The Afghan People Will Win Part 22

[url=http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20101222/wl_nm/us_afghanistan_un_taliban][col..., NATO squabble over which of them are the most blood thirsty[/color][/url] Counting civilian casualties a low priority for murdering murderers

rawa.org in 2010 wrote:

And instead of uprooting its Taliban and Al-Qaeda creations, the US and NATO continues to kill our innocent and poor civilians, mostly women and children, in their vicious air raids.

[b]Canadian casualties in Afghanistan:[/b]

2010: Wounded in action 86, killed 14, non-combat injuries 331

2009: Wounded in action 124, killed 29, non-combat injuries 330

Total since 2002: Wounded in action 615, killed 154, non-combat injuries 1,244

Toronto Star wrote:

The Canadian Forces has a policy of only releasing the numbers of wounded soldiers once a year. Officials say that providing a running tally of injured Canadian troops risks giving enemy forces an indicator of the success of their operations....

There was a record-high death rate for coalition soldiers in the war in 2010. There were 711 military deaths in total last year, including 499 Americans, 103 British and 109 killed from other partner nations, according to the website [url=http://icasualties.org/]iCasualties.org[/url].[/quote]

What a stupid cartoon that is. How many Afghan women have been sent to college by the "Coalition" of foreign invaders?

Father's rights advocate Glenn Sacks wants the Soviets back as cold war foes, [url=http://www.glennsacks.com/why_i_miss.htm]Why I Miss the Cold War[/url]

Glenn Sacks wrote:

When the Soviet army went into Afghanistan in 1979 to save its allied government from falling to the Mujahedin (Afghan rebels), the US showered the rebels with billions in aid. US intelligence, along with the Saudis, Pakistanis, and others, recruited Muslim militants, including bin Laden, to help the Mujahedin.

The Soviets argued that their military intervention was justified because, in addition to its security concerns, the Soviet-backed government offered Afghans--particularly female Afghans--a better way of life.

In this the Soviets were ....?

What, Glenn? What were the Soviets? There used to be a good essay on Sacks' site from 2001. He described a journalist's interview with a veiled woman in Kabul who wept as the mujahideen took control of Kabul in 1992. He asked, was that person a poor peasant woman who had lost family members during attacks on the city? No! She was the lead medical officer of the country's largest hospital and forced to quit on orders of the US-backed mujahideen!

Good article.

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

Afghans Consign Another Superpower To the Dustbin of History

http://www.crescenticit.com/news-a-analysis/1920-january-2011/2981-afgha...

Zia Sarhadi wrote:

The real problem in Afghanistan is the lies spun about the reason for the continued presence of US-NATO troops. It has nothing to do with al-Qaeda — the Americans created and nurtured it for decades, and in any case there is no al-Qaeda in Afghanistan anymore. Talking about the presence of 45 al-Qaeda members in Afghanistan, as Bob Woodward does in his latest book, Obama’s Wars, hardly justifies the presence of 150,000 foreign troops and an equal number of mercenaries at a cost of some $1 trillion so far.

And let's face it, a trillion dollars is nothing compared to the socialist programs for rich people in the US of recent history. Any make-work project for corporate America does not have to make fiscal sense as long as profits are privatised and losses socialized among all Americans. It's referred to as Keynesian-militarism. They've copied the Nazis on a little more than half the US economy since the 1940s. 9/11 was just another excuse to spend wildly on upside-down socialism for rich people in America and continuing corruption of hand-picked stooges in Central Asia going on 31 years.

I understand a lot from reading that one, FormerSoldier. Thanks.

Ann Jones and Tom Engelhardt wrote:

Last summer in Afghanistan I talked with many progressive men and women who were running for parliament, hoping to push back against the inordinate power of the Afghan executive in the person of President Hamid Karzai. To them, he seems increasingly eager to do deals with the most extreme Islamists in opposition to all their progressive dreams for their country.

Yet in August, when President Karzai flagrantly stole the presidential election, President Obama telephoned to congratulate him and the U.S. officially pronounced the fraudulent election results "good enough." We might ask: In this contest between entrenched Islamist extremists and progressives who favor equality and democracy, why is the United States on the wrong side? Why are we on the side of a mistaken notion of Afghan "tradition"?

It's a very good article on Afghanistan's past and recent history. A mistaken notion indeed. This essay is a good candidate for bookmarking.

The NDP should changed that image to a Canadian helicopter, the current image is of an  American helicopter.

and below the chopper the slogan "WE SUPPORT NATO"

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/SciTech/20040530/ndp_nato_040529/

more of the same:

Taliban Might Be Among Afghan Trainees: [Finish them off with a Canadian PGO attack! (Pro-Governmental Organizations)]

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2011/01/14/layton-speech-afghanistan.html

"Canadian soldiers participating  in the post 2011 training mission in Afghanistan may end up training future Taliban insurgents, NDP Leader Jack Layton said Friday. The NDP strategy, which Layton outlined Friday in a speech at the University of Ottawa, would have Canada focus on development and diplomacy [ whatever the US wants] with no military component.

When asked whether his party was amenable to a future coalition agreement with the Liberals, Layton insisted his party is always interested in 'cooperation' despite what he said was the Prime Minister's attempts to 'demonize' such efforts and Ignatieff's desire to 'run away' from this. 'I think the notion of working together is fundamental,' he told CBC's Solomon. 'It's what Canadians want us to do instead of playing these games up here."

IEA: 2011 Will Be The Year Of Victory For the Afghan Mujahid People

http://www.shahamat.info/english/

"far from turning away from the support of the Mujahideen, the common people's unstinting support for the Mujihideen increased manifold in comparison with past years. The support was so strong and close that the invaders were not able to tell the common man from a Taliban.

On the other hand, the Americans spread the rumours and conspiracy of negotiations in 2010, claiming that some officials of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan have had contacts with them and that some rounds of the talks had already taken place in some undisclosed places and the next rounds were to be held soon.

This ploy of the Americans also went awry with the help of the Almighty Allah (SWT) and had no achievement. They were not even able to lure one active group commander or any low ranking official of the Islamic Emirate to entangle in their cobwebs. "

IEA: Peace Council's Efforts Symbolic and Dictated

http://www.shahamat.info/english/

"...the very structure and endeavors of the peace council is cosmetic, being part and parcel of the American war strategy -  they do not consider the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan as their main objective, nor recognize it as an important and vital item on the agenda.

However, it is the essential demand of the people of Afghanistan.

And the region..."

Out Now!

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

shame on anyone who supports membership in this evil alliance

Thanks, and I'm pretty sure that NoDiffPartyPooper is referring to me and anyone who votes for the NDP as I do. Fair enough.

But using this logic and line of reasoning, could it not also be said that anyone who objects to changing NATO from within might conceivably be, no,  probably is pro-NATO and therefore concealing their own imperialist fangs from view?

And only you knows who you are.

But then again, I have to admit to not really believing that NDPP is pro-NATO or a closet imperialist. No, I don't really believe that after reading so many of that poster's excellent posts and contributions to babble. And I really don't wish for that poster to think ill of me or the party I vote for at the same time.

So therefore, I can't fathom why NDPP would put words in my mouth let alone twist and distort those of Jack Layton.

you seriously believe that the NDP can change NATO from within? Seriously?

NoDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

you seriously believe that the NDP can change NATO from within? Seriously?

Realistically? No, not within the next two or three years. New question:

Do you think NATO needs changing? Or was everything about NATO fine with you until Jack Layton came along? And,

Do you change your socks daily, or do you wait until someone tells you they need changing before dealing with the issue?

71% of Quebecers oppose extending the mission in Afghanistan says Le Devoir

MalalaiJoya.com wrote:

Joya scoffs at any suggestion that the Americans are fighting the Taliban out of any principled opposition. As she says, “They created the Taliban.” For Joya, the move by Karzai and the occupiers to engage the Taliban in negotiations is further proof that “democracy” is not on the US agenda; all they are interested in is “completing the circle of warlordism, druglordism and fundamentalism”.

[url=http://www.malalaijoya.com/dcmj/joya-in-media/567-end-this-disgusting-wa... also questions the Taliban’s anti-imperialist credentials.[/url]

The Taliban was never against the US. When the Taliban say “Troops out of Afghanistan” they only say this from their own point of view. The only reason they’re fighting them now is because of money and power. Sometimes they negotiate with them. Already there are Taliban in the parliament. Mulla Salam did massacres and he’s now in power.

She knows them very well. The US Military has never installed a democratic government anywhere. Phony war!

Why would the NDP go from a longstanding and widely supported principled position against membership in NATO to support? The 'change from within' is a pathetic and completely unsustainable excuse for such a sellout. Perhaps yourself or one of the other ndp bitter-enders can tell me if you voted in such a policy change? Who supported it? Who opposed it? There must have been great and widespread debate about such a fundamental policy change no?

Sellout from what? From a principled opposition AGAINST membership to support FOR membership, on the outrageous and untenable grounds that they'll have a word with Hannibal Lector about changing his ways. I knew a guy who became a cigarette salesman, took up smoking too, became a bigshot at Imperial tobacco and he used to tell people he could bring more positive changes to tobacco marketing 'inside' the company, than all the protesters outside could. Anyway, you're an ndp true believer and can rationalize and justify almost anything.  So be it. I'm not.

Military Defends Road-Building Project

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Canada/1222309.html

"This week a delegation of Afghan government officials claimed a recent military effort in Kandahar has come at an astronomical cost: upwards of $100 million in damaged fruit crops, livestock and property. 'As a result of military operation 'Omaid', significant property damage has been caused to the people in Arghaidab, Zhari and Panjwaii districts in Kandahar province, the group said, in a statement. 'This project contributes to the overall improvement of Afghan lives from an economic and security viewpoint, the military said in a statement."

Re; Al Qaida Canadians: a bs story likely as suspected

Jihad Follies

http://drdawgsblawg.ca/2011/01/jihad-follies.shtml

"Yet even if the whole story were true, and 12 'pur laine' Canadians have decided to attack their fellow citizens, what does that add to our collective insecurity statistically speaking? Nothing, absolutely nothing. The risk of our being victims of a terrorist attack remains statistically insignificant'

NofDifferencePartyPooper wrote:

From a principled opposition AGAINST membership to support FOR membership, on the outrageous and untenable grounds that they'll have a word with Hannibal Lector about changing his ways.

Did Lecter not help agent-in-training Clarice Starling to catch notorious serial killer Buffalo Bill? I think first we have to get inside Lecter's mind and find out his innermost secrets. It would be a filthy, dirty job and worthy of a segment on that TV series, World's Dirtiest Jobs, or something. But someone has to try. But willing away Hanibal Lecter wasnt going to do Clarice much good, was it?

So tell us, Clarice, have the lambs stopped screaming?

Towards 'Afghanisation' of US Imperialism

http://www.classstruggle.in/dec/afghanisation.html

"With each passing day, the invading and occupation forces earn more hatred, ire and resistance from the Afghan people. They are finding the Karzai regime too weak to serve their needs. They are trying various other methods, simultaneously, to tide over the situation. 'Afghanisation' of war is one of them.

Karzai formed a 20 member 'Peace Council' to bring a so-called reconciliation and political solution to the Afghan problem. It only means that he is engaged in the attempt to prepare at least a section of Afghan people opposing the US occupation to strike a deal of compromise and surrender with the US imperialists.

The game of 'ending' the combat missions, played by the US and NATO powers is another method. Nato also made clear that 2014 was not a hard and fast deadline for the end of combat operations. Mark Sidwell, NATO's top civilian representative in Kabul has announced '2014 is a goal not a guarantee.'

'Iraq is a pretty decent blueprint for how to transform Afghanistan' said one NATO official. True. As happened in Iraq, the US and NATO troops are not going to leave Afghanistan. Their talk about the end of combat operations at the end of 2014 is aimed at creating illusions. One must be clear that the US invasion and occupation of Afghanistan are a part of a greater strategic design to grab and control rich and inexhaustible natural resources, not only in Afghanistan..."

I see Louise Arbour is still working for the Man..

JTF2 Command 'Encouraged' War Crimes Soldier Alleges

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2011/01/18/military-jtf2-probe.html

"A member of Canada's elite special forces unit says he felt his peers were being 'encouraged' by the Canadian Forces chain of command to commit war crimes in Afghanistan, according to new documents obtained by CBC News"

this older, following piece is also illustrative of the problem of JTF2 and the Detainee issue. Clearly the politicians are in on the suppression of this story via various strategems. These are war crimes and a process must be found to bypass the gatekeepers.

Canada: The Torture Was Intentional and JTF2

http://pennyforyourthoughts2.blogspot.com/2010/03/canada-torture-was-int...

"Federal government documents on Afghan detainees suggest that Canadian officials intended some prisoners to be tortured in order to gather intelligence, according to a legal expert. Such actions would constitute a war crime, said University of Ottawa law professor Amir Attaran, who has been digging deep into the issue and told CBC News he has seen uncensored versions of government documents released last year.

'If these documents were released [in full], what they will show is that Canada partnered deliberately with the torturers in Afghanistan for the interrogation of detainees,' he said.

'There would be a question of rendition and a question of war crimes on the part of certain Canadian officials. That's what's in these documents and that's why the government is covering up as hard as it can.'

It also turns out the infamous 1993 'turkey shoot' of two 'infiltrators' in Somalia (and the close range execution style killing of one of them) was a JTF2 'demonstration' led by the same Rainville, to show visiting Canadian and US Special Forces brass their worth.."

A War In Search of a Raison D'Etre  -  by Tim Black

http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/10089/

"The revelation that British troops are in Afghanistan simply to 'keep busy' exposes the surrealism of a disastrous war...Cowper-Coles writes that the Afghan War gave the army 'a raison d'etre it had lacked for years and resources on an unprecedented scale.' It has created a conflict of brutal surreality, where the military means have become their own end."

Fidel wrote:

I agree with you that currently elected leaders of NATO countries would probably never do it [dissolve NATO] themselves.

Nor apparently would Jack Layton if he ever became one of those elected leaders.

Fidel wrote:

But I think that forces outside of NATO would stand an even smaller chance of reforming or dissolving NATO.

A military alliance only [b]dissolves[/b] when its members leave – either one by one, or all at once. The only way for Canada to advance the cause of [b]dissolution[/b] of NATO is to leave it!

An imperialist miltary alliance cannot be "reformed" into something benign. Leftists should call for Canada to withdraw from NATO, as an example to others, and to join anti-imperialist alliances like ALBA.