Afghan Presidential Candidate: The US Occupation Must End
http://www.alternet.org/world/141504/afghan-presidential-candidate%3A_th...
"the past 8 years have done more harm than good to women's rights in Afghanistan -- the US is waging a war not winning a peace.."
Yes, cover the kids eyes and ears. This thread is X rated for relentless supporters of Canada's two old line parties and vicious toadies of the empire.I'm trying to understand it myself. Just remember, this is all Jack Layton's fault. It's easier that way.Fidel, you are trolling.
Stay out of this thread.
Please tell Jingles to stop trolling in kind, thank you very much.
She sounds like Fidel: occupation if necessary, but not necessarily occupation.
This is not my position nor is it remind's on the US-led NATO military occupation of Afghanistan involving approximately 40 countries and Canada. If he persists with this antagonism and straightforward lie, then I think I should be able to defend myself with similar bullying tactics in kind at the very least if scales and balance are absent. And he knows full well which parties' MP's voted against extending Canada's military occupation of Afghanistan and which two old line parties voted in unison for it. That's not trolling - it's stating the truth, which I am under the impression is generally encouraged on this progressive forum.
What Jack [url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/03/16/...
President Obama has made significant shifts in America’s Afghanistan policy. A surge in troop levels will be accompanied by greater emphasis on security and political outcomes.
A "surge" (escalation, for those of us in the real world) in troop levels is always accompanied by massive increases in atrocity. Does Layton thin Fallujah was a success in that sense? He must, since the same bloodthirsty storm troopers of white supremecy, the US Marines, whom laid waste to everything living in the city of Mosques, are now part of the escalation.
A high-level UN conference, called for by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, will begin mapping out a strategy for regional stability at the Hague on March 31. In a significant move by the U.S. administration, Iran will be invited
Oh boy. Iran will be invited. How nice of Ms. Clinton to invite [i]the people who live there[/i] to a conference on what kind of damage NATO will do to their countries. What a fucking asshole.
This group would have many advantages. It would broaden the scope of diplomacy to actively include more external actors. It would ensure that the scope of engagement includes the people of Afghanistan — in particular women — and their civil society representatives, not just the warring factions and regional power players.It would maximize engagement with moderate elements of the insurgency, including those who are fighting with the Taliban not for ideological reasons, but for food and money to support their families. [b]Targeted engagement is critical to isolating the small percentage of extreme ideologues among the insurgents.[/b]
Spoken like a true Clintonista.
Our skills and reputation as a peacemaker give Canada the basis for an active role after our troops withdraw in 2011. We must begin laying the foundations for that diplomatic role now. I believe that a special envoy, who may be more concerned with our national interest, will not have a significant impact.
Now, this is the quote that I want Fidel to read. Nowhere does Layton seem to understand that even if it were true that Canadian troops will leave in 2011 (they won't), there would still be thousands of American einzatzgruppens all over the country, carrying out their Phoenix programs without interruption. So, Layton's dreamy role of a "eminent person" to show the savages the ways of the Lord demonstrates that either he's a Obomber wannabe con man, or completely off his bloody nut. Nowhere does he seem to recognize that we have no business being their, either in uniform or in Wilsonian top hat and tails, dining with the "moderate" insurgents to get them to play along. He seems completely oblivious to the naked colonial attitude reflected in his and the NDP's position. Jack better get his head out his ass.
I know what you'll say. You'll accuse me of being an apologist for the "two old line parties". Whatever. It isn't about them. We already know Ignasty and Harper are fascists. We can't change that. But the NDP are supposed to be the alternative to the Capitalists. Layton demonstrates time and again that he has very little quarrel with those two when it comes to the important stuff.
I have a suggestion for a campaign slogan for any one of the three. "It's not personal, you understand. It's just business"
Afghanistan Tells Journos: No Election Criticism
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/07/afghanistan-tells-journos-no-cri...
"In advance of my trip here, I recieved a copy of the Afghan election commission's 'code of conduct', to be signed by journalists who want to be accredited to cover the upcoming vote. It's a pretty interesting read. Among other things, journalists are to 'avoid printing, broadcasting and publishing of scandalous advertisements and disgrace reports about [a] candidate's personality or behaviour which could effect the election results."
Nowhere does he seem to recognize that we have no business being their, either in uniform or in Wilsonian top hat and tails, dining with the "moderate" insurgents to get them to play along. He seems completely oblivious to the naked colonial attitude reflected in his and the NDP's position.
I'm beginning to think you arent so much an anti-war advocate as you are just plain old anti-NDP. Jack and the NDP and Blocquistas voted against the two old line parties and against extending Canada's military occupation of Afghanistan. The NDP and Bloc's anti-war stance was defeated, and the troops are there until at least 2011. You are blaming Jack Layton for that, and so I think you are not serious.
Why arent you attaempting to place equal dubious blame on the Bloc for having been unable to stop Canada's military extension in Afghanistan? Because by the same logic, you must think of them as traitors for voting against extending the mission and for not giving the Harper-Liberal coalition their pro-war votes of confidence.
A UN mediated peace process is clearly what's needed in Afghanistan. Warlords in political opposition to Karzai have stated this is what's needed. UN officials have said so, And surrounding countries affected by an increase violence due to weapons and drugs smuggling from Afghanistan are saying peace talks are needed to end the war and related violence. And Jack Layton and the NDP are now appealing to everyone involved for peace talks to happen.
But people like you and General McChrystal, otoh, arent talking peace negotiations at all by what I can tell. US Mil. General McChrystal wants Obama to send even more US troops to Afghanistan and even more money for training and arming Afghan security forces. Tens of thousands more US troops. Are we to assume that this is Jingles' position, too?
Spoken like a true Clintonista
Of course, like McChrystal and warhawks and some other people we're familiar with, the handful few Taliban ideologues will not desire peace talks or involving other countries' leaders in such diplomacy. The main principals calling the shots in this war will not want their own power to wage war taken from them with offers of compromise and power sharing made to other Taliban warlords in the region. Iran will be courted by US warhawks to provide a land and air route for supplying NATO's counterinsurgency. The US military will lose its main supply routes through Pakistan if the Pakistani army is unable to stop the Taliban in Swat Valley. The US is becoming more powerless with having to cede some control for supplying this war to Russia and Stani nations, Iran etc. Eventually, security for the region should be handed over to SCO countries anyway - it's their backyard not ours and especially not "North Atlantic" Treaty Org's responsibility. Iran is one of those nations sharing a border with Afghanistan and therefore desires to quell the export of militant Islam to their country as do China, Russia, India etc.
On the other side of the equation is Pakistan. Their military leaders are saying they can't afford to allocate any more of their half million man army to Swat valley and border region for a long list of flimsy reasons. The real reasons are unclear, except that the Pakistani ISI probably still controls the Taliban and still desires "strategic depth" in Afghanistan for purposes of geostrategic advantage over India and their border conflict in Kashmir. My guess is that Pakistan's ISI and the US CIA are still collaborating behind the scenes to keep the war going for their ulterior motives and to maintain US military presence in Central Asia under the false pretense of waging a war on terror. In fact, it's a war of terror and colder war manouvering. The main principals in this phony war necessarily need giving the bum's rush to the exit door with drums for peace negotiations beating louder and louder by the day.
"For the military, aid is part of its counterinsurgency operations. "It's a useful counterinsurgency tool," is how Liutenant-Colonel Tom Doucette, commander of Canada's provincial reconstruction team, described CIDA's work. Development assistance, for instance, was sometimes given to communities in exchange for information on combatants. Reconstruction aid was an important part of what the Canadian army called "three block war". "Our military could be engaged in combat against well-armed militia in one city block, stabilization operations in the next block and humanitarian relief and reconstruction two blocks over," explained the Paul Martin government's 2005 International Policy Statement." Yves Engler Black Book of Canadian Foreign Policy, Page 153 Afghanistan
and from the sublime to the...not so sublime..
http://www.ndp.ca/press/canadas-next-steps-in-afghanistan
"our skills and reputation as a peace maker"....really? Mendacious muck and gobbledygook this
So it appears NDPP doesnt support diplomacy or peace negotiations.
not if these are simply alternative attempts by which the Predator seeks objectives unattainable by military means or as Ward Churchill characterized negotiations with western 'Crusaders', like being "locked in a room with the sociocultural equivalent of Hannibal Lector."
Fidel. A moderator told you to stay out of the thread. You clearly read that and understood, but chose to blow it off. I'm suspending your account for a time to be determined after consultation.
Not on my behalf I hope oldgoat. On what basis is someone ejected like this? Seems counterproductive especially to one of your more enthusiastic contributor/participants. Why not try some diplomacy or peace negotiations first?
Engaging in a little sarcasm shouldn't get you suspended.
It was on neither of your behalf, and has been involving countless threads in a process which predates both of you. If you're told to stay out of a thread you stay out of the thread.
Something to remember when we hear nice liberal humanitarian neofeminist interventionists talk of "negotiations" or "diplomacy" with the "moderate insurgents": they aren't in any way serious.
When they say "negotiations", what they mean is "unconditional surrender". When the say "diplomacy", the mean "accept the presence of foreign troops on your soil, and foreign corporations plundering your resources". If they were honest, all the nice liberals would admit that what their diplomatic solution model for Afghanistan is identical to the diplomatic solution to the "Indian Problem" in the Americas: surrender and move to reservations.
Can anyone seriously imagine a scenario where NATO, or the UN, or the special envoys and esteemed white persons will agree to remove all foreign troops from Afghanistan? Not a chance. Since the only leverage they have is overwhelming, indiscriminate force, removing that threat means removing any reason to be there.
[url=http://www.alternet.org/world/141504/afghan-presidential-candidate%3A_th... Presidential Candidate: The US Occupation Must End[/url]
Thanks for that link, NDPP.
This is a very interesting interview, and everyone should read it.
The title, however, is inaccurate: Candidate Bashardost does [b]not[/b] say "the US occupation must end."
He had a chance to say so here, but he didn't:
Kolhatkar: What do you think about the US and NATO war in Afghanistan, which even Mr. Karzai has criticized? Currently the US is sending thousands of troops in Helmand province. What is your opinion of how the US is conducting this war?Bashardost: I am absolutely sure that the war in Afghanistan today is not a war for human rights, for democracy, because for the past seven years the international community has openly supported war criminals and financed them in Afghanistan. It is incredible to me that American tax payers are paying the salaries of the bodyguards of war criminals. It is incredible to me that the international community's tax payers pay for a very luxurious life for the four wives of a war criminal in power in Afghanistan. Today in the Afghan government and the cabinet we have war criminals, in our provinces we have corrupt governors or war criminals. It is time to deeply [b]change the American strategy[/b] in Afghanistan.
He had another chance to say it here, but didn't:
Kolhatkar: So what advice would you give the US and NATO? As an Afghan, what would you tell them to do? Should they just all leave Afghanistan?Bashardost: [b]Our problem is not a problem of American troops in Afghanistan.[/b] Our problem is that the analysis of the American state about the Afghan situation is wrong....
He had a third chance to say it here, but instead talked about how the US has a role to play in deciding Afghanistan's future:
Kolhatkar: Any last message that you would like to convey to the American people?Bashardost: Thank you very much. I would like to say to the American people: your young soldiers give their blood in Afghanistan. Your tax money pays for Afghan reconstruction. Because we have the same interests for a long time. But now your tax money and the blood of your soldiers is used in Afghanistan by a minority in power who are war criminals, they are part of the narco-state. They don't believe in human rights values, in women's rights. So [b]it is time that you support a real, good governance in Afghanistan, and human rights values in Afghanistan, and give a chance to a new generation in Afghanistan to have higher education and good experiences, and that believe in good governance and human rights.[/b] I am absolutely sure that the way of the American government is the wrong way in Afghanistan. It is time to change for American people's interests and also for Afghan people's interests. [b]We have the same interests. We can decide together.[/b]
Thanks for the deconstruction, M. Spector. It shows how impressions get created without being founded in reality - and the danger in reading headlines.
The logic of murderers is compelling:
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8167615.stm][color=red]125 extra UK troops set for Afghanistan[/color][/url]
The humorously-named Labour Secretary of "Defence", Bob Ainsworth, explained:
"Many of our brave young men have died fighting to protect our national interest in Afghanistan and I will not allow their sacrifices to have been in vain."
... so we're sending more sacrifices.
Wow his thread is embarassing. I don't think we should be in Afghanistan and I pray for the day we westerners will smarten up and leave them alone but this thread seems more about a couple of people trying to piss each other off with rude and sarcastic comments than worrying about the people in Afghanistan.
You say the Afghan people are still winning? Try telling that to the parents of that young girl who was just shot by a Canadian soldier.
And this is part #8? I hope there isn't a part 9.
Welcome to babble, SparkyOne. It's always nice to be lectured to by someone on their very first day on the board. Is it part of a series? Where can I sign up?
Hi Unionist, thank you!
You have to admit this thread doesn't seem about us destroying Afghanistan as much as it seems to be about you and Fidel, no offense!
I haven't considered making a serious but I could blog about it, you would join right? 
I'm just tired of hearing about Afghans dying and Canadians dying and people trying to justify it somehow. I don't like my tax dollars buying bullets that shoot little girls.
[url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5jBO7tqhGnRpP2gPbSaxXF... attacks increasing all over Afghanistan[/color][/url]
Fighting killed two US soldiers and 12 militants in Afghanistan, where violence is spreading to new flashpoints and foreign troop deaths have soared to record highs, officials said Friday. [...]Western military casualties have hit record levels in Afghanistan as foreign governments scramble extra troops to the war-torn nation, hoping to ease a worsening Taliban insurgency ahead of elections on August 20. [...]
Violence is also surging elsewhere in the country, with 12 insurgents reported killed in the north and the southeast Ghazni province. [...]
In northern Balkh province, four Taliban were killed in a clash with foreign forces, said Abdul Rauf Daj, a provincial intelligence chief. [...]
The fatalities Friday bring the foreign military death toll in July to 65, the deadliest month for international forces since the 2001 invasion.
[b]QUOTE OF THE DAY:[/b]
A soldier accused of shooting and killing a colleague in a tent in Afghanistan over two years ago says he felt his life was threatened by someone when he whirled and fired his weapon.
Cpl. Matthew Wilcox took the stand in his own defence Friday in his manslaughter trial in Sydney, N.S., and told the four military jurors that he heard someone cocking a pistol.
He told a hushed military courtroom that “he just reacted,” and turned quickly, drawing his gun from his holster before shooting.
Cpl. Wilcox says he only realized seconds later that he had shot one of his best friends, Cpl. Kevin Megeney.
And then this gem:
[b]“I felt my life was threatened and lethal force was the minimum force needed,” said Cpl. Wilcox.[/b]
What would the maximum force have been - a tactical nuclear device?
[url=http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-soldier-says-he-sh...
PTSD perhaps?
Didn't he shoot his friend inside the base? Where the only people who have guns are the soldiers?
It sounds like he fired his weapon by accident and is trying to cover up.
PTSD does not afford rational thought time, it is immediate response which is at work.
Now we know what the people of Afghanistan have had to deal with...
Yup!
I think the CF have been told to start preparing public opinion for extending the "mission" past 2011. Here's why:
[url=http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/07/24/canadian-forces-armoured-vehic... no longer needed after Afghan mission: general[/color][/url]
The chief of the Canadian army says he now sees no need for the military to take a yearlong operational pause after the scheduled end to Canada's combat mission in Afghanistan in 2011.
Lt.-Gen. Andrew Leslie, chief of land staff, called the federal government's $5-billion pledge this month for new armoured vehicles a "game-changer."
In March, Leslie told a Parliamentary committee the Canadian Forces had been pushed to the limit and would need no less than a year to recover from the mission, but now says that is no longer the case.
At the time, he said the army's vehicles were old and broken, and its battalions and regiments weren't doing much better.
Leslie told the committee the army had a backlog of 6,000 untrained troops waiting for qualified soldiers to come home and train them.
But just three months later, Leslie says his army has been rejuvenated.
"With this $5 billion, we don't need an operational pause, in my opinion," he said.
What liars this officer corps are - spouting whatever script Harper writes and pretending it's their own "military" opinion.
This is 100% bullshit for a number of reasons:
1. The Afghans can build IEDs that can defeat our Leoppard tanks. Canada deploys 'em, the insurgents destroy 'em.
2. $5 million and cool army toys for our officer class to play with aren't going to magically reduce the rates of PTSD and suicide in the Canadian military.
As for that Gutfeld moron, my suggestion is: Take a look at how soldiers are forced to do 3 or more tours consecutively and then take a look the rate of PTSD, domestic and criminal violence and suicide within the U.S. military and military families, and then flap your gums in public on this subject.
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/25/afghanistan-occupati... Joya[/url]:
Almost eight years after the Taliban regime was toppled, our hopes for a truly democratic and independent Afghanistan have been betrayed by the continued domination of fundamentalists and by a brutal occupation that ultimately serves only American strategic interests in the region.
Here's the problem, (continued after quote)
The only way to bring security is protect the women and children, not with bombs and bullets, armour and airplanes, but with secure schools, clean wells, steady supplies of food and legislation that punishes men, not women.
That's how you change a country.
*bolding mine
[/quote]
after their most recent visit to Kandahar, this is the same bullshit both Stephen Harper and Peter MacKay used when they talked about our (fuzzy word) "mission". Our "mission" is going to morph where our soldiers (presumably) are going transform from muderers into little humanitarian angels.
History seldom gives us a second chance. In the case of Afghanistan it did. the first opportunity we had was immediately after 9/11. Had Bush and Blair provided the Afghan Taliban government information that reasonably established that Osama Bin Laden was the mastermind behind the attack, then the Taliban would have handed him over to the World Court. The reconstruction, redevelopment and humanitarian work could have been done. Afghanistan would be an equal and fully contributing member of the world community today and everyone would be happy.
The second opportunity was in late November, early December 2001, after the battle of Tora Bora - the end of "Phase I" of the Afghan war. Tony Blair visited Kabul and said, "For too long we have ignored Afghanistan. Afghanistan must not become a breeding ground for terrorists." At this second point in time, if we had engaged in humanitarian aid and nothing but humanitarian aid, then we would not have the problems the Afghan people are suffering from today.
We had two opportunities and in both cases, we blew it. Bush and Blair's idea of preventing Afghanistan from being radicalized and from hating us was to invite NATO (not the U.N.) and to continue the war in Afghanistan.
After nearly eight years of murdering and maiming Afghans and destroying their homes and country, are they going to love and trust us if we suddenly engage in more humanitarian aid and become ever so slightly more war "lite"?
I think we can all agree that Canada, the U.S., all NATO and ISAF countries should leave Afghanistan now. What bothers me though, about walking away physically is that we are also walking away morally - from Afghanistan. American, Canadian and Western European society collectively bear moral resposibility for what is happening in Afghanistan starting with the Soviet Afghan war in 1979 and the war and violence that has continued to the present. At the very least, we should stop the war immediately. Withdraw all troops. Apologize to the Afghan people. Then promise to rebuild what we have destroyed and try to heal as many physical and emotional wounds we have caused the Afghan people. Rather than our telling, we need to seek Afghans telling us how we can reverse the harm we have done.
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/07/16/the-afghanistan-industry.html
Operation in Afghanistan Rooted in Israel: http://informationclearinghouse.info/article23128.htm
"The real reason why the U.S. continues its presence in Afghanistan is Iran, the country which is an annoyance for Israel, said Karen Kwiatkowski, a writer and former US Air Force officer."
What bothers me though, about walking away physically is that we are also walking away morally - from Afghanistan.
Whatever that means.
I'm not impressed by reading one article by one Afghan intellectual in the Guardian, Frmrsldr. We should leave. Of course we should pay reparations. But that's not what you appear to be suggesting. We have no business shooting and bombing the Afghan people into submission to our way of life. Neither are we allowed to do so with "reconstruction" dollars.
France 24 Documentay: Embedded with the Taliban
Thanks Cueball - excellent pieces!
I defy anyone to understand this story:
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/8169076.stm][color=red]Arrest after Polish Afghan death[/color][/url]
Police in Pakistan have arrested a former right-wing parliamentarian who is accused of ordering the murder of a Polish engineer by the Taliban.
Keep reading.
Unionist that article of frmsldr's was from RAWA, not the Guardian!
Maybe the title of the next thread on this topic does need to be modified somewhat, as no one is winning anything here, except maybe the defense contractors.
Seven bombers killed as Taliban switch tactics with attack in east
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/taliban-afghanistan-khost-at...
We have no business shooting and bombing the Afghan people into submission to our way of life. Neither are we allowed to do so with "reconstruction" dollars.
You and I are in agreement on this. I am not making the argument that we should impose reconstruction and redevelopment and then use it to justify continuing our troop presence in Afghanistan - upon the Afghan people.
The way we are acting is like children: We "play" with whatever "toys" attract our attention for the moment. When we abuse and destroy these toys, we discard them without further thought (remorse) and turn our attention to other toys (such as Colombia, Venezuela, Sudan, Somalia, Niger or Iran or...?).
I will accept the concept of "reparations" provided it is moral based rather than legal based and it is directed by the Afghan people rather than us.
We are opposed to this:
Increasing security for us and increasing (what we see as) "humanitarian aid" means increasing insecurity and increasing death for Afghans.
We are descending like black angels of death upon Afghanistan.
Unionist that article of frmsldr's was from RAWA, not the Guardian!
The article was posted on the RAWA website, but it originally appeared in The Guardian, as noted at the top of the page.
Velvet Revolution or Lesser Shades of Black?
http://arabwomanblues.blogspot.com/2009/07/velvet-revolution-or-lesser-s...
"Some speak of a 'velvet revolution' in Iran, while I see nothing but Red Blood. Velvet, Silk, or Satin, or maybe just Black Polyester, it doesn't really matter what you call it - the fact remains that thousands of Iranians have had it with the rule of the Ayatollahs.."
Unionist, this page is for you,
http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/07/25/afghan-woman-mp-lists-enemies...
Unionist that article of frmsldr's was from RAWA, not the Guardian!
It was from [url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/16/afghanistan-west-cor... Guardian[/color][/url].
"This unit gave lip service to he policy of working with locals," Mr Ricks said, "and this report is a way for people like Petraeus to say, 'you think you're doing counterinsurgency, but your not. And you're getting our soldiers killed." The battalion commander in Wanat claimed after the battle that he has been conducting a classic counterinsurgency campaign while 'living with the population'.This, the report concluded, was not an accurate account.
"This was not the case in the Waigal Valley, where the paratroopers occupied only two combat outposts, and had almost no interaction with the population," the report stated.
A statement from one machine gunner in the unit summed up the general attitude to locals: "We didn't interact with them...they didn't come near us and we didn't go near them," Another soldier added: "These people, they disgust me...everything about those people up there is disgusting. They're worthless."
Report: US commanders 'incompetent' over nine soldiers killed in Afghan battle of Wanat
Maybe it is. But I took a look through one of the lists of the detained and those killed, and I noticed that by and large they were of the "professional" class, and or students... that said, you should get some sleep, this is a thread about Afghanistan, not Iran... 
oops so sorry....as you say zzzz
misposted and removed to Iran thread
Never underestimate the resourcefulness of the Afghans
http://nytimes.com/2009/07/26/world/asia/26marines.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
Germany Is Dragged Into the War in Afghanistan Against the Will of the People
http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_56413.shtml
"We are fighting a national, anti-Western insurgency in Afghanistan. Afghanistan is of geostrategic importance because it is a place from which one can monitor Russia, India, Pakistan and China. The country is also phenomenally well situated in terms of the politics of natural resources. In fact, the Americans want to build a natural gas pipeline through Afghanistan...
But the international organizations are far more corrupt. Western companies are raking in profits of 400, 600 and sometimes 1,000 percent there. Only a fraction of the money passes through the Afghan government, while the rest ends up in private hands. In Kabul a Western company submitted a bill for $10 million for a 1.5 kilometer metal fence around the Zarnegar Park. Karzai had the matter investigated and it turned out that this fence was worth no more than $70,000. This doesn't exactly strengthen the Afghan's trust in Western development aid..
Were it not for the spiraling unemployment they have created, they wouldn't have the soldiers to fight their wars. They will not stop until they are stopped - and only the people, organized can stop them.."
