disposable, is beyond comprehension. In know that you just stated sending them, however, the real outcome of sending corporals, is they could be dead, while the officer most likely would not be, and so what if his unit "misses" him for a year. Send his ass, not the corporals.

Quote:
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.

This is just such a load of crap, that it too is beyond comprehension.

If your commanding officers and the Canadian government were less blood thirsty, and more humane, they would have you sitting on the sidelines too. If they could not pull your asses out completely.

Frankly, I applaud those countries sitting their people out, they are keeping them safe and not destroying Afghans.

Fri, 2009-03-13 01:58

#53

Fidel

Youll have to excuse unionist for these drive-bys. Because although he correctly believes the Taliban are there and opposing the vicious empire, he doesnt know how to interpret the fact that ISI-trained and educated jihadis, the Taliban, are now discussing things again with their old business partners, the Americanos.

I get the impression that unionist has taken in a few Hollywood dusters. And now he is substituting mullah Omar and Gulbuddin Hekmatyar for Clint Eastwood and Eli Wallach. But instead of starring in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, this spaghetti eastern should be titled: The Bad, the just as Bad, and the Really Awful

[url=http://www.rawa.org/events/sevenyear_e.htm][color=mediumblue]Neither the US nor Jehadies and Taliban,
[b]Long Live the Struggle of Independent and Democratic Forces of Afghanistan![/b][/color][/url]

Fri, 2009-03-13 04:29

#54

Frmrsldr

Remind,

What is the point of the ISAF soldiers being in Afghanistan in the first place? It seems to me like Hans Christian Anderson's "The Emperor's New Clothes" and the Aesop Fable "The Mice, The Bell and The Cat": Everyone sees the situation as it is and everyone agrees that the situation sucks, but no one has the guts to do anything - After all of the U.S.A.'s top generals, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper and U.S. President Barack Obama have admitted that the war is unwinnable (by military means) - no one has had the guts to disengage their troops from Afghanistan and bring them home.

Call me a dreamer, but I am going to try with all my effort to get the Canadian government to "Support the Troops", "End the War" and "Bring Our Troops Home Now!"

Fri, 2009-03-13 07:29

#55

Unionist

Frmrsldr wrote:

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, you'll have to pardon my ironic comment. It was meant to praise you and to show my contempt for your passive-aggressive pro-war colleague's comments. We on this board (except for Fidel) have been demanding Canada's retreat from Afghanistan for years. A few, like Realigned and Fidel, only see "Taliban" and "Islamists" when they hear the words, "Afghan people" - which is why this thread title really bothers them.

Your position and your contribution here is admirable. Thank you.

Fri, 2009-03-13 07:35

#56

Slumberjack

I believe this argument about CO's and RSM's being captains of death to be flawed. At best, they are cogs that have come up through the system. At all points during their progression to those positions, they would have been the ones sent outside the wire by other CO's. Actually, RSMs do not traditionally draw up battle plans and direct combat operations, or involve themselves in the placement and movement of fighting echelon formations, but they do have another unique role. By using the cog analogy, if we view the military as a machine, then each part inside the machinery plays a specific role. Some cogs are larger than others, and are not interchangeable with other functioning parts because they have been constructed for a specific purpose. Unlike a machine though, a military formation develops internally. The smaller cogs trust the larger cogs to perform their role because they were once menial parts themselves. It all has little to do with the choice of being closer to danger than others, but a recognition of ones place and responsibility within the overall apparatus.

Fri, 2009-03-13 09:04

#57

Realigned

remind wrote:

Do you people never stop to think? To really understand what it is you are saying? What it means? And what it WILL mean in the future?

Talking about Commanding officers of reserve regiments and the like deploying? Yup I know what I'm talking about.

Members of the regular force are told you ARE deploying be they colonels or privates. Sometimes they have the option of staying back, other times they don't.

Remembers of the Reserve are in a unique position in that the must volunteer for service.

Quote:

First off I am going to leave Afghans out of the equation

Alright, because Frmrslder was speaking about his CO and RSM not deploying while prompting his soldiers to. (You're right about no one being human to me, their allllll robots... Ex-ter-min-ate,Ex-ter-min-ate )

Quote:
Units are people, they are not things. Those people have family and friends who are impacted if they are wasted like dixie cups, and thinking about them as if they were less important and thus disposable, is beyond comprehension. In know that you just stated sending them, however, the real outcome of sending corporals, is they could be dead, while the officer most likely would not be, and so what if his unit "misses" him for a year. Send his ass, not the corporals.

Right. Those members are still members of the military and wether you and I like it or not it's a soldiers duty to follow the government. (Yes I know big thread derail, what happens when the government is fighting an illegal and unjust war for oil etc..)

Is the life of a corporal less important than the life of a units commanding officer? No. I appreciate your sentiment to "send his ass" but the truth of the matter is that veryone in the military has a job to do. My Commanding officer started out as a private. He's deployed a few times egypt, bosnia, afghanistan. He's been a private being told to shut the fuck up and dig a trench, stand there all night and watch whatever, don't fall asleep. He was expeced to do all the duties of a soldier in his station. He choose to progress through the ranks and now he's a colonel. He remembers what it wa slike to "be a troop" and he's one of the great leaders that does everything humanly possible to put his soldiers first so long as[i]the mission is completed[/i]

I realise how much all of you hate the idea of it but the bottom line is that the military works by the motto "Mission before self".

It is a big machine that takes young men and women and chews them up and spits them out.

"Go take out that bunker" Um no fuck that I could die. It just doesn't work that way (trust me at times I wish it did).

The role of reserve are to train soldiers at all levels to augment the regular force. Primarily privates and cororals and then slowly workign their way up. There is just going to be a bigger need for 8 corporals to deploy overseas than there is for a units commanding officer to go. Why? The CO has significant duties at the regiment. His absence effects it more. THere are also a TON of officers floating around NDHQ and brigade head quarters with some jobs that appear to me like space fillers. Oh you're now the officer in charge of the library! Or you're the officerin charge of making sure the CO's letters don't have any spelling mistakes.

Remember the army mentality of mission before self?

Like it or not we all have a job to do and the job of us soldiers on the bottom of the totem pole is more dangerous and physically demanding than at the top.

Quote:
This is just such a load of crap, that it too is beyond comprehension.

If your commanding officers and the Canadian government were less blood thirsty, and more humane, they would have you sitting on the sidelines too. If they could not pull your asses out completely.

You seem to say load of crap often when refering to my posts, I should reallyconsider starting a lawn care compay. It's not up to the military to pull itself out. The military calling the shots didn't work so well in Rome, I don't think it would workany better today. If you want Canada out of Afghanistan you have the power to do it, the military doesn't.

Honest, take half the time you spend posting on here and start campaigning. Go door to door. Protest. Go to Ottawa. Get involved with politics? I'm not sure. What efforts are you involved in to bring us Canadians home, Remind?

Quote:

Frankly, I applaud those countries sitting their people out, they are keeping them safe and not destroying Afghans.

Ya thats a GREAT idea Remind. So now when the US talks about Afghanistan they can say we have a dozen countries supporting the war on terror and they have sent a couple of thousand soldiers to support their American allies!

All the while their sitting around eating better than the Afghans, getting paid and giving the US public support. I thought that's something you didn't want? Less public support for the illegal and unjust war on terror.

Thse countries should send money to NGOs and humanitarian aid instead. I'd rather see money spent on demining activities, buiding homes, getting people food and water.

Frmrsldr, what do you think about CO's and RSMs who ARE out with the troops? Like RSM Robert Girouard who died crew commanding a Bison. Usually a Master Corporal or Sergeant would crew command or even Corporals. Or my CO, RSM and OC who would go out of their way to 'get out with the troops' often performing the roles and duties of private ie..stomping around the ground looking for IEDs, doing security etc.. They didn't have to, they could have found tons of reasons to stay on base or in the fobs but chose to not only lead from the front but get their hands dirty (and give us little cogs breaks here and the)

Fri, 2009-03-13 09:49

#58

It's Me D

Realigned: A military question, because perhaps the Army works differently than other branches, is it really typical to enlist as a private and work one's way to a CO position; what about the officer class? I was under the impression that substantial class differences generally exist between officers and "grunts"; differences in education levels and socio-economic backgrounds. But maybe this isn't the case in the Canadian Army, though it is in other branches, and other places, and historically has been the case worldwide.

Realigned wrote:
The military calling the shots didn't work so well in Rome, I don't think it would workany better today. If you want Canada out of Afghanistan you have the power to do it, the military doesn't.

Thats funny, it sounds like you think we're living in a democracy right now; how many Canadians support the war? Are we still at war? The evidence as to who has the power is overwhelming; and its not us.

Fri, 2009-03-13 10:24

#59

Realigned

Is it typical? I don't think so. It's probaly quite uncommon for someone to join as a Private and work their way to Commanding Officer (Lieutenant-Colonel).

It does happen though. I think now days it's more common place to find soldiers who choose to become officers. In the past I think there was a huge class issue like we see pushed in hollywood. A captain told me once that you couldn't gt anywhere as an officer unless you wer able to touch RMC rings (meaning unless you went to RMC you were at the bottom of the officer food chain)

Where as in the past it was uncommon for 'troops' to have higher education now it's common (especially so with resevists) to have college and university educations. Some soldiers are quite happy to do some time in the army as a master corporal with a degree in physic or engineering where others choose to become officers. The age old 'class' issue is becoming less and less of an issue.

Interesting thing Canadians during WW1 and 2 really pissed off the British. The brits were reknown as you can imagine for their class system. Canadian soldiers during those two wars being largely made up of reservists who ran into the problem where Joe is a Major and Bob was a Corporal only back home they both worked at the same bank together and their best friends.

As far as the combat arms goes I've never really felt the 'class' thing, it seems like it's more of an officer on officer 'where did you go to school who was your grandfather' type thing. Now more than ever education (which I think is largely associated with class sometimes?) is available to "grunts". I'm considering taking a unversity degree in chemestry or physics myself but I won't become an officer.

What's the official concensus on Canadians that support the war and oppose it? Is there a link to some kind of survey?

Fri, 2009-03-13 10:25

#60

Frmrsldr

Slumberjack,

What a bunch of crap. No one in the Army is inexpendable. The German Army in WW 2 and the Canadian Army for decades has trained soldiers to perform tasks and command groups a number of ranks above their official rank. The purpose of this is that in war, when a senior rank(s) become casualties, the lower ranks can seemlessly take over and the mission continues.

Fri, 2009-03-13 10:56

#61

It's Me D

Realigned wrote:
What's the official concensus on Canadians that support the war and oppose it? Is there a link to some kind of survey?

Canadians oppose the war.

For the opinions of polling companies (and those who pay them) there are many links, here's the latest I could find (4 days old): Angus Reid Global Monitor.

Quote:
Many adults in Canada believe their government should cease its military deployment in Afghanistan sooner than scheduled, according to a poll by Angus Reid Strategies. 48 per cent of respondents want the bulk of Canadian troops in Afghanistan to be removed before 2011.

Conversely, 35 per cent of respondents would withdraw most soldiers in 2011, while eight per cent would keep Canadian troops in Afghanistan after 2011.

As you can see, though they've done there very best to doctor their results, they can't escape finding that some 83% of Canadians oppose this war (thats more than half! despite the article title).

Fri, 2009-03-13 11:11

#62

Slumberjack

Frmrsldr wrote:
Slumberjack, What a bunch of crap. No one in the Army is inexpendable. The German Army in WW 2 and the Canadian Army for decades has trained soldiers to perform tasks and command groups a number of ranks above their official rank. The purpose of this is that in war, when a senior rank(s) become casualties, the lower ranks can seemlessly take over and the mission continues.

No where did I suggest that they weren't expendable. All the working parts of the machine can be replaced. That is why the recruiting and training systems were put in place. While they are in place though, they perform their specific functions. Some are doing point, some at the back.

Fri, 2009-03-13 11:15

#63

Frmrsldr

Realigned,

If you agree with me that war is killing, injuring and destroying,

If you agree with me that the only ones who benefit from war are the arms and associated industries,

Then you will agree with me that the Army - and NATO for that matter - are just killing machines (Murder Inc.).

Then you will agree with me that Army HQ is like the board of directors of the tobacco industry - they 'benefit' from encouraging others to engage in self injurious behavior.

Then you will agree with me that, while members of the senior soldier class and members of the officer class fighting alongside the soldier class and taking the same risks spares them from the charge of hypocrisy (unlike the Reserve officer clowns I mentioned), unfortunately, they are the victims of Army 'indoc' or 'tobacco industry' brainwashing.

Realigned, why are you in Afghanistan? It can't be to help the Afghan people because, war by its very nature, is killing injuring and destroying.

As a Reg(ular) Force soldier, you are in Afghanistan because you were ordered to be.

I have deep sympathy with Reg Force soldiers, because as you know, when you sign those induction papers and are accepted into the military, you "signed your life away": Literally meaning, you signed an official document that gives your superiors the legal right to make decisions of life, death or physical or mental well being over you and all their subordinates, ditto for their superiors, and so on up the chain of command.

To the other rabble rousing babblers: Reg Force soldiers, if they genuinely are convinced that a war is immoral, illegal and unjust, can disobey a lawful command to deploy "Hell no, I won't go!", (something like that) but the consequences are very unpleasant. Such a soldier will be arrested, face either a Summary Trial or a Court Martial, probably will do time in a military prison, these events will permanently remain on their record and they probably will be given a dishonorable discharge, their career in the military will be ruined and no fed gov. department, agency, etc., will employ them should this happen.

If at least a sufficient minority of soldiers refused to deploy "What if there was a war and nobody came?", this would create a backlog in the military courts, receive major national and international media attention and would generate decisive support from the civilian population and would force the feds to end the war - "Some would say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one". - Might just work, but it's one hell of a gamble and people's careers, livelihoods and emotional well being are at stake here.

That is why Realigned is right when he says that it is up to us non Reg Force civilians, if we are opposed to war to put our beliefs into action to end the war. It is far easier for us to do this than for a (currently serving) soldier.

Fri, 2009-03-13 13:55

#64

Realigned

It's Me D wrote:

As you can see, though they've done there very best to doctor their results, they can't escape finding that some 83% of Canadians oppose this war (thats more than half! despite the article title).

I think suggesting 83% opose the war is in itself doctoring the statistics.

How I read it, 43% want us out RIGHT NOW. I think it's safe to assume they oppose the war.

8% Think we should stay longer, clearly they don't oppose the war.

35% however want us to stay there until 2011. To me that doesn't mean they oppose the war in so much as they feel that come 2011 We'll have done our part and it's time for us to pull out. Maybe it's just semantics I don't know but I don't think it's accurate o ssume 83% oppose the war. If that were the case then you wouldn't have 35% necessarily saying it's okay to remain until 2011, they would join the "out now!" crew. Maybe it's how one percieves it? I'd like to see us out by 2011.

Thank you for taking the time to dig up the poll link.

Fri, 2009-03-13 14:11

#65

It's Me D

You're welcome.

Realigned wrote:
I'd like to see us out by 2011.

So what do you think we should be doing until then?

Fri, 2009-03-13 14:31

#66

Realigned

Frmrsldr wrote:

Realigned,

If you agree with me that war is killing, injuring and destroying,

If you agree with me that the only ones who benefit from war are the arms and associated industries,

Then you will agree with me that the Army - and NATO for that matter - are just killing machines (Murder Inc.).

Then you will agree with me that Army HQ is like the board of directors of the tobacco industry - they 'benefit' from encouraging others to engage in self injurious behavior.

Clever way to put it. I wish I had your speaking ability.

I agree war is killing and destroying. I think there are mes when it's not only justified but required. The idealogical group of marauding gunmen sweeting across the helpless defenders of a tiny nation where hey murder and rape the helpless civilians. Enter heroic UN or NATO forces that puthemselves between the defenseless civilians and agressors.

Is that a big ol huge dream? Yup, I know it is. There is never war for the sake of humanitarian reasons, politics are always involved. Politicians don't care about village after village getting raped and murdered in Africa.

Quote:

Realigned, why are you in Afghanistan? It can't be to help the Afghan people because, war by its very nature, is killing injuring and destroying.

I [i]believed[/i] that our presene in Afghanistan will have gave the people of Afghanistan a better quality of life than afforded by Taliban. At the time I also believed that it was better for the Taliban to tie up resources fighting us in Afghanistan than in Canada. I know I'll et raked over the coals for that but it's what I believed at the time. (Now I'm less sure)

Quote:

As a Reg(ular) Force soldier, you are in Afghanistan because you were ordered to be.

I have deep sympathy with Reg Force soldiers, because as you know, when you sign those induction papers and are accepted into the military, you "signed your life away": Literally meaning, you signed an official document that gives your superiors the legal right to make decisions of life, death or physical or mental well being over you and all their subordinates, ditto for their superiors, and so on up the chain of command.

Up to a little while ago a soldier needed their commanding officers permission to marry. I think soldiers still need their COs permission, technically, to move out of the barracks and buy their own house.

There are sometimes chances to remove ones self from tour if you're a regular soldier but ultimately it is up to the army to send you. They do control your life. Imagine a career where your boss can say guess what you're moving in a month to the other side of the country, sell the house you just bought a year ago and pack the wife and kids up.

Quote:

To the other rabble rousing babblers: Reg Force soldiers, if they genuinely are convinced that a war is immoral, illegal and unjust, can disobey a lawful command to deploy "Hell no, I won't go!", (something like that) but the consequences are very unpleasant. Such a soldier will be arrested, face either a Summary Trial or a Court Martial, probably will do time in a military prison, these events will permanently remain on their record and they probably will be given a dishonorable discharge, their career in the military will be ruined and no fed gov. department, agency, etc., will employ them should this happen.

If at least a sufficient minority of soldiers refused to deploy "What if there was a war and nobody came?", this would create a backlog in the military courts, receive major national and international media attention and would generate decisive support from the civilian population and would force the feds to end the war - "Some would say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one". - Might just work, but it's one hell of a gamble and people's careers, livelihoods and emotional well being are at stake here.

That is why Realigned is right when he says that it is up to us non Reg Force civilians, if we are opposed to war to put our beliefs into action to end the war. It is far easier for us to do this than for a (currently serving) soldier.

This was discussed a couple of months ago. Posters felt very strongly about pulling our troops out of Afghanistan. Why was I there, why did I get on the plane. Why didn't I say hell no I won't go. The loss of a career, method of feeding ones family and jail time wasn't that big of a deal. I should have did the *right* thing (which IMO is subjective as I felt i WAS doing the right thing)

I put the question out

'what are YOU doing to bring our soldiers home' to a few people. I got about one answer.

'Protests don't work, no one listens'

For all the hard core 'out of Afghanistan' babblers I'd still be interested in hearing what you're doing to help convince the government to withdraw our soldiers (That is besides coming up with diffrent versions of my name like unaligned, misaligned ) Name calling is great but aside from a few chuckles is that helping the people of Afghanistan? Nope.

It's Me D wrote:

You're welcome.

Realigned wrote:
I'd like to see us out by 2011.

So what do you think we should be doing until then?

I still like the idea of the OMLT and POMLT teams. Mentoring the police and army.

Working with those two elements though I unfortinuately have a feeling that the cultural differences between the mentors and mentee's (is that a word) may be too much of a gap. Becoming a professional army and police force is hard work and I'm sad to admit that I think many Afghans may just feel that it's not worth the effort. I'dlove to be wrong.

Either way I think the goverment is being clever with it's wording. Ceasing combat operations in 2011 doesn't mean our troops will be pulled out. We could very well still have over 1000 troops at a time deployed to Afghanistan acting as mentors. Technically speaking the Afghans will be doing combat operations with Canadian observers. We'll still be in fire fights. We'll still be hit by IEDs. We might have a group of 30 Canadians with 100-500 Afghansdoing raids insted of just Canadians doign the raids. See what I mean?

Fri, 2009-03-13 14:50

#67

It's Me D

I see what you mean, but thats the government, and they don't want to be out by 2011, they've just agreed to it for a variety of reasons; you said you wanted to be out however, so presumably you oppose continuation of the mission under a different guise (as you've postulated to be the government's desire)?

You've basically just said you'd like to stay till 2011 to train (force) the Afghan's to fight our war in their country, and at the same time you've rightly acknowledged they don't want to... so why do you think staying till 2011 so we can force Afghan's to kill each other for a while longer is a good idea?

Fri, 2009-03-13 15:07

#68

Unionist

He just said it's a good idea:

Quote:
We might have a group of 30 Canadians with 100-500 Afghansdoing raids insted of just Canadians doign the raids.

Unless "raids" are something to do with union organizing drives.

This is a great debate. But these threads were intended for news about the war in Afghanistan. It's sad to see that we've gone down to debating whether Canada should pull out or not. That puts us down a few notches from where public opinion has been for years. And I'm not talking about the Left, which used to hold some sway on this board.

Fri, 2009-03-13 15:29

#69

It's Me D

Unionist I am not debating whether we should pull out. We should pull out.

I can stop talking to Realigned about his position if you think its thread drift; I don't mean to disrupt the Afghanistan news threads (I usually just lurk but I appreciate the effort that goes into them).

Fri, 2009-03-13 15:32

#70

remind

Let's face face it, realigned just fills himself full of shit, perhaps to try and make himself feel better about what he is taking part in, or perhaps for "other" reasons. However, we simply do not have let him fill us full of shit too, in any number of threads.

Fri, 2009-03-13 16:10

#71

remind

If you are going to quote me, quote me, do not make shit up and put there as if I said that! Edit your post please.

Fri, 2009-03-13 16:14

#72

Realigned

It's Me D wrote:

You've basically just said you'd like to stay till 2011 to train (force) the Afghan's to fight our war in their country, and at the same time you've rightly acknowledged they don't want to... so why do you think staying till 2011 so we can force Afghan's to kill each other for a while longer is a good idea?

I think we should withdraw our battlegroup in 2011 like we said we would. I don't know if we should keep mentoring teams behind. I think the idea is a good one but liek I said I'm not sure if it will work or not because I personally get the sinking suspicion that the Afghans don't care. I obviously don't speak for the Afghan army and in the greater planning scheme of things my opinion really isn't worth that much nor am I informed on all this suff.

Do you think when NATO pulls out Afghanistan will settle down, the Taliban will move back in everything will turn peacefull and eveyone will live happily ever after? Honest question how many infidel collaborators do you think will be put to death for having worked with us?

remind wrote:
Let's face face it, realigned etc..etc..et..etc..

Well Remind, if you think you have the will power then it's easy. Just don't respond to [i]anything[/i] I post from now on. You don't like what I'm saying? Too easy. Don't try and whip up support for yourself ("we this we that"), Be your own person. Just throw me on ignore, to help you out anytime you respond to something I've said I'll remind you I'm full of shit and you're not suposed to be responding to me. See? Too easy.

Fri, 2009-03-13 16:15

#73

Unionist

remind wrote:
If you are going to quote me, quote me, do not make shit up and put there as if I said that! Edit your post please.

Careful, remind. A moderator said we're supposed to give him "the benefit of the doubt". We are living in troubled times.

Fri, 2009-03-13 16:27

#74

Unionist

See what I mean, remind? Dangerous.

Fri, 2009-03-13 16:31

#75

Realigned

You should have more faith in the moderators here Unionist, I think they do a pretty bang up job especially considering they don't get paid for the hours they put in here

Fri, 2009-03-13 16:47

#76

remind

Sorry unionist, I have been busy delving into the Patrick Kinsella goings on, and started a thread about all the latest, it is fascinating, you should have a read around about it. Seems the BC Liberals stonewalled long enough that the NDP reserachers finally found the goods in the provincal archives.

Fri, 2009-03-13 17:35

#77

joshmanicus joshmanicus's picture

remind wrote:
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. ;)

One thing to keep in mind is that once they`ve begun negotiating, what they`re effectively doing is admitting that they`ve been defeated and they want to try and get out with as much respect as possible.

I forget who it was exactly that said this, but one of the major American liberals once said that `Negotiation was a euphemism for capitulation.`

Fri, 2009-03-13 22:46

#78

Frmrsldr

Actually joshmanicus,

Remember the question I asked my CO, "What is our strategy for victory in Afghanistan?"

The answer is, the U.S. and ISAF doesn't have a victory stategy. Never did.

After Stephen Harper got his 2nd resolution to escalate Canada's military engagement in Afghanistan (to 2011) and after the May 2007 NATO summit in Bucharest, Rumania, Harper talked about setting benchmarks and about training the Afghan National Police (ANP).

He didn't use these words, but to paraphrase George W. Bush, Harper described the ANP training thus: "As the Afghan police stand up, we (Canadian Forces) will stand down." In other words, this policy is an exit strategy.

An exit strategy is adopted when the people in power realize they have been defeated.

The answer I was looking for, was to hear the CO talk about our exit strategy. You'd think that as the Commanding Officer of my unit, he would be sufficiently interested in his profession to be both aware and knowledgeable of such significant developments concerning Canada's military engagement in Afghanistan.

joshmanicus, so you see, Harper first admitted that we were defeated back in May 2007.

Sat, 2009-03-14 02:27

#79

Frmrsldr

Who benefits from war?

The arms industry.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/03/blackwaters-new-frontier-the...

When you sign the Army's induction papers, you 'sign your life away'.

The Army 'owns' you.

Who 'owns' the Army?

The government.

Who 'owns' the government?

The arms industry.

As a soldier, you answer to your superiors. Your superiors answer to the military's top commanders. The military's commanders answer to the government. The arms industry buys governments. The government buys arms and weapons from the arms industry. The arms industry 'calls the tune' and the bought out government 'dances to the tune' of the arms industry.

Where does the government get the money to buy the arms?

From the tax payer.

As a soldier, you are 'owned' by the arms industry. You are the human component in a weapons system. War is a live experiment to test and provide R&D and further the profit for the arms industry. You are as expendable as the bullets, shells, rockets and missiles you fire and the bombs the Air Force drops.

<>Realigned: "I still like the idea of the OMLT and POMLT teams. Mentoring the [Afghan] police and army."

Arms industry: "If the Canadian public gets tired of the war, change the mission. Any excuse will do - Just so long as it keeps the war (and our profits) going. Should the Afghan war end, we'll find another. Let's see; there's Iran, North Korea, Somalia, the DR Congo, the Sudan, Zimbabwe, for starters... If Harper is voted out of office, oh well; we'll back the next Conservative leader, or there's Iggy..."

Has anyone seen the documentary DVD "Iraq For Sale?" This same crap is going on in Afghanistan. 'Google' the name Master Corporal Joshua Roberts (in case you have forgotten his story).

Sat, 2009-03-14 03:48

#80

Frmrsldr

When were the Taliban 'bad'?

Was it before or after 9/11?

If before 9/11, say during the period of the 1990 - 1996 civil war when atrocities and human rights violations were committed by both the Taliban and their allies and the alliance of the northern war lords and their armies, (today they are called the "Northern Alliance"), then where the hell were we (if we really gave a damn about the Afghan people)? Where were we during the years of Taliban rule (1996 -2001)?

What were members of the Bush administration, Dick Cheney (then CEO of Haliburton) and representatives of SoCal and BP oil companies doing negotiating for a Trans Afghan Pipeline (TAP) with the Afghan Taliban government from late January 2000 to early September 2001?

It is reported that as the negotiations stalled due to the Taliban's holding out for more money, Dick Cheney is roported to have said in frustration,"Look, we can either lay down a carpet of gold or we can lay down a carpet of bombs on your country. The choice is yours."

This is reported to have taken place on a Friday. On the following Tuesday, the 9/11 attacks occurred. The rest they say, "Is history".

Sat, 2009-03-14 04:08

#81

Xengine

I guess I have to keep up with the reason of the day for Canadians being in Afghanistan.

First, it was because Bush and company so dearly wanted OBL. But not enough to just show the Taliban their 'evidence'.

Then it was for 'democracy', although they seem to be huge enemies of inconvenient (for them) 'democracy'.

Then it was just because the Taliban were such bad guys. And they were such good guys.

And now Canadians are dying to 'defend' their installed regime, that any historian will tell you won't last out the next decade, anyhow.

No wonder no one really wants to talk about Afghanistan. Neither do I, normally. Just another exercise in stupid.

Sat, 2009-03-14 04:49

#82

Fidel

In 2008, NATO forces were spotted delivering a box of weapons to the Taliban

Of course, a US military spokesman denied the whole thing. I wonder how many times the US Mil. has aided and abetted the phony enemy theyre waging a phony war on terror against?

Sun, 2009-03-15 02:17

#83

Fidel

"Everyone's a winner, baby, that's the truth" - Errol Brown, British musical group "Hot Chocolate"

[url=www.rawa.org][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/Capture-9.gif[/IMG][...

Sun, 2009-03-15 03:31

#84

Frmrsldr

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/03/11/terror-u-s-style.html

There isn't much more I can say about this article other than it should be a cause of concern and a slight cause of optimism (as it very briefly suggests that after U.S. and ISAF troops leave, there is a possibility that the Afghans may institute democracy in their country) for you Realigned and Unionist, repectively.

I wonder if Captain Semrau was involved in this clandestine Special Forces "Operation Phoenix" crap. The precooked pablum that military "Public Information Assisstants or Officers" (IPAs or IPOs) have fed to the press that Capt. Semrau was assisting the British in Helmand province to train the ANA and ANP doesn't 'wash'.

The Army is telling us the former colony (Canada) is teaching the former master (Britain) how to train colonial puppets? I don't buy that for a 'New York minute'. When it comes to colonialism, Britain is the 'oldest whore in the business'.

Sun, 2009-03-15 05:44

#85

Unionist

[url=http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/03/07/civilian-killings-in-us-raid-... killings in US raid spark protest in Khost[/u][/color][/url]

Quote:
Afghan demonstrators blocked the path of a U.S. military convoy in eastern Afghanistan on Saturday after an overnight U.S. raid killed four Afghans and wounded two, an official and protesters said.

Protesters in the eastern city of Khost threw rocks at the convoy, shouted "Death to America" and burned tires in the road, sending up dark plumes of smoke. Several hundred men gathered in the street, preventing the vehicles from passing.

[url=http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/03/11/protest-against-the-us-led-co... in Lashkargah against U.S.-led killing of civilians[/u][/color][/url]

Quote:
Residents of Lashkargah, capital city of southern Helmand province, on Wednesday staged a protest demonstration against the US-led coalition forces and Afghan government.

They alleged that a civilian was killed and another wounded when a shell hit them in Spini Kotta area of the city during an operation by the foreign forces last night.

The relatives of the deceased and the area people took to the streets early this morning, chanting slogans against the US forces and the government.

A protestor Haji Ahmad Jan called for a revolt against the government if it did not take action against the killers of innocent man. [...]

[b]Locals say the existence of foreign troops in the country is the main reason behind their agony.[/b]

Sun, 2009-03-15 15:03

#86

Realigned

Frmrsldr wrote:

I wonder if Captain Semrau was involved in this clandestine Special Forces "Operation Phoenix" crap. The precooked pablum that military "Public Information Assisstants or Officers" (IPAs or IPOs) have fed to the press that Capt. Semrau was assisting the British in Helmand province to train the ANA and ANP doesn't 'wash'.

Why do you ask if he was Special Forces and what abut the press release do you find doesn't wash?

Is it because you can't picture Canadian soldiers teaching British soldiers 'how to war'?

Sun, 2009-03-15 15:05

#87

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Eric Margolis wrote:

We must think hard about waging an increasingly bloody war against lightly-armed mountain tribesmen who face the 24/7 lethal fury of the U.S. air force's heavy bombers, strike aircraft, helicopter and AC-130 Spectre gunships, killer drones and heavy artillery. Do we really want a test of wills against men who have the courage to endure cluster bombs with thousands of sharp fragments, white phosphorus that burns through flesh to the bone, fuel/air explosives that burst the lungs and tear apart bodies? Will Canada's use of Soviet helicopters and Israeli drones win Afghan hearts and minds?

Our propaganda brands these Pashtun tribesmen as "Taliban terrorists." They call themselves warriors fighting occupation by the western powers and their local Communist, Tajik and Uzbek allies.

Al-Qaida's few hundred members long ago vanished.

Fatuous claims we occupy Afghanistan to protect women are belied by the continued plight of Afghan females under western rule....

The U.S.-led forces in Afghanistan have no coherent political objectives. The U.S.-installed Karzai regime in Kabul has no political legitimacy and commands no respect or loyalty. It is engulfed by corruption and massive drug dealing. The Obama administration is casting about for a new puppet, but so far can't find one who could do any better than poor Karzai. You can't make a puppet into a real national leader.

Worse, as Kabul flounders and the Taliban and its allies are on the offensive, events in neighbouring Pakistan are going from awful to calamitous. The West cannot wage war in Afghanistan without the support of Pakistan's army, air bases, intelligence service and logistical infrastructure. That means keeping a government in power in Islamabad responsive to U.S. demands and that will continue renting its army to Washington.

But Pakistan is in political chaos. After easing former discredited dictator Pervez Musharraf out of power, Washington eased into power Pakistan People's Party leader, Asif Ali Zardari, widower of Benazir Bhutto. His popularity ratings are rock bottom.

[url=http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2009/03/15/8753981-sun.html][color=me...

Sun, 2009-03-15 15:49

#88

Unionist

Realigned wrote:

Is it because you can't picture Canadian soldiers teaching British soldiers 'how to war'?

Hahaha, I think you touched a nerve, Frmrsldr! Well done.

By the way, thank you to Fidel for linking to the RAWA website; it's been a while since I visited. They have ongoing stories about mass demonstrations of Afghans wishing death to America and Karzai and their allies (see my previous post for examples). And here I thought that only the Taliban wanted these scumbags out...

Sun, 2009-03-15 15:52

#89

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
Realigned wrote:

Is it because you can't picture Canadian soldiers teaching British soldiers 'how to war'?

Hahaha, I think you touched a nerve, Frmrsldr! Well done.

By the way, thank you to Fidel for linking to the RAWA website; it's been a while since I visited. They have ongoing stories about mass demonstrations of Afghans wishing death to America and Karzai and their allies (see my previous post for examples). And here I thought that only the Taliban wanted these scumbags out...

They dont want the Taliban either.

Sun, 2009-03-15 16:17

#90

Webgear

Frmrsldr wrote:

Who benefits from war?

The arms industry.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2009/03/blackwaters-new-frontier-the...

When you sign the Army's induction papers, you 'sign your life away'.

The Army 'owns' you.

Who 'owns' the Army?

The government.

Who 'owns' the government?

The arms industry.

As a soldier, you answer to your superiors. Your superiors answer to the military's top commanders. The military's commanders answer to the government. The arms industry buys governments. The government buys arms and weapons from the arms industry. The arms industry 'calls the tune' and the bought out government 'dances to the tune' of the arms industry.

Where does the government get the money to buy the arms?

From the tax payer.

As a soldier, you are 'owned' by the arms industry. You are the human component in a weapons system. War is a live experiment to test and provide R&D and further the profit for the arms industry. You are as expendable as the bullets, shells, rockets and missiles you fire and the bombs the Air Force drops.

Arms industry: "If the Canadian public gets tired of the war, change the mission. Any excuse will do - Just so long as it keeps the war (and our profits) going. Should the Afghan war end, we'll find another. Let's see; there's Iran, North Korea, Somalia, the DR Congo, the Sudan, Zimbabwe, for starters... If Harper is voted out of office, oh well; we'll back the next Conservative leader, or there's Iggy..."

Has anyone seen the documentary DVD "Iraq For Sale?" This same crap is going on in Afghanistan. 'Google' the name Master Corporal Joshua Roberts (in case you have forgotten his story).

<>

You should also include the CAW, with being in cahoots with the arms industry. There are a lot of CAW locals supplying the military in Afghanistan.

The CAW demands it's share of military contacts.

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

Sun, 2009-03-15 17:49

#91

Unionist

Fidel wrote:

They dont want the Taliban either.

You know, Fidel, you may well be right (don't know where you get your information), but I'm just going by the reports on the RAWA site that you linked me to. If you have some reports on mass demos by Afghans shouting, "Death to Taliban!!", please provide the links. You'd think it would be safer to demonstrate against them than against the incumbent regime and its military backers, no?

Sun, 2009-03-15 21:09

#92

Fidel

Unionist wrote:
Fidel wrote:

They dont want the Taliban either.

You know, Fidel, you may well be right (don't know where you get your information), but I'm just going by the reports on the RAWA site that you linked me to. If you have some reports on mass demos by Afghans shouting, "Death to Taliban!!", please provide the links. You'd think it would be safer to demonstrate against them than against the incumbent regime and its military backers, no?

Youve got to be kidding?

[url=http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/03/05/afghanistan-tempted-by-a-tali... by a Taliban job offer[/color][/url]

Apparently the Taliban are paying a little more than the US-ISI backed clique of N. Alliance/mujahideen and narco bureaucrats in Karzai's clique. Can we imagine the Sandinistas, Cuban campesinos, or NVA having to be paid to show up for the revolution?

[url=http:www.rawa.org][IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabb...

Can we imagine African-American women in the deep south protesting the klan prior to a civil rights movement?

Can anyone imagine mercenaries from 40 countries intervening in the US civil war to put crazy George I and Briitish empire back in power in New England?

Can we imagine the Soviets sending billions of dollars worth of aid and weapons to the former KKK and rightwing militia groups in the USSA, or perhaps FMLN in 1980s El Salvador? There would have been hell to pay.

Sun, 2009-03-15 21:34

#93

Realigned

Fidel wrote:

They dont want the Taliban either.

Honestly Fidel I think you're right. ISAF talks to villagers and the villagers say we love ISAF.

Taliban talk to villagers and it's we love the Talban!

A few will say you know what we don't like either of you and just want you out.

I really wonder who is being the most honest. (not really)

Why don't we see huge parades with Afghans screaming down with the Taliban? I think you summed it up well.

When locals speak out about the Taliban they get a bullet to the head. When locals are identified as woring with us they get approached and asked to spy on us. Sometimes their left alone when they say no, sometimes their killed.

Frmsldr, Unioniost is trying REALLY hard for you to notice him and like him, can you please acknowledge him?

Sun, 2009-03-15 21:41

#94

Unionist

From Fidel's article (the part he didn't quote, of course):

Quote:
"In the Afghan administration now, money is the law," said Bashardost, the former planning minister. "When you have money here, you can do anything. Afghanistan is the only country in the world where corruption is legal."...
Corruption is turning more people toward the fundamentalist Taliban, which is seen as clean in comparison. The Taliban may be remembered for its harsh rule, but it also is remembered for enforcing that harsh rule. No one took bribes. Most of the country was secure.

Sun, 2009-03-15 21:44

#95

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

Realigned wrote:

When locals are identified as working with us they get approached and asked to spy on us.

And when they are identified as working with the Taliban they are assassinated by ISAF/OEF.

Sun, 2009-03-15 21:53

#96

bondjames

Hithis is bondjamesI am new to this site. I think this site is providing information about Insurance. Now-a-days Insurance plays major role in the world. Every one needs insurance their entire life for securing life. Every vehicle must be insured. I think this site is to be useful to whom wants to insure vehicles and personal they have to consider this site.================bondjames[url=http://www.autoinsurancequotesusa.org]Auto Insurance Quotes[/url]

Sun, 2009-03-15 21:57

#97

bondjames

Hithis is bondjamesI am new to this site. I think this site is providing information
about Insurance. Now-a-days Insurance plays major role in the world.
Every one needs insurance their entire life for securing life. Every
vehicle must be insured. I think this site is to be useful to whom
wants to insure vehicles and personal they have to consider this site.================bondjames[url=http://www.autoinsurancequotesusa.org]Auto Insurance Quotes[/url]

Sun, 2009-03-15 22:09

#98

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

This bondjames asshole is spamming babble in order to plant links to his new website, so he can boost his Google ranking.

What would happen if babblers decided to flood his [url=http://autoinsurancequotesusa.org/about/][u]mailbox[/u][/url] with requests for Insurance quotes, requests to cease and desist, or requests to just take a hike?

Sun, 2009-03-15 22:10

#99

Fidel

Unionist wrote:

From Fidel's article (the part he didn't quote, of course):

And we can be sure that confederates enjoyed some support among cotton farmers and southern elites before and after the US civil war.

But the Taliban are a result of Arab-US influence in 1980's Pakistan and Afghanistan. The Taliban's is the religion of power-mad fundamentalists and elites in Afghanistan. There were no municipal plebiscites on this issue by any of General Zia or the Arab-Afghans marauding in and out of those countries in the 1980s and 90s.

Apparently the Taliban refuse to tolerate more than just corruption, dancing, singing, and public schooling for girls:

Expulsion Of Malalai Joya from Afghan Parliament

Quote:

Although Joya receives numerous death threats and her home has been bombed, she has chosen to continue her stance against the inclusion of former mujahideen in the current Afghan government. In 2004, she and a delegation of 50 tribal elders persuaded President Karzai to dismiss a provincial governor who was a former Taliban commander

"They should be taken to national and international court," Joya stated publicly at the 2003 meeting, her bravery and courage rare in a country emerging from the harsh and callous Taliban rule, under which women were barred from public life.

The BBC has called Joya "the most famous woman in Afghanistan." In a January 27, 2007 interview with BBC News Joya commented on her personal political mission amid continuous death threats, saying:

"They will kill me but they will not kill my voice, because it will be the voice of all Afghan women. You can cut the flower, but you cannot stop the coming of spring."
Malalai Joya appeared at the Federal Convention of Canada's New Democratic Party (NDP) in Quebec City on September 10, 2006, supporting party leader Jack Layton and the NDP's criticism of the NATO-led mission in southern Afghanistan. She told "No nation can donate liberation to another nation."

None of Generals Zia nor Musharraf nor the CIA nor ISI nor Saudi princes can donate liberation or "strategic depth" to Afghanistan.

Sun, 2009-03-15 22:28

#100

Realigned

M. Spector wrote:

Realigned wrote:

When locals are identified as working with us they get approached and asked to spy on us.

And when they are identified as working with the Taliban they are assassinated by ISAF/OEF.

We should inform ISAF that Bondjames is Taliban and his insurence company is a front for sending money...

Sun, 2009-03-15 22:55

#101

Fidel

unionist:

And I wouldnt suggest that everyone in the resistance to ISAF occupation are Taliban. Some are and some arent. I think there are several factions led by "competing commanders with differing ideologies and strategies, who nonetheless agree on one essential goal: kicking out the foreigners"

But as Malalai Joya pointed out a couple of years ago, the Taliban, and the Northern Alliance commanders in Karzai's government, are "brothers in creed"

[url=http://socialistworker.org/2008/12/09/who-are-the-taliban][color=red][b]Who are the Taliban today?[/b][/color][/url]

Quote:

It wasn't always this way. When U.S.-led forces toppled the Taliban government in November 2001, Afghans celebrated the downfall of a reviled and discredited regime. "We felt like dancing in the streets," one Kabuli told me. As U.S.-backed forces marched into Kabul, the Afghan capital, remnants of the old Taliban regime split into three groups.

Pages

Topic locked