The Afghan people will win - part 15

I can see it all now. The NDP will be all over this old line party pro-USA lie for 2011 withdrawal. And Afghan sovereignty will continue to be just a vicious rumour.

And 79 confidence votes later... I'm sure NDP campaigners will be able to dig up some strategic sound bytes and quotable quotes from either wing of the exact same Bay Street Party of vicious pro-USA toadies and war pigs on the far right and "pragmatic" centre-right.

With all due respect to Unionist, canuquetoo, Frmrsldr and even Fidel; have any of you noticed how often you are in violent agreement with each other?

Part 12 of this series logged 133 messages in the span of 9 days, but much of the activity had to do with the art of the insult.  There is not one mention of Richard Colvin in part 12, even though the issue is, uh, rather germane to the topic at hand?

Maysie closed off Part 12 with this comment (in part):

Maysie wrote:

I'd like to suggest that as we move into the 14th possible thread on this issue, that we really think about what the purpose is for all these threads. Given, you know, the title of these series of threads.

The title of the thread is the headline and, IMHO, the most important part of starting a new thread.  Choosing the correct title makes a big difference in the readership that you attract.

What I am saying is "The Afghan people will win - Part 1/0" is going to attract a pretty narrow audience. 

Not that there is anything wrong with that. I mean maybe you guys are entitled to have your own bar fights, like the Irish do, if it helps you get along better with each other on the stuff that really matters.

My point here (and I really do have one) is that I'm in agreement with your thread title, but I hope it is the last in the series. I promise not to post here anymore because I'm shifting my attention to Canada and Afghanistan - Part 15.  This title is an improvement, but my first post there will be an appeal to Webgear to appeal to a moderator to change the title once again.

Cheers, my learned friends.

Germans (so far) seem to be more on the ball over war crimes in Afghanistan than Canadians:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/27/germany-afghanistan

I believe historically, the Tajiks have always held a larger percentage of the control over the military compared to the Pashtuns. 

I would spectacle those Pashtuns in the ANA are from Hamid Karzai's Popalzai clan of the Pashtun tribe.

Webgear wrote:

 

I would spectacle those Pashtuns in the ANA are from Hamid Karzai's Popalzai clan of the Pashtun tribe.

Possibly, but keep in mind Karzai is not a warlord and thus has no troops personally loyal to him. Apologists for the war often use the myth that we were "asked" to be in Afghanistan.

The Bonn Conference hosted by the Pentagon saw the appointment of Karzai as Afghan President. The first units of ISAF troops entered Kabul, Afghanistan on December 20, 2001, swept aside the interim government the Afghan people had established and "secured" the city. The "Afghan interim government in exhile" arrived in Kabul on December 25, 2001.

Our little puppet, Karzai, having no national army or troops loyal to him and being a lone Pashtun in the government was naturally forced to "accept" our foreign troop presence to prop up his regime.

Frmsldr, I think you should conduct some research about Karzai and his forces. He is a tribal elder and does carry some weight.

Diogenes wrote:

My point here (and I really do have one) is that I'm in agreement with your thread title, but I hope it is the last in the series. I promise not to post here anymore because I'm shifting my attention to Canada and Afghanistan - Part 15.  This title is an improvement, but my first post there will be an appeal to Webgear to appeal to a moderator to change the title once again.

Cheers, my learned friends.

Well I have to eat my words here because Maysie closed down the thread that I thought was better suited for what I had to say, so I can't post there now anyways.  Whatever. No matter.  Maybe I'll start a new thread called "Support our troops, demand their return home ASAP" or maybe just "Bring our troops home now" just to protest.

This war is over for Canada. We lost. We're simply doing damage control now. And the events of the last two weeks have amply demonstrated that if a problem is identified, our leaders are incapable of fixing it.  These people have no business extending our stay in Afghanistan.

I want our troops to come home proud in the knowledge that they did their best.  It would be horrible to see a repeat of the Vietnam war saga and the perception that our troops had failed us. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our leaders have failed us.

I wish "Bring our troops home now" would become a populist rally cry for at least one party, along with a demand for a free vote in the House of Commons to decide on the matter.  Then we could have a spirited debate instead of a bunch of muzzled MP's that have to tow the party line.

Diogenes wrote:

"Bring our troops home now"

Why should borderline Liberal or even iffy Tory party voters take any notice of this mantra? Don't get me wrong, it's a good one. But I really think people want to be informed as to the why.

Diogenes wrote:

 but I still hope this may be amoung the last in this series.  In my mind, they already have won.  The Afghans have shown us that we are simply an occupying army, and a rather poor one at that, and that we have no business being there. So lets get out.

Sorry for neglecting you. But I am a Liberal voter and sometimes Tory supporter and vice versa. I am convinced that our troops are there to bring democracy to the brown people. I am generally of the mindset that all those thirdworld capitalist countries are led by corrupt  incompetents, and only the English-speaking countries carrying the torch of liberal democracy are true and noble and just want to save everyone from the terrierists. But I might be converted to the dark side with a decent argument that disturbs my naevete.

Diogenes wrote:

Fidel wrote:

Diogenes wrote:

"Bring our troops home now"

Why should borderline Liberal or even iffy Tory party voters take any notice of this mantra? Don't get me wrong, it's a good one. But I really think people want to be informed as to the why.

Because simple mantra's work.  It is not better to get somebody to ask "Why?" before offering them the information? Then at least you have a receptive audience.

But I vote Liberal or Tory. Or maybe I don't vote thinking democracy is safe with our obsolete electoral system. Besides, I know very little of what the NDP or Greens or Bloc says about this war to bring democracy to all Afghans forever amen. Why should we bring the troops home? They're doing what they are paid to do - fight the enemy on their soil so we don't have to face them here at home. And, remember 9/11! We don't want that happening again, do we?

Diogenes wrote:

If leaving Afghnistan NOW is going to leave a mess, at least a worse one then is there now, at least those who oppose an immediate withdrawal will have to give some pretty good reasons why.  That would be like a mission statement, right? Do we have one now?

 Bring the troops home now doesn't do anything for me. I need to know why we should give up on this necessary war on the evil doers[/not Fidel]

Eureka! Iv'e got it! [url=http://www.cbc.ca/fifth/2009-2010/the_unofficial_story/]The UNOFFICIAL STORY[/url] Eight years after 9/11, why are doubts growing about the official record of that day?

EIGHT YEARS? Has it been that long? Surely they must have produced some evidence that "al Qa'eda" done it? Legitimate/legal evidence would be super if it's not too much trouble, Uncle Sam. Something other than the tortured confessions extracted from the latest 9/11 patsies?  Or was it al CIA'duh?

It seems more Americans - a majority - don't believe the crazy George version of 9/11 events than Canadians. Only a third of Canadians think there isn't something right about the false pretext for waging a war on terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Somalia etc

Perhaps Canadians need to catch up to where Americans are in dissecting this war on terror and the false pretext for waging it. And here I thought Canadians were better informed than Americans.

?? - How is this off topic?

Oh you mean like this thread that was closed down? Hey, I did try!

As Maysie might say in such a situation - Sheesh!

Afghans warn Dutch over pull-out, James Blitz, Financial Times, UK, Nov 25, 2009

Quote:

The governor of the Afghan province of Uruzgan is pleading with the Dutch government not to withdraw its deployment of 1,300 troops from the region next summer, warning that the Netherlands would be pulling out with its "job only half finished".

In an interview with the FT, Asadullah Hamdam, the governor of the province, said he has been pleading with the Dutch government to reverse the decision, which will see the Netherlands end its role as lead nation in the Uruzgan provincial reconstruction team (PRT) from August 1, 2010.

The Dutch decision is also causing concern at Nato headquarters in Brussels. A senior official said: "The Dutch have achieved a lot in the last three years and we hope they reverse their decision. If they stick with the decision to withdraw, it will have important consequences, not least because it will encourage Canada to press ahead with withdrawal from the Nato mission in 2011."

Assuming this meets all the criteria ...

clicky happy

PraetorianFour wrote:

The United States is there for the long haul. Oil pipeline looking for Osama a strategic base to central asia recruits for zombie experiments. Whatever. The US is not going anywhere.

This may be the Pentagon's and the arms industry's pipe dream, but a number of elephants in the room are being ignored:

1) These wars, the Pentagon's and the military's budgets are what destroyed and are what are continuing to destroy the U.S. economy. The U.S. simply won't be able to wage eternal war. The American Empire will be destroyed economically, just like the Soviet and British Empires.

2) The more these clowns push for eternal war, the more American (and other countries whose governments act the same way) society will become like the 1960s: Not only will you have the people decidedly turned against the war, you will have the military decidedly turned against the war as well.

Saybhan Samat wrote:

The insurgency in Afghanistan is spreading rapidly as the latest survey conducted by the International Council of Security and Development (ICOS) shows. Its latest research indicates that 80% of the country has a permanent Taliban presence up from 72% in 2008, and that 97% of the country has "substantial Taliban activity."

http://www.rawa.org/temp/runews/2009/11/30/the-us-and-nato-sinking-in-af...

Diogenes]</p> <p><a href="http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/45710830-d899-11de-b63a-00144feabdc0.html" target="_self">Afghans warn Dutch over pull-out</a>, James Blitz, Financial Times, UK, Nov 25, 2009</p> <p>[quote wrote:

The governor of the Afghan province of Uruzgan is pleading with the Dutch government not to withdraw its deployment of 1,300 troops from the region next summer, warning that the Netherlands would be pulling out with its "job only half finished".

In an interview with the FT, Asadullah Hamdam, the governor of the province, said he has been pleading with the Dutch government to reverse the decision, which will see the Netherlands end its role as lead nation in the Uruzgan provincial reconstruction team (PRT) from August 1, 2010.

The Dutch decision is also causing concern at Nato headquarters in Brussels. A senior official said: "The Dutch have achieved a lot in the last three years and we hope they reverse their decision. If they stick with the decision to withdraw, it will have important consequences, not least because it will encourage Canada to press ahead with withdrawal from the Nato mission in 2011."

Naturally the governor of Uruzgan doesn't want the Dutch to pull out. If he's a toady of NATO troops, then he's afraid for his life if NATO/ISAF/U.S. troops pull out of Afghanistan. The insurgents (Taliban or otherwise) could very likely execute him for being a traitor.

They're stringing us along with the 2011 timeframe. It'll be whenever Uncle Sam instructs our fearless followers in Ottawa's halls of powerlessness to withdraw from Afghanistan. 22% of the registered vote and backup from the Liberals is all they need. 

Thanks for a good post FrmrSldr. I like how you cut through the shit and call them POW's instead of "detainees".

The Brits, being the Brits, probably took pictures and DNA samples before discarding their POWs, but Canada seemed to do nothing of the sort. Get rid of them ASAP seemed to be the policy. Hillier was at least partially responsible for this.  His conduct last week makes him anything but a war hero.

I just keep thinkin' "Col. Nathan R. Jessup, Commanding Officer, Marine Ground Forces, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba" whenever I see his picture now.

A 'Necessary War' for a Gas Pipeline

http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp11302009.html

"Because make no mistake about it, this is Barack Obama's war now...We should respond: 'No it's not necessary' in the streets until we force Obama to end what are now unmistakeably his criminal imperialist wars.."

Diogenes wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

Naturally the governor of Uruzgan doesn't want the Dutch to pull out. If he's a toady of NATO troops, then he's afraid for his live if NATO/ISAF/U.S. troops pull out of Afghanistan. The insurgents (Taliban or otherwise) could very likely execute him for being a traitor.

Hey - that's what they call an Improvised Incendiary Comment. Please read the full article.

By most accounts, the Dutch have done a pretty good job in Afghanistan.  They even have bicycle patrols now. Richard Colvin mentioned the Dutch model several times in his testimony regarding the transfer and tracking of "detainees".

The Dutch are scheduled to pull out in 9 months.  If the job is "only 1/2 done", as some argue, maybe the Dutch are asking "What Job?  And why do you need the military to complete it?"

I hope they remain on schedule.

I read the article. It needs more information. A good scanario would be to compare it with Kunduz province where the Germans are located. Like the Dutch, the Germans were very wary about posting troops outside of NATO's normal area of operations. Germany chose the location very carefully: a peaceful area in the north, away from the Pashtuns and the insurgency and violence in the south.

Until recently, German troops could do foot patrols and move among the people in cities and towns without incident. That was until the U.S.A. decided on its 21,000 troop surge. Escalating the war in Helmand moved insurgents into other provinces and caused a change in strategy. Now some Afghan insurgent commanders see Germany as a 'weak link' and have stepped up attacks on German troops. German rules of engagement were that they could only fire in self defense after they were fired upon first and first gave ample warning in Pashto, Dari, German and English. Insurgent commanders hoped the Germans would either stick to their rules of engagement or engage in aggressive war through 'hot persuit' and search and destroy patrols. Either way, it was hoped that opposition to the war would rise in Germany and Germany would soon disengage from Afghanistan.

Another thing that has turned the German people against the war is the German General who called in the airstrike against the two stranded fuel tankers where 70 - 100+ civilians died. German troops now tend to travel and do patrols in armored vehicles for protection. Like Canada, the German government, military and mainstream media has lied to the public, describing the German effort as an humanitarian peacekeeping mission. The word "war" was never used.

The Germans have the third largest number of troops (app. 5,000). The Dutch have roughly half the number of troops as Canada. Most Afghans don't even know Canadian troops are in Afghanistan. Most think they are either American or don't care their nationality - just that they are hated and unwanted non Asian or non Arabic and non Muslim foreign invaders who are murdering and maiming their people and destroying their homes and country.

In Uruzgan, there are also Danish, Australian, New Zealand, British and American troops. I wonder how many of the Afghan common folk know that they are Dutch and not Americans or just feared and hated foreigners?

The more American escalation of war, the more violence will spread to more parts of Afghanistan and risk reversing whatever good the Dutch were able to accomplish. Here's another problem with the article, it gushes about and makes the assertion that the Dutch have accomplished good, without specifically proving what "good" they actually accomplished.

The article states that the governor doesn't want the Dutch to go. Because it also points out that the Dutch are likely to go, with Canada following shortly after that. It sounds like NATO propaganda to me. We can't have the Netherlands and Canada leaving because if that happens, then there will be a domino effect and NATO will collapse. We don't want that to happen because um, "well look at all the good the Dutch (a NATO member hint, hint) accomplished."

Concerning Richard Colvin: He talks about the British in the context of how many prisoners they took and how it was six times less than that taken by Canadian troops. The British had their own prison in Iraq. My guess is, they also keep their prisoners in Afghanistan. In Iraq, there were accounts of prisoner abuse at the hands of the British - wait for it concerning Afghanistan.

The British and Dutch were smarter than Canada. They had their civilian governments draft and conclude their treaties concerning what to do with Afghan PoWs. In Canada, we had former Gen. "The Taliban are detestable murderous scumbags" Rick Hillier draft and sign his own PoW treaty. Look at the (not surprising) results: That war criminal doesn't give a shit about Afghan lives. He claims that his mission in life was to restore the honor of the Canadian military. Everything he has done has had the opposite effect. He is either too much of a moron to realize this or has too much foolish pride to admit it.

seeing a couple of transport military aircraft overhead made me think that the NATO attack on the Afghan people won't ultimately be successful. 

you can beat people into submission for a while but it usually backfires in the long run.

truth outs and then people work for better solutions to problems.

aggression for private gain and ecological destruction are not ethically valued.

no1important wrote:

30,000 more troops ain't gonna do the job either. USSR had over 200,000 at their peak and we know how that ended.

Wikipedia says 118,000 Soviet troops in 1985. But there are NATO soldiers from over 50 countries in Afghanistan today. And the US Military is making bombing runs into Pakistan. They're aren't bombing nearly the way the doctor and madman did in Cambodia. But had the Soviets wandered into Pakistan similarly, it probably would have meant WW III. The Soviets actually began pulling out in 1987.