Whatever happened to the UN
What should Canadas post-2011 Afghan strategy be
Sun, 2009-08-09 18:06
#1
What should Canadas post-2011 Afghan strategy be
Sun, 2009-08-09 18:13
#2
Once NATO and the US are driven out, Canada should offer financial assistance and war reparations to whatever government comes to power. Until that time, funding should be offered to NGOs operating in the country, such as the Red Crescent and UNICEF.
Sun, 2009-08-09 18:13
#3
My hunch is that there will a lot of huffing and puffing from Harper and Ignatieff but basically nothing will change, and we will do whatever NATO or the USA wants.
My preference would be for Canada to be re-connected with the UN but Im not getting the impression that is even on the drawing board
Canada needs post-2011 Afghan strategy, experts; critics
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jvNZaSsK6Jhci373sQbOQJ48igwg
Sun, 2009-08-09 19:19
#4
since it was Chretien adn the lying libs that sent us to Afghanistan in the first place it seems that in 2011 pm iggy will only keep the red brand alive and extend the mission for another decade. Yup Chretien sent them in 2001 and Iggy will extend in 2011
Sun, 2009-08-09 19:30
#5
I think our post-2011 strategy in Afghanistan should be the same as our post-2011 strategy in Timbuktu - we shouldn't have any troops there, so why do we need a strategy? What interests would the strategy serve?
Sun, 2009-08-09 19:48
#6
[url=http://www.ndp.ca/platform/otherpriorities/canada]Withdraw all Canadian forces from the Afghanistan combat mission, with reasonable advance notice and in consultation with our allies[/url]
Provide robust support to the United Nations and its work in conflict resolution, peacekeeping, and global co-operation.
Participate in international efforts to bring peace, justice and stability to the Darfur region of Sudan and to the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Re-establish Canada as a leader for global peace and disarmament by renewing efforts to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, ban cluster bombs, and control trade in small arms and light weapons.
Work with partners for peace and justice in Israel and Palestine, within a framework of respect for UN resolutions and international law. This means recognition of the right of both Israelis and Palestinians to live in peaceful co-existence in viable, independent states with negotiated, agreed-upon borders; no settlements remaining in the Palestinian state; an end to Israeli occupation of Palestinian land; an end to loss of life of innocent civilians; and an international peacekeeping presence.
Fight global poverty by realizing unmet Canadian federal government commitments for international aid and debt forgiveness for poorest countrie
Sun, 2009-08-09 22:13
#7
No 'strategy'. Just out of there asap. Ditto re: NATO. Do NOT "provide robust support to the United Nations", that disgusting imperial servant. This is all a ghastly lie designed as pap for political naifs. Enough already no more of it please it's meaningless.
Mon, 2009-08-10 00:23
#8
Ditto re: NATO. Do NOT "provide robust support to the United Nations", that disgusting imperial servant. This is all a ghastly lie designed as pap for political naifs. Enough already no more of it please it's meaningless
NATO = UN ?
Who knew?
[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13759]West Plots To Supplant United Nations With Global NATO[/url]
NDP != [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v697/rabblerabble/the-toadie-200709260... <-- Toadie
Zetta: Okay, so who's going to drive the tanker?
Jack: I am
Defend the fuel(democracy)! There's always a way.
Mon, 2009-08-10 00:51
#9
was just going to post this myself
good flik bad political parable
I didn't say 'NATO=UN'
ps in real life Jack doesn't get to drive the tanker
Mon, 2009-08-10 05:01
#10
You can ride in the school bus if you want to, mate. The Humungus will unleash his dogs of war either way.
Okay this is bizzarro. The point I was trying to make is in line with the title of this thread: What should Canada do? We know what Canada will do with the two oldest political parties in power in Ottawa. No guess work is necessary in the present case. What Canada should do is get our tails back into UN sponsored peacekeeping missions around the world, or the way it was for Canada before 2002. And I know some like Slumberjack will scoff at Canada's record of peacekeeping around the world since Nobel winning peace efforts of Liberal PM Lester Pearson's time in the sun. But this is a colder war now with NATO trying to usurp the authority of the UN. The UN, for all its shortcomings and lack of democracy with five permanent members of the UNSC calling the shots, is still a noble ideal for global democracy as fantastic and incredible as that sounds now. I think that, like the movie characters in Mad Max Road Warrior decided they had to at least try to do the right thing, because they determined that the ruler of the wasteland was not likely to be reasonable, so should Canadians at least try to do the right thing. A democratized UN and security council could be effective in protecting sovereign countries from fascist aggression. The UN was created with that in mind.
Mon, 2009-08-10 09:41
#11
We know what Canada will do with the two oldest political parties in power in Ottawa. No guess work is necessary in the present case. What Canada should do is get our tails back into UN sponsored peacekeeping missions around the world, or the way it was for Canada before 2002. And I know some like Slumberjack will scoff at Canada's record of peacekeeping around the world since Nobel winning peace efforts of Liberal PM Lester Pearson's time in the sun.
The intentions of the third old line party are clear, one only has to consult their website. And now apparently, liberals are being feted in support of wobbly notions that become more nebulous by the hour. You seem to believe that what Canada was doing in Kabul in the early stages of this debacle was peacekeeping. Peacekeeping involves mutual agreement between all parties for a third party to monitor events on the ground and to assist with stabilization and rebuilding of the society. When one party is not in agreement, you have peacemaking, where invariably, sides are taken and peace is achieved, if that is possible, by direct military action against the uncooperative side. Peacemaking as a alternate and more desirable strategy gained traction in the Balkans during the early 90s, and in Somalia. If one examines the thirty years or so since Pearson's time and the Suez operation, it becomes clear that peacekeeping was the only game in town through which the military could apply at least portions of its craft. I'll let you in on what should be obvious to any rational examination of the military mindset. Constabulary work is seen as being beneath the endeavour of soldering. During those years, that was all there was available. Peacemaking is occurring in Khandahar province as well, although with the increased intensity of asymmetrical warfare thrown in. It isn't full spectrum warfare by any stretch, but there's certainly far more opportunities for glory and career aspirations. Armies do what they're told for the most part though, so in the unlikely event of a faux social democratic victory, they may even be ready at that time for a shift somewhere else in country, where peacemaking can be continued in less sensational circumstances under the guise peacekeeping, favourable public opinion might be realized once again, and who knows, the attrition and recruiting track may even gain some equilibrium. We should be grateful for that sort of visionary stratagem.
Mon, 2009-08-10 15:49
#12
The intentions of the third old line party are clear, one only has to consult their website.
[url=http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q=withdraw+OR+withdrawal+troops+Afghan... Results 1 - 10 of about 178 from ndp.ca for withdraw OR withdrawal troops Afghanistan. (0.44 seconds)[/url]
And now apparently, liberals are being feted in support of wobbly notions that become more nebulous by the hour. You seem to believe that what Canada was doing in Kabul in the early stages of this debacle was peacekeeping.
But the truth is that until 2006, Canadian troops were hanging around the fort in and around Kabul and not participating in US-style aggressive combat. I'm not saying the Liberals had peacekeeping in mind at all, and especially not since the Liberals were elected in 1993 leading to Canada's declining role as a peacekeeping nation. And even though the Liberals lied to Canadian parliament and the NDP concerning the change of plan then, all we have to do is look at [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Forces_casualties_in_Afghanistan]C... Forces Casualties in Afghanistan year-by-year[/url] to see that fatalities for the troops were actually in decline until 2006. Then immediately after the Liberals' vicious toadying to Uncle Sam, Canadian troops started dying like flies in Kandahar.
I can understand your frustration with the two old line parties. You and many Canadians have become jaded with the lies and deceitful ways of the two old line parties in power since 1867 and now sharing power and propping up one another in Ottawa. The only real way to know if the NDP is true to its promise for troop withdrawal and end Canada's combat role on behalf of Uncle Sam would be to actually elect Canada's first federal NDP government in history. Because the old line party record on Afghanistan is obvious by now - more of the same and whatever Uncle Sam tells them to do in Ottawa.
Mon, 2009-08-10 15:56
#13
Canada should leave full stop. It should then pull out of NATO and lead a movement of non-aligned countries to get rid of the security council and its NATO vetoes. The UN is ineffective because the general assembly has no power, it is all in the hands of the various empires and empire wannabes.
Mon, 2009-08-10 16:21
#14
The only real way to know if the NDP is true to its promise for troop withdrawal and end Canada's combat role on behalf of Uncle Sam would be to actually elect Canada's first federal NDP government in history. Because the old line party record on Afghanistan is obvious by now - more of the same and whatever Uncle Sam tells them to do in Ottawa.
Canada's next steps in Afghanistan
We've come a long way since the first voices in our country called for a new role for Canada in Afghanistan. Internationally and in Canada, we are seeing a new will emerging to turn the page and begin a more balanced policy toward Afghanistan.
Gone are the name-calling and overheated rhetoric. Gone is the questioning of support for our troops. In their place is recognition of the limits of force in dealing with a situation that has its roots in politics and the economy. World leaders are now looking for ways to stabilize Afghanistan and the region.
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. Envoy Richard Holbrooke will be a formidable advocate for diplomatic resolution. 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.
In Canada, the Department of National Defence has admitted that the "insurgency is a political problem. The mere attrition of insurgents is highly unlikely to result in [their] defeat." Prime Minister Harper, an ardent supporter of staying the course, confessed recently that Canada will not win this war just by staying.
I'm glad Prime Minister Harper now sees that stability and peace require negotiation. New Democrats have been trying to convince him of that for some time. But what matters now is determining our next steps.
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.
For any peace initiative to work, informal discussions have to prepare the ground, identify regional partners and discover and test new political ideas and solutions. Canada can take the lead on this by appointing an eminent persons group to take on this task, as recently and similarly proposed in these pages by Professor Fen Osler Hampson.
Two eminent persons who would make an excellent basis for such a group are former UN envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and former permanent observer of the Organization of Islamic Conference to the United Nations Mokhtar Lamani, who is Canadian. Our foreign affairs critic Paul Dewar is currently advocating this approach -- and these candidates -- at an international conference in the U. K.
These individuals possess credibility and respect in the region. They understand the challenges. They have the contacts and the previous experience necessary to open new avenues of dialogue with key constituents and affected parties. They can establish the basis for more formal talks.
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. Targeted engagement is critical to isolating the small percentage of extreme ideologues among the insurgents.
United Nations leadership is essential, and therefore this group would function independently of Canada and as a part of broader UN effort for peace-building in the region. However, establishing such a group could be a major Canadian contribution. It would be our "political surge" as called for by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Kai Eide. It would also align well with our efforts to obtain a seat on the Security Council in 2010, by demonstrating our maturity and skill in resolving conflicts.
We missed the opportunity for more rigorous diplomacy over the past seven years in Afghanistan. We must now act with determination to achieve lasting stability and peace in the region. Without a focused framework and diplomatic muscle, the great efforts and sacrifices made to date will go less rewarded.
Perusing the various pipe dream statements that emanate from the ingenious policy committee takes on the hollow sensation similar to that of gill netting for fish in a barrel, especially when key elements bear an unmistakable resemblance to the consistency of jello under a sun lamp.
Mon, 2009-08-10 16:39
#15
What Canada should do is get our tails back into UN sponsored peacekeeping missions around the world, or the way it was for Canada before 2002.
So you [i] do[/i] support imperialist occupation of Afghanistan, as long as the trucks are painted white instead of tan. I see.
The myth of "peacekeeping" is one of the most dangerous and ignorant myths we have as a nation. Unlike liberal fantasies of peacekeeping, the military was smart enough never to believe that simplistic nonsense. The Canadian military always trained for whatever mission the US wanted them to perform. From the sixties to 2001, our militaries role was understood as that of sub-unit of the US Army. We trained to fight the Soviets in Germany when that was in vogue, and now the military fights the "global menace of international radical Islam". The UN was always a mechanism for the colonial powers to maintain control over their former holdings, and Pearson gifted them the idea that they could outsource the muscle.
What is euphemistically called "peacekeeping" is merely another name for colonialist and imperialist interference in other countries. Our presence in "failed states" (nations driven to poverty and violence by western corporations and governments) had nothing to do with keeping peace and everything to do with maintaining a NATO foothold in conflict areas. Our masturbatory celebration of Canadians as peacekeepers ignores the continuity between the loss of colonial holdings by the European imperialists in the post war and the new order imposed through the post-colonial UN. The job of the Canadian military in these areas was no different from that of the original European occupiers.
The last thing a pillaged country needs is more white troops telling them they are not capable of coexisting with their own neighbours. This was illustrated most clearly if unintentionally by the CBC in one of those old Canadian history vignettes, where two swarthy, hot-tempered Mediterranean types are saved from killing each other only by the timely intervention of the handsome, white Canadian who arrives in the nick of time. Ridiculous, but clearly that is the myth we are peddled.
But the truth is that until 2006, Canadian troops were hanging around the fort in and around Kabul and not participating in US-style aggressive combat.
How is that supposed to be better? Even if they sat around Kabul jerking each other off, that means it freed up US troops to rape and pillage at will. Any presence there is occupation.
Mon, 2009-08-10 16:40
#16
Perusing the various pipe dream statements that emanate from the ingenious policy committee takes on the hollow sensation similar to that of gill netting for fish in a barrel, especially when key elements bear an unmistakable resemblance to the consistency of jello under a sun lamp.
"Canada's" next steps in Afghanistan" not the NDP's demand for troop withdrawal which still stands. English can be tricky, especially where the Liberal Party is concerned about Afghanistan.
[url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/debate-fact-check-dion-on-afghanistan]Debate Fact Check: Dion on Afghanistan[/url] 2008
And the reason Canadian troops are there in Afghanistan until at least 2011 is because the Liberals and Tories both voted together against the NDP and Bloc to extending Canada's pro-USA military role in Afghanistan.
You seem to be less interested in the progressive truth than you are with misleading spin, speculation and conjecture. According to you it's not the two old line parties who are predictable wrt Afghanistan, it's the NDP who are an unknown quantity in federal politics. And that's faulty and misleading logic. Like jello for sure.
Mon, 2009-08-10 16:42
#17
amen, Jingles!
Mon, 2009-08-10 16:46
#18
So you [i] do[/i] support imperialist occupation of Afghanistan, as long as the trucks are painted white instead of tan. I see.
No that's a false and misleading insinuation, and no doubt a deliberate attempt to misinform and mislead. I support the NDP and full cooperation with UN peacekeeping ideals. You seem to be trying to equate the UN with NATO, which is also false and misleading. One of the reasons the UN was created was to prevent fascist aggression and enforce world peace. And political stooges in Canada's Liberal and Tory governments have worked to undermine UN authority by doing Uncle Sam's dirty work in Afghanistan.
Mon, 2009-08-10 16:53
#19
One of the reasons the UN was created was to prevent fascist aggression and enforce world peace.
Mon, 2009-08-10 19:52
#20
One of the reasons the UN was created was to prevent fascist aggression and enforce world peace.
They're doing a swell job in Haiti, doncha think?
As Slumberjack so eloquently pointed out, the idea that Britain, the US, Russia, China, and France have any interest whatsoever in "prevent(ing) fascist aggression and enforce(ing) word peace" is completely infantile. At best, the UN is a mechanism whereby the most violent and aggressive imperialist countries can continue to enjoy their monopolies on the use of force, with the tactit agreement that each will not interfere with the others' same prerogatives. Try and see the UN through a capitalist critique and it'll make perfect sense. The UN is akin to a meeting of the mafia bosses: they will compete with each other, but they will band together to eliminate threats to business, and they will allow each other certain liberties within the others' sphere as long as there is reciprocity. I'm astounded that you show such naiveté when it comes to the UN.
Right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must[i]Thucydides[/i]
Mon, 2009-08-10 20:06
#21
oops!
Mon, 2009-08-10 20:35
#22
More combativeness and flimsy argument with the consistency of jello
So, you agree that there needs to be an exit strategy for NATO, and yet you dont want anyone to initiate any peace talks(Tariq Ali(a brown person and actual lefty) to Jack Layton)that would lead to an actual exit strategy with guarantees from surrounding countries deeply involved in this neocon led phony war on terror for many years to date. You agree with the end goal but not the suggested means of arriving at a solution.
"These Do-Nothings profess a commitment to social change for ideals of justice, equality, and opportunity, and then abstain from and discourage all effective action for change. They are known by their brand, 'I agree with your ends but not your means." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet) Saul Alinsky
[url=http://www.ndp.ca/press/fact-check-harper-conservatives-spinning-on-afgh... CHECK: Harper Conservatives spinning on Afghan mission[/url]
Our stooges in the two old line parties may not talk with terrorists, but their imperial masters do! The US and Brits have been talking with the Taliban on and off before and after this phony war began!
[url=http://www.un.org/News/dh/iraq/brahimi-bio-jan04.htm]Lakhdar Brahini[/url]
[url=http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=bfe72d17-... Lamani[/url]
Mon, 2009-08-10 21:07
#23
So, you agree that there needs to be an exit strategy for NATO, and yet you dont want anyone to initiate any peace talks(
No, I don't think there needs to be an "exit strategy for NATO". I have no interest in saving NATO from its own overreach and disintegration. I welcome it. I don't think you know what "exit strategy" means. You must understand that NATO has no interest in the welfare of the people of Afghanistan. When they say "exit strategy", they mean "preserve [i]our[/i] legitimacy" in order to initiate further wars of aggression wherever they deem it necessary. Exit strategy means never having to say "defeat". There is only one way out: Unconditional surrender of the Crusader armies, and the immediate withdrawal out of the region.
I cannot understand why you think peace talks are the answer. First, the occupying powers have no legitimacy to negotiate. Second, the resistance groups are diverse and have their own political agendas. The only way peace talks make sense is if you buy into the propaganda that NATO is fighting a singular, corporeal body called "the Taliban", and that the occupation has at its core a nobility of mission that merely failed in application.
I also wonder if you can tell the difference between the following phrases:
"Complete withdrawal from Afghanistan", and "Complete withdrawal from the combat mission in Afghanistan".
I'll illustrate the difference with the following example::
"I will stop beating my wife", and "I will stop beating my wife with a belt".
Make sense?
Mon, 2009-08-10 21:17
#24
the "exit strategy for NATO" is well underway and comes not from any of the discredited, part-of-the-problem-not-the-solution, masters' tools like the NDP or UN but from the resisting people of Afghanistan and their mujihideen's bullets and IEDs.
Mon, 2009-08-10 21:52
#25
So, you agree that there needs to be an exit strategy for NATO, and yet you dont want anyone to initiate any peace talks(No, I don't think there needs to be an "exit strategy for NATO". I have no interest in saving NATO from its own overreach and disintegration. I welcome it.
So, you're not a peacemonger, is what youre saying? Four more wars? You dont mind that more Afghans are being murdered than are troops from the USA, Canada, and 38 other countries occupying Afghanistan militarily? Because the Afghan people can take four more years, or even eight more years of warfiteering and great game bullshit? Is that what youre recommending for millions of desperately poor people in Afghanistan whove been putting up with western meddling in their country for 30 years since 1979?
Well that's where you and I beg to differ. And Tariq Ali also doesnt see things from the point of view of warmongering westerners far removed from the horrors of war and grinding poverty in Central Asia. Neither the US-led NATO gangsters nor their former proxies, the Taliban, have indicated that they are willing to stop the organized murder anytime soon, and Afghans really are the bulk of those being murdered as usual in this phony war on terror.
[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/sep/28/afghanistan.defence]Phony combatants carrying on phony peace talks[/url] 2008
Even principal combatants in this phony war have made efforts to talk as Tariq Ali and others on the left and right have admitted. What they need are transparent and binding UN mediated peace talks with all countries on both sides of this great game conflict sitting down to talk peace and exit strategy. The US doesnt want an exit strategy, because this is a phony war on terror. And it's why the phony combatants must be dragged to an actual negotiating table to hash out their phony differences and pressured to work toward actual results. It's 30 years since Zbigniew and CIA began fomenting chaos and destabilization in Central Asia. I
Mon, 2009-08-10 22:07
#26
What they need are transparent and binding UN mediated peace talks with all countries on both sides of this great game conflict sitting down to talk peace and exit strategy.
How very 19th century. Spoken like a true imperialist. Carve up that globe, baby!
You dont mind that more Afghans are being murdered than are troops from the USA, Canada, and 38 other countries occupying Afghanistan militarily?
Yes. Where I say I want to see NATO defeated, that means I support the troops. Are you high?
Mon, 2009-08-10 22:16
#27
Are you high?
He's like this all the time, so it's unlikely.
Mon, 2009-08-10 22:52
#28
What they need are transparent and binding UN mediated peace talks with all countries on both sides of this great game conflict sitting down to talk peace and exit strategy.How very 19th century. Spoken like a true imperialist. Carve up that globe, baby!
You dont mind that more Afghans are being murdered than are troops from the USA, Canada, and 38 other countries occupying Afghanistan militarily?Yes. Where I say I want to see NATO defeated, that means I support the troops. Are you high?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)#Concern_troll
You and genstrike should both pick one of Canada's 20 some registered political parties to declare support for and take a progressive stance... on something. Anything really. Bashing the NDP 24/7 from obtuse angles does not a progressive make
Mon, 2009-08-10 22:56
#29
Maybe I should just become an NDP party apparachnik and declare all dissent from Party orthodoxy as heresy and treason. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Jack Layton.
Mon, 2009-08-10 23:06
#30
Maybe I should just become an NDP party apparachnik and declare all dissent from Party orthodoxy as heresy and treason. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty towards the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Jack Layton.
I suspected he would break you eventually. 
Mon, 2009-08-10 23:18
#31
Well you clearly dont agree with me, the NDP, or even that famous lefty and brown person writing about the situation in his birth country and neighboring Afghanistan. So I have no idea what flavour your bland and colourless jello is.
In fact, I havent read anything by you supporting a single progressive policy in this thread other than droning on about NATO(Uncle Sam really) unconditional withdrawal. Like that's going happen after 30 years of US meddling in Afghanistan with no sign of a let up.
FYI, this is a phony war, and even colder war. The Yanks are not going to leave Afghanistan by their own decision anytime soon as the country is situated at the basin of a vast continental deposit of petroleum and natural gas deposits. And 11, 000 or so Taliban wont be forcing NATO and 40 international armies to the exit gates either. That's really silly of you to think so. And more important to colder war hawks and warmongers alike, it's about NATO's continued encirclement of Russia and China. This is the Brits fourth terrorist attack on Afghanistan since turn of the last century. And you think theyre going to pack up and vamanos tomorrow? You dunno what youre talkin' aboot, mate - not a clue.
Mon, 2009-08-10 23:34
#32
So your "solution" to the phony war is negotiations with the occupiers? Is that about right? You drone on and on about crazy george and the phony war, but have this fantasy that NATO's crusaders negotiating with some group that western propagandists call "taliban" (hand picked by the CIA, of course) will make everything good again? You've accepted a permanent US presence to secure resources. You've accepted NATO's goal of encircling Russia and Iran. Your ideal solution is a surrender of the Mujahedin and the resistance to this reality, and want Canadian troops to keep this colonial arrangement as long as they keep a positive PR spin on things. Is that really your solution to the Afghanistan problem? Because everything you've written points to an acceptance of Imperial aggression.
A progressive solution here is the same one the Republicans had in Spain: fight the fascists, 'cause they won't stop once they start.
Tue, 2009-08-11 00:26
#33
So your "solution" to the phony war is negotiations with the occupiers? Is that about right? You drone on and on about crazy george and the phony war, but have this fantasy that NATO's crusaders negotiating with some group that western propagandists call "taliban" (hand picked by the CIA, of course) will make everything good again?
Well I'm sorry for picking on rightwing whackos and megalomaniacal psychopaths whom our fearless Liberal government stooges were taking orders from at the time they decided on an aggressive US-style combat role for Canadians in Southern Afghanistan. I admit it's not very dignifying for either our Liberal government stooges or crazy George's criminal regime at all. I dont know about you, but I'd be embarrassed as hell to be a Liberal Party drone about now because of the vicious toadying and kow-towing to a madman and his war criminals who actually lost the 2000 popular vote count
It appears that faux white progressives are not high on Tariq Ali or the tens of thousands other leftists who actually live in Pakistan and Afghanistan or what they have to say about it. But Ali has said the CIA and Brits have met regularly with Taliban officials in swanky hotels of Lahore and Islamabad in recent months and years past.
[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO109C.html]The CIA's Holy old AntiCommunist jihad in Central Asia[/url]
[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14191]Whistleblower Who Linked "Taliban" Leader To US Intelligence Is Assassinated[/url] Analysts claim enemy of slain tribal leader is protected, funded by CIA
You've accepted a permanent US presence to secure resources.
Oh that's baloney. The reality is that the largest global army ever assembled is occupying Afghanistan militarily today - about 40 countries in all. And it was CIA and Pakistani ISI together who recruited paid merenaries and religious jehadis from about 40 countries to wage war on the Afghan PDPA government and then the Soviets for 10 years before the country was torn a new one from stern to stem by fundamentalist whackos. Karzai is a former supporter of the mujahideen and foreign ambassador for the former anticommunist mujahideen coalition government formed in 1992.
The Taliban is a creation of the CIA and Pakistani ISI.
"Al-Qa'eda" is a creation of the CIA. And this is a phony-baloney war on terror. What's needed, as Tariq Ali said last Sept., is an exit strategy for NATO and peace talks with the Taliban, as well as surrounding countries aiding and abetting the Taliban and which are overly concerned by NATO's presence in their backyard.
The Liberal Party, and their friends, the Harpers? They dont talk to terrorist factions and creations of the CIA/Pakistani ISI, or anyone else Uncle Sam instructs them not to. And apparently that's your position, too, with a twist of lemon
A progressive solution here is the same one the Republicans had in Spain: fight the fascists, 'cause they won't stop once they start.
And that was a senseless slaughter of lefties and Liberals alike. US car companies, Hitler and Mussolini supplied Franco with jeeps, trucks and all manner of equipment used to overthrow democracy. Do you really think it wouldnt happen again? NATO and Karzai's Northern Alliance commanders in government have already been accused of supplying the Taliban with weapons and aid. Get real!
Tue, 2009-08-11 01:24
#34
You aren't making any sense. You're flitting from cliché to cliché like a hummingbird, but it's entirely pointless.
I don't give a shit if the Taliban were a CIA/ISI creation. It's irrelevant to the occupation. Likewise your obsession with the liberals/conservative quisling coalition. It's irrelevant to the people of Afghanistan, and what they did in 04' (when, according to you they screwed up a perfectly good "peacekeeping" of Kabul for a more dangerous occupation. (What difference this makes, I don't know)) is not important.
"Al-Qa'eda" is a creation of the CIA. And this is a phony-baloney war on terror. What's needed, as Tariq Ali said last Sept., is an exit strategy for NATO and peace talks with the Taliban, as well as surrounding countries aiding and abetting the Taliban and which are overly concerned by NATO's presence in their backyard.
Peace talks with the Taliban, which you just said was a CIA creation, and NATO, which created the phony war to seize resources. That's your solution. Do you read what you wrote?
Peace talks, to what end, exactly? Bring the Taliban/CIA into government? Maybe make one a minister of intergovernmental affairs? Who would be the beneficiaries of such a glorious triumph of international relations? School girls? We've heard that already.
So again, what the hell is your point? What is your solution? And, to get back to the point of this increasingly pointless thread, what is your position on Canada's occupation? Why do you want the resistance to save NATO's ass?
Tue, 2009-08-11 01:59
#35
I don't give a shit if the Taliban were a CIA/ISI creation. It's irrelevant to the occupation. Likewise your obsession with the liberals/conservative quisling coalition. It's irrelevant to the people of Afghanistan, and what they did in 04' (when, according to you they screwed up a perfectly good "peacekeeping" of Kabul for a more dangerous occupation. (What difference this makes, I don't know)) is not important.
I never said it was a perfectly good peacekeeping operation. That was you. All I said was that Canadian soldiers werent dying fast enough for the Liberals from 2002 to 2005, so they did that vicious bit of toadying by 2006 to help out sane and sound of mind George Bush II and his criminal regime's invasion of Afghanistan.
And it does matter to the brown people. Malalai Joya and The women of RAWA have said that the US is using the Taliban as an excuse to occupy and stay longer in Afghanistan. The brown people who were born and some who actually live there, RAWA to Tariq Ali, are saying that this alleged war is "a drama" and not what western newz agencies and our vicious toadies in government have made this "war" out to be.
Peace talks with the Taliban, which you just said was a CIA creation, and NATO, which created the phony war to seize resources. That's your solution. Do you read what you wrote?Peace talks, to what end, exactly?
This is not a real war between sworn enemies. This is a military occupation and squabble between two formerly compatible allies in Central Asia. The CIA created the Taliban, and the CIA's Pakistani arm of control in Central Asia, the Pakistani army intelligence agency ISI controls the Taliban.
The objective of any peace talks is to end the organized murder, and stamp out warfiteering which tends to go on and on unabaited until someone initiates either peace talks or surrender. The Taliban will never surrender. And the US Military and NATO will continue using the Taliban as an excuse to be there. If you take a moment to read those non-Canadian and non-white people's views of what's happening in their own countries, you'll soon realize that NATO and the Taliban arent the only ones with interests in this phony war and contributing to the conflict. Therefore, more than just NATO and the Taliban are required for UN mediated peace negotiations. And end to the organized murder - what's that worth to any rationally minded leftist? The Afghan people themselves whove known nothing but war and grinding poverty for the 30 consecutive years and running?
Why do you want the resistance to save NATO's ass
Why do you not want to call NATO's bluff and hustle them towards negotiating peace with their phony enemies, the Taliban? For how much longer does this bad opera have to drag on for? Why would you want NATO to continue slaughtering Afghans and building up a military presence in Central Asia using the flimsy excuse that they are at odds with their former proxies in Kabul from 1996 - 2001, the Taliban? The Taliban know their way around New York City and perfectly capable of conjuring their bosses in the CIA and ISI. Dont be naive.
Tue, 2009-08-11 02:12
#36
And end to the organized murder - what's that worth to any rationally minded leftist?
In a nutshell, you want the resistance to surrender so that killing will stop.
Since NATO won't leave, the only possible outcome of any "peace talks" is the capitulation of the Mujahedin. You want to see the Israeli model of occupation brought to Afghanistan.
I don't think even the National Post believes in the unified theory of Afghan resistance (i.e. Taliban). But you seem content to belittle the bravery and sacrifice of regular Afghan people struggling against fascist aggression by lumping all resistance activity with the (as you said) western created Taliban. It serves your grand chessboard theory well, but doesn't make much sense in reality.
Tue, 2009-08-11 02:28
#37
M. Spector
[IMG]http://i31.tinypic.com/2wrlqua.gif[/IMG]
![http://i31.tinypic.com/2wrlqua.gif[/IMG]](http://i31.tinypic.com/2wrlqua.gif[/IMG]){kind=link}
This is not a real war between sworn enemies. This is a military occupation and squabble between two formerly compatible allies in Central Asia.
By the same logic, the Iraq war wasn't a real war, since Saddam Hussein was a former ally and protégé of the US.
Tue, 2009-08-11 04:04
#38
And end to the organized murder - what's that worth to any rationally minded leftist?In a nutshell, you want the resistance to surrender so that killing will stop.
[url=http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/07/04/afghanistan-and-8216-the-trut..."Our people hate the Taliban"[/i][/url]
I'm not sure where you get the idea that the Taliban are the resistance. The Afghan people are the resistance, and the Taliban and "Al-Qa'eda" are controlled by the CIA and Pakistani ISI. This is a phony war. These CIA and ISI controlled dupes are not the Sandinistas, or the NVA, the FMNLA, and not close to being a modern day equivalent of the Cuban campesinos of 1959. Youve been reading too many pre-packaged lies in western newz media.
The Taliban are no more the resistance in Afghanistan than "al-Qa'eda", inserted into countries like Bosnia and Dagestan, Chechnya to Iraq by the CIA and Brits represented the resistance to NATO in those countries. In Iraq, "al-Qa'eda" are notorious for attacking the true anti-US resistance forces
Since NATO won't leave, the only possible outcome of any "peace talks" is the capitulation of the Mujahedin.
Karzai was a foreign ambassador for the mujahideen coalition government scabbed together in 1992 and rabid anticommunists. Several Northern Alliance warlords in Karzai's puppet government are mujahideen who fought the Soviets, and then tore the country apart as they turned their US-Saudi funded weaponry on one another as well as the Afghan people from 1992-96. Karzai's another US stooge now losing favour with his puppet masters, like Zardari is losing favour with the chickenhawks and warmongering plutocrats in Warshington and London.
You want to see the Israeli model of occupation brought to Afghanistan.I don't think even the National Post believes in the unified theory of Afghan resistance (i.e. Taliban). But you seem content to belittle the bravery and sacrifice of regular Afghan people struggling against fascist aggression by lumping all resistance activity with the (as you said) western created Taliban. It serves your grand chessboard theory well, but doesn't make much sense in reality
And Hamas was a US-Israeli creation of Islamic militants meant to de-ligitimize the PLO. It backfired since Hamas also became a political voice and supported by a phony majority of Palestinians. Wherever democracy threatens the vicious empire's influence and control in Asia and ME, chaos and militant Islam seem to follow.
Warlords in Afghan parliament, Karzai's political opposition, want a form of PR for Afghan elections. Not surprisingly the US opposes proportional democracy for Afghanistan. They want to continue propping up stooges in Kabul, and warring with their phony enemies, the Taliban. But what if peace talks were to happen, and the two phony enemies conditions for peace and troop withdrawal presented with transparency and accountability to the Afghan people? If Taliban leaders, and NATO's warmongers, are shown to be totally unserious and unreasonable with their demands, then who would believe in and support either side in this phony war? Neither of the phony principal combatants will want exposing in such a way.
What's needed, as Tariq Ali, Jack Layton and others have said is necessary at this point, are UN mediated peace talks with an exit date set for NATO. Pakistan, Russia, Iran etc must be invited to the negotiations as well since they are involved in this proxy war. And so far Hillary Clinton has agreed to including Iran.
Tue, 2009-08-11 06:16
#39
[IMG]http://i31.tinypic.com/2wrlqua.gif[/IMG]
This is not a real war between sworn enemies. This is a military occupation and squabble between two formerly compatible allies in Central Asia.
By the same logic, the Iraq war wasn't a real war, since Saddam Hussein was a former ally and protégé of the US.
The Iraq war and VietNam war were both waged on false pretexts(terrible lies). Saddam was crazy George I and Maggie's personal vendetta for crazy George II to settle up for them. [url=http://www.apfn.org/apfn/IraqGate.htm]Iraqgate[/url]
The false pretext in this case is that the Taliban are harbouring the CIA's own creations, "al-Qa'eda" terrorists.
The Bush Crime family and daddy warbucks types have been arming the enemies of peace and democracy (and double-dipping when taxpayers finally have to declare war on their deliberate mistakes) for a long time. It's what they do.
[url=http://www.takebackthemedia.com/flash/bushnonazi1.swf]Bush is not a Nazi!![/url] ...and turn speaker volume up for that crazy oompah band sound!
Tue, 2009-08-11 10:57
#40
Speaks for itself:
Tue, 2009-08-11 14:10
#41
Speaks for itself:
Where is Layton's NDP on the war in Afghanistan?
"Some of this goes back further, to the Liberal motion in Parliament to set a February 2009 deadline to end the military mission.
But Liberal Party MP's were toadies to the official toadies in government and who voted with the Harpers for extending the mission to 2011. The author seems to avoid this inconvenient truth for some reason. Why didnt "bring the troops a-home all or nothing" work for the NDP-Bloc and anti-war advocates in at that point? Obviously an another tack is required to counter the old line party pro-USA war coalition in Ottawa.
Of course they can't figure it out. Where will it leave our old line party stooges if and when peace talks should begin? The Harper-Iggys(thanks' new term for them) will appear clueless and shut out - like the penultimate George Costanzas of colonialism that they are and cut out of the loop by their own imperial masters in Warshington. Canada's "crazy George Costanza" Liberals are nearly a good laugh. Charade they are.
Tue, 2009-08-11 14:45
#42
M. Spector
Tue, 2009-08-11 14:55
#43
The Liberals are out of the loop. Theyve been de-looped. They CAN'T be out of the loop!! They ARE the loop!!
Tue, 2009-08-11 16:40
#44
I think I'll join you.
Tue, 2009-08-11 16:46
#45
This might work:
Tue, 2009-08-11 16:53
#46
M. Spector
![http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-eatdrink004.gif[/img]](http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-eatdrink004.gif[/img]){kind=link}
Tue, 2009-08-11 16:57
#47
Okay it's a real war, an' the empire is rounding up "al-Qa'eda" beligerants responsible for 9/11 terror. Is that better? Pfff! Out'a the loop for sure!
Tue, 2009-08-11 17:59
#48
Addicted to War: America's Brutal Pipe Dream in Afghanistan
http://www.chris-floyd.com/component/content/article/1-latest-news/1814-...
"Of course, before the invasion, the Taliban had largely -- if ruthlessly--eliminated the cultivation of opium in the areas under its control. But the American military--and its gungho CIA operatives--instead empowered the Northern Alliance: the Russian backed conglomerate of warlords and druglords who were freely growing opium in their territories.."
But you can't "build" a state while you are simultaneously waging war inside it. And you certainly can't build it by killing cucumber farmers, as US forces did the other day. Expect even more of this as the Pentagon gears up its "Drug War" weaponry to eliminate the rivals of its favored criminals - sorry, I mean to wipe out the scourge of Afghanistan's Taliban drug lord devils..
And so on and on we go. The new head of the army of our Good War ally, Britain, is syaing that the mission in Afghanistan "might take as long as 30 or 40 years." By which time there will not be "tomb enough and continent to hide the slain.."
Tue, 2009-08-11 22:02
#49
It's about war and warfiteering. And so as it was in VietNam, the demockratizers necessarily must murder locals on a steady basis in order to make sure the enemy has a guaranteed supply of recruits to keep the thing going as long as possible. It's about test driving new weapons in actual theatre of war with the emphasis on theatrics. Buy our weapons because theyve been "field tested", like they were trying to sell the latest cellular phone tech to some thirdworld despot in their hire.
There are far more important things to worry about than collateral damage and the insurgency always requring attention, like month-to-month balance sheets and quarterly earnings projections of the military industrial complex. Those are the really important things when it comes to fascism.
Thu, 2009-08-13 03:42
#50
So, Mr. Spector thinks it is "a howler" that Mr. Lavigne chose to remind Canadians that Mr. Ignatieff supported both the war in Iraq and the use of torture quite vociferously in his writings and commentary, regardless of the fact that those observations are true (and despite getting the year wrong, the points made are undeniably true).
He also thinks that the NDP should shoulder responsibility for the choices of a foreign government because it is a "sister party", despite the fact that the NDP opposed Britain's choices and stood against Tony Blair in his foreign policy throughout that period while Mr. Blair stood with George Bush.
He also thinks the NDP should be debating Canada's role in Afghanistan at its convention this week, conveniently ignoring the fact that this was the major policy issue debated at the party convention in 2006 when the NDP called for an end to that military intervention and an emphasis on diplomacy and reconstruction. By the way, the NDP call for discussions with the Taliban to that end, now the policy of Barack Obama and reluctantly accepted by Stephen Harper, earned Mr. Layton the ridiculous nickname of Taliban Jack, so I think that the party has earned the right to have its prescience and clear thinking recognized on this point.
Frankly, the desperation seems to be on the the part of Mr. Spector.
Desperate Dippers (updated)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/desperate-dippers/ar...
Thu, 2009-08-13 04:05
#51
Unless Taliban Jack reports in every Monday morning at 10 AM without fail to rabble, and states that the NDP position is to end the military intervention in Afghanistan he is the anti-Christ.
Somebody and or some political party is worried. I have not seen so many attacks on the NDP in the MSP in a long time. The NDP must be doing someting right.
So, Mr. Spector thinks it is "a howler" that Mr. Lavigne chose to remind Canadians that Mr. Ignatieff supported both the war in Iraq and the use of torture quite vociferously in his writings and commentary, regardless of the fact that those observations are true (and despite getting the year wrong, the points made are undeniably true).
He also thinks that the NDP should shoulder responsibility for the choices of a foreign government because it is a "sister party", despite the fact that the NDP opposed Britain's choices and stood against Tony Blair in his foreign policy throughout that period while Mr. Blair stood with George Bush.
He also thinks the NDP should be debating Canada's role in Afghanistan at its convention this week, conveniently ignoring the fact that this was the major policy issue debated at the party convention in 2006 when the NDP called for an end to that military intervention and an emphasis on diplomacy and reconstruction. By the way, the NDP call for discussions with the Taliban to that end, now the policy of Barack Obama and reluctantly accepted by Stephen Harper, earned Mr. Layton the ridiculous nickname of Taliban Jack, so I think that the party has earned the right to have its prescience and clear thinking recognized on this point.
Frankly, the desperation seems to be on the the part of Mr. Spector.
Desperate Dippers (updated)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/desperate-dippers/ar...