quote:

---

Navy ties up its fleet
All patrols are cancelled this fiscal year, sources tell CBC News
Last Updated: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 | 5:07 PM AT
CBC News

HMCS Halifax should be on a sovereignty patrol off the East Coast, but the ship is tied up because the Canadian navy doesn't have the money to send it on the 35-day mission.

"The reason HMCS Halifax's patrol is delayed is because we have started a financial review," Lieut. Marie-Claude Gagné, a navy spokeswoman, told CBC News.

All but two ships on the East and West Coasts are tied up. HMCS Ottawa is in the Persian Gulf, and Gagné said HMCS Charlottetown is out performing sea trials.

"If you're asking who else is out on the Atlantic coast, the answer is no one," she said.

Senator Colin Kenny wonders why Canada has a navy if there's no money for the ships to patrol the coast.

"It's not a good thing to run out of money," said Kenny, chair of the Senate's security and defence committee. "I think it's because of the extra costs with oil and the demands of Afghanistan."....

Link to complete article

---

quote:

---

...Canadians should be alarmed, MP says
"It's obvious they don't have money for fuel or personnel," Nova Scotia NDP MP Peter Stoffer said.

Stoffer called it "very disappointing" that the navy ships are tied up, and said Canadians should be alarmed.

"Not having these ships patrol leaves a big hole in our security," he said. "You can have illegal immigrants, drug traffickers, people who want to do us harm or harm our neighbours.

"The Americans have consistently accused Canada of having leaky security measures, and this will just prove to them that we are not even patrolling our own coasts for security measures."

---

Our combat role in Afghanistan makes us a prime target for retaliatory actions by individuals or groups who correctly view Canada as a loyal ally of Bush's War on Terra™.

quote:

---

Canadian security is compromised by the Afghanistan mission, as the thread title says, but it has nothing to do with the navy.

---

I disagree. Everything is connected. Money wasted on the subjugation of Afghanistan is money in part diverted from legitimate defense missions, including coastal patrols.

Whether the defense budget is too much or not is debatable, and is probably the wrong debate anyway.

Whether we are adequately defended or not is a more pertinent issue to debate.

quote:

---

"Afghanistan is eating money like you wouldn't believe," said Peter Haydon, a retired naval officer now with the Centre for Foreign Policy Studies in Halifax. "The demand for money is being transferred through the whole military system. Afghanistan is a huge financial drain."

.... fisheries patrols, which are aimed at preventing foreign ships from fishing illegally in Canadian waters, may be cancelled if no more money is found before April 1....

NDP defence critic Dawn Black said the minister must assure Canadians that money that is needed here at home is not being diverted to Afghanistan.

"If fishery patrols are being cancelled, and they are telling us that, what does that mean about environmental patrols, what does that mean about drug interception, what does that mean about border security?" Ms. Black asked.

"I think there are a lot of questions here that the Minister of National Defence has got to make clear to Canadians. I think it raises huge concerns."

---

But before we get carried away with how awful it is that we don't have warships protecting our exposed Atlantic flank from Islamofascist battleships and submarines, I think there are many other examples we can point to where public resources would be better spent than on the war in Afghanistan. Like daycare. Like health care. Like climate change. Like first nations. Like the arts. The list writes itself.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I feel much less "secure" with our troops committing mayhem in Panjwai and making enemies of millions of foreigners.

---

quote:

---

M. Spector:
But before we get carried away with how awful it is that we don't have warships protecting our exposed Atlantic flank from Islamofascist battleships....

---

Islamofascists are hardly an issue except in the minds of the fear mongers, war mongers and the ignorant who buy into the fear/war propaganda. They are not why we need our navy.

quote:

---

I think there are many other examples we can point to where public resources would be better spent than on the war in Afghanistan. Like daycare. Like health care. Like climate change. Like first nations. Like the arts. The list writes itself.

---

Of course. For progressives this goes without saying. However, it is beside the point.

quote:

---

Frankly, I don't feel any less "secure" with the Halifax sitting dockside.

---

It depends on how one defines security.

quote:

---

I feel much less "secure" with our troops committing mayhem in Panjwai and making enemies of millions of foreigners.

---

quote:

---

Brett Mann:

None of the wonderful benefits like education, daycare, elimination of poverty, etc. is worth a damn without security, a fact of which the Afghans are only too well aware.

---

And the Afghans will probably never feel secure as long as their country is occupied by foreign troops and ruled by a puppet government.

Of course the choice for Canada here is between supporting the US conquest of foreign regimes or tending to its own legitimate security needs.

Our coasts are much more secure and safer when there are more naval patrols to inderdict smugglers like the several slave ships that were caught in my area in the last few years, and to respond to vessels in distress, among other things.

We are also more secure when resources are spent on the military's search and rescue capabilities and emergency response capabilities than on helping the US extend its power around the world.

And, we are more secure when we have a sufficient number of trained reserve forces ready to seriously impair any land invasion or occupation of the country.

I hope some blame lies at the feet of the government, but who applies for the funding? Perhaps little Ricky (we're the canadian military and our job is to kill people) Hillier can't write up a budget -- that includes all branches of the military? After all, it's not in his professed job description.

General Fraser was on some political talk show the other day, grinning from ear to ear and talking up the government; said he got whatever he wanted from Ottawa when he needed it. Tanks for ONE engagement.

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
ISAF troops are not occupying Afghanistan, but are there with the invitation of the elected government....

---

The Afghan version of the Petain and Quisling governments in WWII, and Eastern European governments between 1945-8?.

Did the US forces go there in 2001 at the invitation of the Afghan government or was it an invasion? The Karzai government is the product of an act of aggression by the US and its allies.

quote:

---

....and the support of the majority of the population

---

Based on what? And besides, from experience I can say that people in an occupied country may tell you one thing while working for another. And that many of them will support from moment to moment whoever they can scam the most out of.

quote:

---

Ending this mission, prematurely would result in the slaughter of thousands of innocent people and the re-imposition of a medieval tyranny on all women in the country likely.

---

Not ending it is also resulting in slaughter of innocents along with Canadians. Whether a medieval tyranny would be re-imposed or not is questionable, both because it is already imposed defacto among many of our so called allies, and because there is no guarantee that the Taliban would win the civil war once we leave.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
This smells like a cause that will quickly be championed by those who want to spend an even bigger chunk of our tax dollars on "defence" than we already are.

---

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
The argument that we are witnessing an "occupation" is supported by no evidence whatsoever,....

---

Other than the fact that we invaded the country against their will and now cite an invitation to be there from a government which we created and whose existence depends upon our presence, kind of like the Petain government.

quote:

---

I'm left feeling a bit tired, and amazed at people's capacity to delude themselves in the name of ideology.

---

Like the fairy tale that holds that we are there to do good works and save the poor, benighted Afghans from medieval tyranny? A tyranny, one might add, that the US and allies helped to perpetuate in the first place.

If we were truly concerned about saving the Afghans from medieval tyranny we would only support a government that declares itself a secular state, bans the shariah and other religious laws, permits blasphemy and other freedoms of expression, aggressively prohibits honor killings and punishes those who do them, and adheres fully to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Are we really doing that?

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
The US invaded Afghanistan and in so doing, drove out the hated Taliban.

---

Driving out the Taliban was of course incidental to the goal of conquering the country and establishing a US military presence in the region. The Al Qaeda excuse for the invasion could have been dealt with diplomatically, an option that was spurned by the US.

As for the Taliban being hated, that is relative. The war lords and drug kings certainly hated the Taliban for good reason. Progressives find them repugnant. But, in perspective here there are many reports over the years since 2001 where Afghans have said that as bad as the Taliban were, the current situation is worse.

Now, I guess that either some of the people who hate the Taliban hate us more, or by default everyone who doesn't hate the Taliban more is really an insurgent and therefore their view does not count.

Personally I think that we should have done something (but not a military invasion) about the Taliban years before 911. Ask why we did not. The answer says more about US motives in Afghanistan than any amount of warm and fuzzy propaganda about saving Afghans from tyranny.

The fact is if the Taliban would have been seen as still useful to US interests in the area they would still be in charge of the country, no matter how reactionary and oppressive they are. And, the US and allies would be happily supplying them with the tools of their repression.

The fairy tale that the US and its vassals are occupying Afghanistan for the benefit of the Afghans is nothing but propaganda to be taken with a grain of salt.

quote:

---

The government of Afghanistan, "created" if you will, by the US, was nonetheless also popularly elected.

---

Kind of like the governments of the old USSR.

quote:

---

....the delivery of a nation struggling to be born into the hands of savage fundamentalists,....

---

How melodramatic, and presumptious. As I recall Afghanistan has been a nation for quite some time and rather than birth pangs we are witnessing yet another round of tribal/civil warfare. And whether the fundamentalists will win that war or not is in question, with or without foreign presence.

quote:

---

....doesn't matter to those who would rather see Afghan women slaughtered and enslaved than consider that their initial analyis of this war was wrong or incomplete.

---

Slaughtered and enslaved? Hyperbole, particularly considering that under some of the current war lords their situation is little different if not worse. As odious as the Taliban were/are and as repulsive as the culture that they represent is, at least they were rules based and theoretically protected those that abided by the rules. One must not forget that one of the reasons that they came to power in the first place was that they brought order and acted against the looting and raping of the war lords.

quote:

---

Talk about the triumph of dogma over reality and morality.

---

The reality is that Afghanistan is being occupied by foreign troops in support of US foreign policy objectives, period.

As for morality, what would be moral would be to support a government that declares itself a secular state, bans the shariah and other religious laws, permits blasphemy and other freedoms of expression, aggressively prohibits honor killings and punishes those who do them, and adheres fully to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
The US invaded Afghanistan and in so doing, drove out the hated Taliban. This enjoys a great deal of support from the Afghan population, from all available evidence.

---

Please post a link to this "all available evidence" to which you so casually refer.

[ 22 January 2007: Message edited by: Legless-Marine ]

quote:

---

The US invaded Afghanistan but it is crystal clear that US did not enter Afghanistan to liberate our people, but to punish its former hirelings and servants and a bleeding, devastated and hungry Afghanistan was bombed by the most advanced weaponry ever created in human history. The oppression of Afghan women was used as a justification to overthrow the Taliban regime. Innocent lives, many more than those who lost their lives on 9/11, were taken.

No doubt the war on terror toppled the misogynist and barbaric regime of Taliban. But it did not remove Islamic fundamentalism, which is the root cause of misery for all Afghan people; it just replaced one fundamentalist regime with another.
....

Karzai turned his back on the hopes and expectations of our people and failed to fulfill his commitments. He betrayed the people's trust by relying on warlords. By compromising with infamous fundamentalist warlords, and appointing them to high governmental posts Karzai has failed to bring any radical positive change. Now we have a parliament full of warlords. The most disgusting faces include Jehadi criminal leaders, former Taliban commanders and some former puppets of the USSR. Those who ought to be prosecuted before anyone else for their crimes against our nation are going to legislate to the Afghan people! The rule of private armies of the warlords in different parts of the country and infighting between different groups of them has resulted in the loss of innocent lives.

Opium poppy cultivation has expanded and the government has stopped poor and hungry farmers from growing opium but let the powerful warlords keep dealing in the dirty drug trade. It is a shameful fact for Karzai and the US government that Afghanistan now produces 92 percent of the world's supply of opium. Even some ministers have acknowledged the fact that some cabinet ministers are deeply implicated in the drug trade. Afghanistan has become a Narco-State. It is a disgusting fact that Gen. Mohammed Daoud, a former warlord and well-known drug-trafficker, is now Afghanistan's deputy interior minister in charge of the anti-drug effort - under his command drug-traffickers act with impunity.

Afghanistan has received 12 billion dollars in aid while another 10 billion more were pledged at the London conference. But there aren't any signs of serious reconstruction. Our people have not benefited from the billions of reconstruction dollars due to theft by the warlords or misuse by NGOs. Even a fraction of this aid has not been used for the benefit and welfare of our people. Government corruption and fraud directs billions of dollars into the pockets of high-ranking officials. It is such a big shame that the government still cannot provide electricity, food and water for its people.

The security situation in Afghanistan is critical. It is like a ticking bomb, and it is very possible that at any time a civil war will break out. Women and girls have been particularly affected by the insecurity. There are hundreds of attacks on teachers, students and schools across Afghanistan, with girls' schools being particularly hard hit. In most remote villages there are not even any signs of schools for girls. Hundreds of Afghan women have committed suicide due to these intense pressures and hopelessness. When the entire nation is living under the shadow of guns and warlordism, how can its women enjoy their basic freedoms?
....

By witnessing the crimes and brutalities of the Northern Alliance terrorists, the foot soldiers of the US in Afghanistan in the so-called war against Taliban, even humanity should die for Barbara and all Americans, when they see their government support such misogynist and dark-minded killers and impose them on the Afghan people. Despite the presence of more than six thousand UN peace keeping troops in Kabul and other cities, NGOs and UN foreign workers are kidnapped in broad daylight, and innocent people are killed in suicide bomb missions. According to the United Nations, Afghanistan is a land that is facing health disasters even worse than the lands struck by the 2004 Tsunami. 700 children and 50-70 women die each day due to the lack of health services. Afghanistan is a land where hundreds of people die because of a lack of food and bitter winters, just few kilometers away from the presidential palace. These statistics do not even begin to address the human disaster in the rural areas.

Fed up with the hardships they have been facing over the years, 65 per cent of the 50,000 widows in Kabul see suicide the only option to get rid of their miseries and desolation as revealed in a survey conducted by UNIFEM. The report revealed that a majority of Afghan women are victims of mental and sexual violence. Calling it a bitter fact, the UNIFEM report also revealed that the average life span of Afghan women was 20 years less than women living in other parts of the world and child and maternal mortality rates were still as high as 1,600 to 1,900 women out of every 100,000 who die during childbirth. Afghanistan is ranked 175th out of 177 countries in the UN Human Development Index.

Despite all this suffering, recently Karzai's cabinet approved a proposal to reestablish the most misogynist Department for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice which was a notorious symbol of arbitrary abuses, particularly against Afghan women and girls under the Taliban. President Karzai claims that one of his government's achievements is establishing freedom of speech and expression in Afghanistan. But the facts prove contrary to this claim: Last year alone, there were more than 40 attacks on journalistic freedom in Afghanistan, including two murders and several cases of abduction, assault and imprisonment, according to the Afghan Independent Journalists Association. Recently the Afghan Journalists Union also complained of the degree of censorship imposed on them by the government.
....

Today the friends of the US government in Afghanistan are dark-minded oppressors such as Rasoul Sayyaf, Burhanuddin Rabbani, Mohaqiq, Younis Qanoni, Karim Khalili, Qasim Fahim, Dr. Abdullah, Ismail Khan, Hazrat Ali, Abdul Rashid Dostum, Sibghatullah Mojaddidi and others - those who should be prosecuted for their crimes against Afghan people. The US is relying on the above-mentioned "Northern Alliance" leaders and commanders who turned Afghanistan into a hell from 1992-1996 and still are a threat to the stability and peace. They are a threat not only to our country but their cancer will spread out to other countries and all over the world. The US still ignores the important words of Martin Luther King: "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." ....

US bombs, B52s and the presence of thousands US troops is not to meant to bring about liberation or establish democracy in our country. The people of the US should know that their troops only serve the strategic interests of the US government and make things worse in Afghanistan. Liberation should be achieved by the people of a country and they must fight for their own liberation. The ongoing developments in Afghanistan and Iraq prove this claim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Legless-Marine:

Please post a like to this "all available evidence" to which you so casually refer.

---

I'm a little busy right now, but I'll start by pointing you to the opinion polls by ABC/BBC and the Asian Times recently. The actual link is in another thread on this topic somewhere, but a quick google search will find it, I'm sure. But let me put the shoe on the other foot - name one single individual or organization in Afghanistan calling for an immediate withdrawal of ISAF troops and/or a return to power of the Taliban.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:

I find the view that Canada should abandon its Afghanistan commitment to be utterly morally disgusting. It makes me want to vomit, that so-called progressives, supposedly concerned with women's rights, are so able to gloss over the real life consequences of their advice with sophistries and historical digressions.

---

Send your full views on this issue to RAWA, if you care so much about Afghan women, and show us your letter and reply.

Of several hundred countries in the world where women are treated as less than full human beings, I find your compassion for the women in Afghanistan statistically touching.

...not to mention statements like this:

quote:

---

An American military presence in Afghanistan has no benefit for our people. In addition, thousands of civilians lost their lives because of radioactive and cluster bombs and "friendly fire". This fact is obviously a disgrace for those who strongly defend American military presence in Afghanistan.

- RAWA statement December 10, 2006

---

quote:

---

- RAWA statement December 10, 2006

---

Well, obviously:

1. RAWA represents insurgents so their voice doesn't count; and/or

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
Well, obviously:

1. RAWA represents insurgents so their voice doesn't count; and/or

2. They are only complaining about Americans, not Canadians which are different and not connected in any way to the American policy in Afghanistan.

---

Obviously to Brett Mann that is!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
I find the view that Canada should abandon its Afghanistan commitment to be utterly morally disgusting. It makes me want to vomit, that so-called progressives, supposedly concerned with women's rights, are so able to gloss over the real life consequences of their advice with sophistries and historical digressions.

---

I've been musing about a formulation in my head that kind of comes down to the thought that, if a war is justified, it compels the mobilization of the entire society to attain victory. If it is not worth that cost, it is immoral to enter into war, because it is a dishonest process that tries to pretend that war is without cost, that it can be entered into without fundamentally altering one side of the conflict.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Coyote:
I've been musing about a formulation...if a war is justified, it compels the mobilization of the entire society to attain victory. If it is not worth that cost, it is immoral to enter into war, because it is a dishonest process that tries to pretend that war is without cost, that it can be entered into without fundamentally altering one side of the conflict.

---

Actually, thanks for sharing that.

After reading around RAWA last evening,I have been mulling a statement made, that stated a foreign force has never in history gave freedom to anyone. As follows:

quote:

---

We announced on the first day of the US invasion that there is not one example in history where a foreign force brings freedom to another nation; only the people of Afghanistan themselves can gain these values.

---

http://www.rawa.org/events/dec10-06_e.htm

Personally I think that it is a major mistake for women to base their argument on religious principles rather than on a concept of universal rights. Freedom lies in delegitimizing religion, not relying upon it.

quote:

---

Afghan women's quiet revolution hangs by a thread
Each step toward equality has been a struggle, but the nation's instability is eroding their gains.

By Alissa J. Rubin
Times Staff Writer

January 21, 2007

Kabul, Afghanistan — EACH morning, the policewoman puts on her uniform, goes to her precinct office, sits behind a bare desk. And waits.

She is one of several officers appointed to make it easier for women to report domestic violence. Her job ought to be one of the busiest in the district. Instead, Pushtoon, who goes by one name, has one of the loneliest.

"Last week we had one woman. Before that there had not been anyone for several weeks," she said, twisting hands left scarred by her attempt at suicide years ago in a Taliban jail. "Women are afraid to come, but we are not allowed to go to them.

"The police chiefs will not let us. They say it is unsafe for women officers," she said.

Five years after the end of the Taliban era, there are new opportunities for women in Afghanistan, and notable efforts are underway to make their daily lives better, especially in Kabul, the capital. Improving the status of women has been a core goal of U.S. policy here, and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said at a congressional hearing in 2005 that enshrining women's equality in the Afghan Constitution was an important advance for the entire region.

But conversations with dozens of women suggest that each step forward has been a struggle. Afghan society remains deeply uncomfortable with the idea of women gaining independence and authority. The Taliban's resurgence has reversed incremental gains, particularly in the south. If the Taliban incursions spread, more women are likely to lose ground.

Families in the south that recently began allowing their daughters to go to school and wives to enroll in vocational programs have pulled them out because of Taliban attacks.

"Women's future depends so much on security. As much as se-curity deteriorates, women's situation deteriorates," said Masuda Jalal, former acting minister of women's affairs. "At the first sign of insecurity, the head of the family protects his women and children, and the first measure they take is to keep them inside the house."

Women who have gained ground haven't talked of the constitutional principles of equality. Instead, they focus on the respect accorded women by the Koran, and on the importance of mothers and homes, where older women have long held positions of power.

Their goal, often unstated, is to convince fathers and brothers, husbands and sons that when a woman is empowered, the males benefit as well. They hope their daughters will at least have more choices than they had.

Women are learning to drive, some at their husbands' urging so they can help with family errands. Small numbers have opened bank accounts. Women have become a regular presence on television talk shows, and they deliver weather reports and other news features.

According to Farsona Simimi, a popular television talk show host, "There is a quiet revolution here." But, she added, "I do not know whether it will succeed."

Pushing a stone uphill

THREE times in the last century, the status of women has improved, only to suffer reversals.

The first time was in the 1920s, when ruler Amanullah Khan abolished the requirement that women be completely covered in public and encouraged his wife to wear a hat without a veil. He was ousted by the mullahs.

The lot of women improved again in the 1960s, when four women were elected to parliament. One of them was the mother of Nasrine Gross, now an Afghan American lecturer in sociology at Kabul University.

A family album contains photos of her mother and several friends at a picnic 40 years ago. They wear knee-length dresses with short sleeves; a couple of them have beehive hairdos, strands blowing free in the summer breeze as they lean against a sleek car. Two men in Western clothing stand nearby.

"No one can believe these pictures were taken here," Gross said.

In the 1970s, political turmoil stymied women's progress. But in the next decade, ruling communists prohibited women from wearing burkas and appointed many to government posts. More than 50 were given judgeships, and many others took positions in the police and healthcare professions.

When the Taliban took power in 1996, it banned all education for women, even small girls. It removed women from almost all jobs outside the home and required them to cover their faces in public by wearing a burka. In some areas, it demanded that house windows be painted black so women could not see out and men could not see in. Women were whipped in public for the smallest infraction.

Educated Afghans and international aid workers say the U.S.-backed government of President Hamid Karzai has done little besides removing the Taliban restrictions. He has only one woman in his Cabinet of 25 and none among his top advisors.

Several Afghan women said that they had encouraged Karzai to do small things, such as have his wife accompany him to public events, but that he had never done so....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:
After reading around RAWA last evening,I have been mulling a statement made, that stated a foreign force has never in history gave freedom to anyone. [...]
Now after looking at this premise from multitudes of directions, I am not sure if that is an absolute.

---

I agree with the RAWA statement, in general, but I share your hesitation, because there is one big exception of which I am aware (and only one): The liberation of Europe by the U.S.-Soviet allied forces in 1944-45. While there is no doubt that internal partisan forces were actively and heroically battling the Nazis in most of these countries, it is equally beyond doubt that in almost all cases, the external factor was decisive in destroying the enemy.

Of course, the big difference in those countries was that at best a tiny minority of the population actively fought on the side of the Nazis once the counter-offensive began. In the case of Afghanistan - sorry to break the news to U.S., Canada and the others, the people hate your guts.

[ 21 January 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

remind:
I have been mulling a statement made, that stated a foreign force has never in history gave freedom to anyone.

---

Like remind, I question this statement. It is too black and white whereas history is full of nuances and shades of grey. Part of one's view on this would depend on their definition of freedom and what constitutes giving freedom.

One could argue that the French gave the Americans their freedom since the colonists may not have beaten Britain without French support.

The case of the liberation of Europe can be argued as one of restoring freedom. In some cases it can also be argued as one occupying force replacing another.

We also have to ask whether freedom which in order to exist requires a foreign army of occupation, as in Afghanistan, is really much freedom at all.

The allies in Afghanistan, however, are really not interested in freedom for the Afghans except as it might suit US foreign policy, and debating freedom for Afghans in this context is a diversionary exercise meant to shift focus from reality to harmless fantasy.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

Well, obviously:

1. RAWA represents insurgents so their voice doesn't count; and/or

2. They are only complaining about Americans, not Canadians which are different and not connected in any way to the American policy in Afghanistan.

---

Door number two. Although obviously we are closely tied to the Americans, so the real question is, are ISAF forces doing things sufficiently differently from American combat doctrine to make a difference? The recent ISAF emphasis on avoiding civilian casualties and other sources (interviews with returning Afghan civilians, etc.)suggests they are.

Yes RAWA has called for the withdrawal of American forces. RAWA has not called for the withdrawal of ISAF forces as far as I know.

Do they all "hate our guts" over there? If this were the case, we would be hearing it (and are hearing it in some cases, as in the interview with a former Taliban commander featured on Babble recently) but very few of the reports I've read or heard speak of this "hatred." Instead, what I am seeing, time after time, is a real respect for the Afghan people expressed by Canadian soldiers.

The situation is real simple, in my view - if the majority for Afghans request our help, we give it. If the situation changes, we reconsider. At present, all available evidence support the view that the majority of Afhans, including a growing plurality, perhaps now a majority, in the South, want the security ISAF is trying to win.

I'm less and less interested in arguments about what the war is "about" as in "is it really about women's rights?" I'll leave that for the historians to decide. What I see in front of me is a country struggling to achieve some degree of security and peace with requested foreign help. I see the long term possiblity of the weakening and defeating of the Taliban as an insurgent force, and the establishment of a state where women will not be stoned to death for adultery. Canada is spearheading the task, at significant price in blood and treasure, but it is fundamentally an international project which will proceed with or without US involvement in the future. If ISAF forces were to withdraw now, or reduce their combat capabilities significantly, or relax their struggle against the Taliban, there is every reason in the world to believe this could plunge the citizenery of Afghanistan, and particularly the women, back into medieval servitude, no matter what the war is "about".

This is why I say it is immoral to call for a withdrawal now from Afghanistan. The arguments in favour of staying are so clear that they can be dismissed only by those who deliberately refuse to consider them. And again, far from making Canada more dependent on the US in foreign policy, our sacrifices in Afghanistan buy Canada influence and independence on the international stage.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
If ISAF forces were to withdraw now...there is every reason in the world to believe this could plunge the citizenery of Afghanistan, and particularly the women, back into medieval servitude...

---

quote:

---

But before we get carried away with how awful it is that we don't have warships protecting our exposed Atlantic flank from Islamofascist battleships and submarines,

---

I'd like to see Canada with a strong naval presence, especially in the North.

We are a nation which borders ocean on three sides. We should have a strong navy.

We need a strong and functioning navy to protect Canadian sovereignty and our national control over the waters that surrround us.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Do they all "hate our guts" over there? If this were the case, we would be hearing it (and are hearing it in some cases, as in the interview with a former Taliban commander featured on Babble recently) but very few of the reports I've read or heard speak of this "hatred." Instead, what I am seeing, time after time, is a real respect for the Afghan people expressed by Canadian soldiers.

---

What about the deaths of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan? Obviously there are many people there who resent Canada's presence enough to kill Canadian soldiers. IIRC, you're in Afghanistan? Can you tell us more about the people who are attacking Canadian soldiers beyond the Taliban/al-Qaeda talking points the media spouts off? Have you heard anything that Malalai Joya, an elected representative in Afghanistan, says about the mission? Did you know that the Canadian military once did a simulation asking where would be the worst place in the world to be, and that Afghanistan came up? Did you know that the Liberals ramped up our committment in Afghanistan in 2003 from a technical support mission to what is now, apparently to gain favour with the US after having said "no" to Iraq? The USSR was the last country to invade Afghanistan, where are they now? Did you know that your logic sounds essentially like that of American soldiers who oppose the withdrawl of American troops from Iraq?

quote:

---

Canada In Afghanistan To Protect US Trade

Dear Editor,

All western armies now operate under the Three Block War concept, currently employed by Canadian and coalition forces in Afghanistan. This concept is aimed directly at operations in an urban environment. Operational forces must be prepared to engage in high-intensity combat against a well-trained and well-equipped enemy in one city block, while in another be up against irregular forces employing guerrilla tactics, and in a third engaged in humanitarian and peace keeping efforts.

The most important point to remember in this type of warfare is that it takes a long time to win. It's a Hearts and Minds campaign that will not be over in a week, a month or ever a year. Ten to twenty years is probably a more realistic time frame. If you want it over in less time, then we must revert to the old method of warfare - Horror and Moral Terror on a scale way beyond just shock and awe. But that would not wash with the current PC mood of our country.

Canada is stuck with this war for as long as Bush is in the White House, and probably a lot longer. Turn on CNN or any of the other American news networks. All I hear is the debate about getting out of Iraq. Not a whole lot is being said about getting out of Afghanistan. Also, remember that it was our past Liberal government in Ottawa who first committed our military to this region, so it is highly unlikely they will pull our troops, even if they manage to kick the Conservatives out in the next election. The NDP would probably recall our forces, but the likelihood of a federal NDP government is about as good as winning the 6/49. In fact, the only chance they might have would be after an economic meltdown on the scale of the Great Depression and the failure of both the Liberals and Conservatives to cope with it.

Canada's involvement in the Afghan war probably has more to do with preserving our vitally important trade relations with the United States. Should we stop supporting the USA's war on terror, our past softwood lumber dispute will look like a Sunday school picnic. So, looked at this way, our troops are indeed fighting for our best interests, that being our jobs. Given the economic power of our southern neighbour, we are realistically in no position to be playing the mouse that roared.

W. Christiansen

---

Link to the paper - A 4+ megabyte pdf file

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
It involves admitting that Stephen Harper has been largely right about the Afghanistan mission all along. But the case for continuing to honour our commitments in Afghanistan is so strong that even a Prime Minister Dion would not make many changes.

---

But, Harper is not right, nor is Dion, nor was Martin or JC.

JC took us into Afghanistan to atone for not taking us into Iraq. He deserves credit for at least avoiding the most deadly sink hole, though in the long run that may not be the case.

Iraq and Afghanistan are two theatres in the same war, we just opted to go where there was less chance of getting shot to bits on one hand, and where there would have been a far more severe domestic revolt in response on the other.

quote:

---

The arguments in favour of staying are so clear that they can be dismissed only by those who deliberately refuse to consider them.

---

Au contraire, they are based on a fairy tale view of realtity and history. If they were not we would be supporting a government that declares itself a secular state, bans the shariah and other religious laws, permits blasphemy and other freedoms of expression, aggressively prohibits honor killings and punishes those who do them, and adheres fully to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Tell us, Brett, why aren't we doing that? Why are we allied with one misogynist bunch of thugs against another in a civil war?

quote:

---

Although obviously we are closely tied to the Americans, so the real question is, are ISAF forces doing things sufficiently differently from American combat doctrine to make a difference?

---

Differences in combat doctrine are irrelevant. Differences in economic and political doctrine might be more significant. Besides, why are we engaged in combat in support of a rogue state the refuses to sign on to the International Criminal Court, as we have, and makes a mockery out of decades of treaties and international agreements?

quote:

---

Yes RAWA has called for the withdrawal of American forces. RAWA has not called for the withdrawal of ISAF forces as far as I know.

---

Perhaps they are just facing the reality that they are all US forces in the end, regardless of which state is providing them to the Americans. Foreign and US become interchangable terms.

quote:

---

Instead, what I am seeing, time after time, is a real respect for the Afghan people expressed by Canadian soldiers.

---

And what does the respect of Canadians for Afghans have to do with the view of foreigners held by Afghans?

The only view of foreign occupation than an Afghan may hold that you can trust as accurate is the one that is unfavorable. Favorable views could well be facades meant to facilitate an immediate advantage.

quote:

---

The situation is real simple, in my view - if the majority for Afghans request our help,....

---

Was there a nation wide plebiscite on whether or not they wanted to be invaded and occupied by foreign armies? Or is this majority that requested merely the puppet government installed by the US?

quote:

---

At present, all available evidence support the view that the majority of Afhans, including a growing plurality, perhaps now a majority, in the South, want the security ISAF is trying to win.

---

Wanting security is considerably different from wanting a foreign occupation, and hating the Taliban is no indication of love for the occupying forces.

quote:

---

I'm less and less interested in arguments about what the war is "about"....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
...it is fundamentally an international project...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by inkameep:
It is fundamentally a US project. The big powers in the immediate vicinity (Russia, China, India) are not members.

---

It originated as a US invasion. The project has now been formally ratified by the UN and has been the subject of something like five Security Council resolutions. The Security Council includes Russia and China.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
The Taliban are much, much worse, as I am sure that the average Afghan or RAWA representative would tell you. This is critically important. To gloss over these differences is disengenuous, to put it politely.

---

Well, Brett you're wrong, and what makes you think you're are the voice of AFGHANS? Also you have not even been to the RAWA site quite obviously.

You are being disengenuous, at the very least, and out right erroneous at the most.

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
It originated as a US invasion.

---

And the poisoned fruit of the poisoned vine principle applies.

quote:

---

The project has now been formally ratified by the UN and has been the subject of something like five Security Council resolutions. The Security Council includes Russia and China.

---

Which only tells us that other members of the SC are willing to acquiesce to US demands on this issue in a process of horse trading for some other benefit. Does anyone believe that political manuevering at this level has anything at all to do with what is good for Afghan women or anyone else at the level of the ordinary person? Should the Russians or Chinese find it more expedient to veto support for Afghanistan tomorrow would that then mean there is no support and we should withdraw immediately?

quote:

---

....this obscures the very real differences between one group of thugs, the Taliban, with the thugs who run the government but are at least permitting the modernizations mentioned in the articles above.

---

Permitting may be too strong a word in this case. Barely tolerating more or less under duress or for some immdiate advantage and in some cases not tolerating at all might be a better description.

Unless the entire culture is overturned and the power of the mullahs broken and the validity of the sharia discredited in favour of progressive, secular values there won't be much in the way of meaningful modernization.

Besides, in all of this Taliban fear mongering we skip over the reason that the Afghans let them come to power in the first place. They were actually an improvement over the people that we now count as allies and who we have allowed back into government.

The ideology and culture of the Taliban may be dispicable and disgusting, but there was worse, and confronting them with a foreign military force probably strengthens their cause more than hurts it.

There were and still are better ways to be rid of the Taliban. The one thing that the invasion and occupation has and is doing is making the final cost in lives and brutality greater.

quote:

---

The Taliban are much, much worse, as I am sure that the average Afghan or RAWA representative would tell you.

---

Which is why some of them, not Taliban, are saying that things were better under the Taliban, and why RAWA, I am sure, would agree with you that the chaos and raping that the Taliban ended are better for Afghans than the strict laws of the Taliban.

Of course for the allied leaders driving this war the Taliban have nothing to do with it other than they are mounting a resistance and that they provide a convenient boogeyman for propaganda purposes to make the folks at home think that there is some nobility in this sordid business.

quote:

---

To gloss over these differences is disengenuous, to put it politely.

---

But who is doing the glossing? Given a choice between a chaotic, rampant brutality with no rules or a brutal set of laws which offered security, which should one choose? Vilifying the Taliban, no matter how bad they are, without reference to the fact that they were an improvement over their opponents is what is disengenous.

And thinking that now that the armies of the west have come to the rescue of the benighted natives the natives will be delivered from evil and ushered into a world of peace and freedom by the hand of the western armies is naive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
Of several hundred countries in the world where women are treated as less than full human beings . . .

---

"Several hundred" is a tad hyperbolic and melodramatic don't you think?

quote:

---

Originally posted by inkameep:
A secular government, committed to women’s equality, held power in Afghanistan from 1978 to 1992. This government was supported by the USSR

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
. . . the people hate your guts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by remind:

Well, Brett you're wrong, and what makes you think you're are the voice of AFGHANS? Also you have not even been to the RAWA site quite obviously.

You are being disengenuous, at the very least, and out right erroneous at the most.

A door number 2 my ass!

---

quote:

---

I have visited the RAWA site repeatedly looking for any indication that they are calling for an immediate withdrawal of ISAF troops.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
And Jerry, if you are suggesting that anyone in Afghanistan wants the Taliban to return to power, please provide evidence. Otherwise desist from your misrepresentations. You and the others here who are calling for withdrawal of our troops are either willing to countenance the re-imposition of a Taliban rule in Afghanistan or think that this wouldn't happen some how. So please, in the interests of intellectually honesty, I invite all those who are calling for an ISAF withdrawal to publicly admit they are willing to sacrifice the women of Afghanistan to achieve their ideological goals. Anything less than such an admission is the height of hypocrisy.

---

With changing a few simple words (which I've bolded for emphasis), you can come up with:

"And Jerry, if you are suggesting that anyone in Iraq wants Saddam to return to power, please provide evidence. Otherwise desist from your misrepresentations. You and the others here who are calling for withdrawal of our troops are either willing to countenance the re-imposition of Saddam's rule in Iraq or think that this wouldn't happen some how. So please, in the interests of intellectually honesty, I invite all those who are calling for an American troop withdrawl to publicly admit they are willing to sacrifice the civilians of Iraq to achieve their ideological goals. Anything less than such an admission is the height of hypocrisy."

And while you're at it, please take a look at this Amnesty International report about Afghanistan. As has been repeatedly pointed out but what you have repeatedly ignored is that many in the government have human rights records as bad, if not worse, than the Taliban. And having foreign troops in Afghanistan actually hinders any meaningful progress because people tend do dislike being under occupation. The only people with the means to resist the occupiers are the Taliban and other armed groups, which the Taliban exploits to say they are the true defenders of Afghanis. As long as this dynamic remains, support for the Taliban would be quite strong.

[ 22 January 2007: Message edited by: Aristotleded24 ]

quote:

---

I invite all those who are calling for an ISAF withdrawal to publicly admit they are willing to sacrifice the women of Afghanistan to achieve their ideological goals. Anything less than such an admission is the height of hypocrisy.

---

This was actually the SOVIET argument for occupying Afghanistan.

The Societs claimed, and rightly so, that the rights granted to women under their "socialism" were far in advance of those likely to be provided by the Muslim resistance movement.

They also claimed that other countries were interfering in Afghanistan, by supporting the Muslim resistance to the Afghan Communist government.

----

Western occupation of most countries would produce formally-more-advanced rights, whether social rights, as with the USSR, or procedural rights, as with the present US/Canadian occupation.

The problem is that the Afghans thinks that non-Muslim occupiers are an anathema, and that there is a religious duty to expel them. That is why imperial projects, however well intentioned, will end up failing in Afghanistan.

quote:

---

Were Britain, then ruler of the country, to leave Egypt prematurely, Roosevelt predicted, "Women would be denied the most basic rights."

---

I have made the challenge again and again and again on this board for someone to name just one Afghan individual or organization, other than the insurgents, calling for a withdrawal of ISAF forces at this point in time. Still no response, just obfuscation and avoidance.

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
Afghans know they are dealing with a new situation here, under ISAF, whether or not Canadian ideologues do.

---

"I would rather live in a hell run by Filipinos than a heaven run by Americans."

--Manuel Luis Quezon, Philippine president.

quote:

---

The Taliban are much worse than the people currently running Afghanistan

---

[ 22 January 2007: Message edited by: inkameep ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Oh, the Taliban cut back on poppy production, Inkameep? I guess that makes it OK to hand the country back to them and let them start stoning people to death again, then. What a joke.

---

quote:

---

On the contrary, I will point out the stupidity and hypocisy and immorality of it from the highest rooftops.

---

We've tried reasoned argumentation, and it makes no impression on you. You are impervious to it.

Instead of dealing with arguments and inconvenient facts you keep falling back on your mantra about how withdrawal of Canadian troops means the Taliban will take power. Just because you keep saying it, it doesn't make it true.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Oh, the Taliban cut back on poppy production,Inkameep? I guess that makes it OK to hand the country back to them and let them start stoning people to death again, then.

---

Afghanistan is not yours to "hand back" to anyone. Thank God. Nor is it Stephen Harper's. It belongs to the people of Afghanistan. Yes, Brett, even though they are inferior to you and don't know how to treat "ladies", they will kill anyone who tries to teach them proper Anglo-American manners. That's the way them brown people are, I guess. Never learned to stick their pinkies out when drinking tea. Get used to it. I am.

Oh, and guess what: In the war between the people of Afghanistan and our troops, I support the people of Afghanistan - I DO NOT SUPPORT "OUR" TROOPS.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:
There are fewer than two hundred countries in the world - 192 UN members to which we can add the Vatican, Taiwan and the Palestinian territories. This is before we start substracting those that do treat women as full human beings.

"Several hundred" is a tad hyperbolic and melodramatic don't you think?

---

Of the 243 political entities considered as countries (including 202 sovereign states) (source), there are none that I know of where women have achieved full equality with men in both de jure and de facto terms.

You are free to name some to prove me wrong, but somehow I suspect that your concern for women's equality won't last long enough to take you through one entire post.

quote:

---

Well, the good news is that research shows that they hate the Taliban far, far more.

---

My research shows that the people of Afghanistan have killed 44 Canadians and no Taliban. We just lost the popularity contest by a fair margin, 19 times out of 20.

[ 22 January 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
And Jerry, if you are suggesting that anyone in Afghanistan wants the Taliban to return to power, please provide evidence.

---

The Taliban want the Taliban to return to power, do they qualify as "anyone"? More than one in the past has said that things were better under the Taliban, whether they want them to return or not is another issue, but they certainly seem to dislike the current situation more than that under the Taliban. If you search enough news stories over the past few years you should find references.

I will say again and more explicity a point which you seem to miss, criticism of the occupation of Afghanistan does not equate to support for the Taliban.

quote:

---

You and the others here who are calling for withdrawal of our troops are either willing to countenance the re-imposition of a Taliban rule in Afghanistan or think that this wouldn't happen some how.

---

Whether it would happen or not is debatable. We are in the middle of a civil war. The invasion changed the power balance. The occupation, on the other hand, appears to be strengthening the Taliban, particularly if people who don't want the Taliban are coming to their aid temporarily because they don't want foreign domination even more.

quote:

---

So please, in the interests of intellectually honesty, I invite all those who are calling for an ISAF withdrawal to publicly admit they are willing to sacrifice the women of Afghanistan to achieve their ideological goals.

---

Such histrionics.

The women of Afghanistan are being sacrificed whether under the Taliban or the war lords we support. Under the Taliban at least there are rules which allow them to be secure should they choose to follow them. Under the war lords they are just fair game regardless.

I don't like the rules, and they should be changed, but they are better than the immediate alternative for most of the country.

quote:

---

The Taliban are much worse than the people currently running Afghanistan, and there are very few Afghans who would like to see a return of their rule. This point is pretty much undebatable, I think.

---

Your thinking is in error, it is debatable. Whether the Taliban are much worse or not depends upon your definitions of good and bad and degrees thereof. From what you have written it appears that you would support getting rid of the Taliban at any cost, no matter what, even if the alternative turns out to be worse.

One might think that your view of the Taliban has limited the scope of your vision.

As for very few Afghans liking to see the return of the Taliban, whether there are or not is irrelevant. Again wanting to be rid of foreigners does not equate to wanting the Taliban back, and the central issue here is the foreign army of occupation, not the Taliban who would be irrelevant were they not the nucleous of the resistance movement.

Were it the Communists rather than the Taliban that were the main drive behind the resistance would you feel the same way?

quote:

---

no one wants the Taliban back

---

This is confusing. You switch between few want to see their return to no one wants them back. Which is it?

quote:

---

a withdrawal of the kind the NDP and many here are calling for would almost undoubtedly result in the massacre of many Afghan innocents (many, many many more than are currently dying) and could well plunge all Afghan women back into medieval servitude.

---

Most Afghan women, whether under the Taliban or war lords are still in what amounts to medieval servitude. It wouldn't be much of a plunge.

And, "undoubtedly result in the massacre of many"? What proof do you have? The fact is that the killing will go on one way or the other until the foreigners are expelled and the civil war is resolved. Getting out only hastens the end of the war by removing one of the causes.

quote:

---

It will simply deliver the people we have promised to protect into the hands of murderous totalitarian thugs.

---

The war lords that we are supporting are murderous totalitarian thugs. Our only choices in the country since we turned on the Communist supported regime has been murderous totalitarian thugs. Occupying the country empowers murderous totalitarian thugs.

From a progressive point of view Afghanistan will not improve until there is a sea change in its culture and the role of religion is marginalized. These kind of changes need to come from within. To be accepted they can not be seen to be imposed by foreigners.

There is a lot we can do to help Afghanistan make the transition to a progressive, secular society, but it has to be done from a distance.

Of course, except for propaganda purposes the expansion of progressive policies in Afghanistan and the plight of Afghan women are not part of the reason that the US and its vassals have invaded and occupied the country. Justifying our presence there on these grounds would for practical reasons be in error even if they were true, but in this case not only is the justification impractical, it is a lie.

quote:

---

Inkameep:
According to media reports, Afganistan's share of the world's opium production is back up to 90%.

---

The economic aspect of the Afghan War is far more important than the social one, at least for those who have involved us there. Western banks and those they support will be big winners in this increased opium production. Also, one should never forget the role of the defence industry in these wars.

A couple of past columns on this:

A failing system hooked on drugs

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
The Taliban are much worse than the people currently running Afghanistan, and there are very few Afghans who would like to see a return of their rule.

---

Several people have stated otherwise, and have provided supporting links. You have provided no supporting evidence for your arguments whatsoever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
This point is pretty much undebatable, I think.

---

If you say it's undebatable, it's undebatable. Case closed, then.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
I am well aware of the criminality abundant in the current Afghan government, but again, no one wants the Taliban back instead, RAWA included.

---

RAWA doesn't want the Taliban in power, but they certainly don't want the foreign occupation to continue either.

quote:

---

Aristotleded24:
And if we were really interested in preventing civilian deaths and violence in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, we would be pushing for international treaties restricting the manufacture and sale of weapons.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:
"Supported by the USSR" is, I take it, a euphanism for the Soviets overthrowing and murdering the president and invading when they began to doubt the country's total loyalty of Moscow?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
My research shows that the people of Afghanistan have killed 44 Canadians and no Taliban. We just lost the popularity contest by a fair margin, 19 times out of 20.

---

I can picture the women and children manufacturing bombs and armaments, humming L'Internationale, while the men, tall and handsome, shoulder their rifles and go off to war.

Every improvised explosve device a victory for the oppressed!

Every suicide bomber in the streets and markets of Khandahar an example of People Power in action!

But to be serious for a moment, your numbers are a little off.

For one, from time to time there are documented accounts of villagers harassed by the Taliban fighting back.

Of course, the Afghan National Army and the Afghan National Police have killed their fair share of Taliban. Plus, unlike the Taliban themselves, we can say with confidence that the ANA and ANP are actually made-up entirely of Afghans.

This does however leave out how many of the people of Afghanistan have been killed by the Taliban, and yes, how many have been unfortunately killed by NATO forces, including Canada.

But I have a feeling that you actually believe what you wrote in response to my post, so I'll save myself the headache and concede defeat now.

[ 23 January 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:
Plus, unlike the Taliban themselves, we can say with confidence that the ANA and ANP are actually made-up entirely of Afghans.

---

Irrigation, water projects for new crops, they all sound good. But I would like some agrologist/farmers to determine whether the soil in Afghanistan can support the new crops without massive doses of chemical fertilizer.

In the short term I favour trying to license and sell the opium on the world pharmaceutical market; same for marijuana. Then use the money and time to build the organics in Afghanistan's soil.

quote:

---

Perhaps you are confusing the Taliban, an indigenous Afghan formation, with al-Qaeda.

---

There has been a tendency here for some to equate insurgents to Taliban when in fact the insurgents are more than that. The Taliban may be part of the insurgency, but not all insurgents are Taliban.

As for who is Afghan and who is not, that may not be as important as who is from what tribe. We are dealing with an country with political boundaries that cut through ethnic and tribal regions. Being a Pashtun, Tajik, Hazara, Uzbek, Turkman, Baluch, Pachaie, Nuristani, Aymaq, Arab, Qirghiz, Qizilbash, Gujur, Brahwui or other may be more important than being an Afghan or Pakistani, etc.

Regarding the Taliban and opium:

quote:

---

Fish, Karynn, "The United Nations and the Taliban: An Unholy Alliance in the Name of Drug Control." The Drug Policy Letter. Winter 1998; 35: pp. 15-16.

Pino Arlacchi has a plan, and it is quite ambitious. Arlacchi, the director of the new United Nations Office for Drug Control and Crime Prevention, believes that the worldwide supply of poppy and coca plants can be wiped out -- in the next 10 years. Arlacchi, formerly a federal prosecutor in Italy known for going after organized crime, may have picked a more difficult and more resilient opponent than the Mafia. But Arlacchi, as the United Nation's new drug czar, has made a deal that he hopes will make the impossible possible.

Last October, Arlacchi announced that he had cut a deal with the Taliban, the extremist Islamic militia that has seized control of two-thirds of Afghanistan, to eradicate that country's poppy crop. Afghanistan is the world's second largest producer of opium behind Myanmar and accounts for an estimated one-third of the world's supply of heroin. In the proposed arrangement, the Taliban has agreed to eliminate the production of the opium poppy in the lands under its control, in return for an estimated $25 million dollars per year over the next decade. If the deal is approved, the money will be spent on a combination of crop eradication and substitution, police training, and economic development....

Link to article

---

quote:

---

The third relates to the raising of revenues from opium, of which Afghanistan under the Taliban became the world's largest producer.[52] Drug trafficking has received considerable attention in recent years as a 'non-traditional' security issue,[53] and weighs heavily in the thinking of the US Administration. Yet opium also represents a revenue source of some potential for power holders in a debilitated territory such as Afghanistan. The challenge for the Taliban therefore was to extract revenue from this source without so alienating foreign governments that the costs of the undertaking outweighed the benefits. Here again, the Taliban were not especially successful. The involvement of the Taliban in the drug trade was plain almost from the outset of their rule. In a 1996 interview, Mullah Omar admitted that the Taliban received revenue from a tax on opium.=, and[54] the Afghanistan Annual Opium Poppy Survey 1998 published by the United Nations International Drug Control Programme (UNDCP) found that the 'provinces under the control of the Taliban, at the time of the Survey, account for approximately 96% of Afghanistan's total opium cultivation'.[55] The position of the Taliban at that time was that it was 'difficult to encourage farmers to produce other cash crops'[56], and there was almost certainly some truth in this claim. However, eyewitness testimony pointed to Taliban involvement not only in compelling farmers to grow opium, but in distributing fertilizer for the crops.[57] Given the loose structure of the movement, this could well have reflected simply the greed of local Taliban, but it was not read in this way: the US State Department concluded that there was 'evidence that the Taliban, which control much of Afghanistan, have made a policy decision to take advantage of narcotics trafficking and production in order to put pressure on the west and other consuming nations'.[58] In 1999, according to a UN report, "the production of opium increased dramatically to 4,600 tonnes, almost twice the average production of the previous four years.[59]" However, on February 27, 2000, doubtless with an eye to their international standing, the Taliban ordered a total ban on cultivation of the poppy; the output for 2000 fell to 3,300 tonnes, and further dramatic falls were detected in early 2001. However, the ban was bitterly resented by farmers, for whom no alternative income sources were provided, and won the Taliban surprisingly little kudos, in part because of the suspicion that the ban was driven by the desire not to add to what was already a large stockpile, and that output falls owed much to the drought by which Afghanistan had been gripped....

Link to article

---

And for more Afghan info:

quote:

---

'We are just watching things get worse'

When Britain and America went into Afghanistan in 2001, they claimed that the liberation of the country's burka-shrouded women was one of their top priorities. So did they deliver? Five years on, Natasha Walter visits Kabul - and is shocked by what she discovers ....

Link to article

---

quote:

---

Battered Afghan women suffer in silence

Link to article

---

And a link to more info and links than one wants to contemplate:

quote:

---

ANALYSIS and OPINIONS

Brief Overview of the Situation in Afghanistan

Despite somewhat of a winter lull, in January 2007 the insurgency and related violence remain the primary obstacle to development and stability in Afghanistan. NATO and OEF forces are steadily engaged with the enemy and predict rising insurgent activity with the coming of spring. NATO leaders have been explicit in stating that a military strategy will not solve Afghanistan's problems, ....

Link to article

---

quote:

---

Suicide Bomber Kills 10 in Afghanistan

Tuesday January 23, 2007 7:01 PM
By FISNIK ABRASHI
Associated Press Writer

KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - A suicide bomber with explosives strapped to his chest blew himself up in a crowd of laborers waiting outside a U.S. military base in eastern Afghanistan on Tuesday, killing as many as 10 people.

Elsewhere, Afghan and NATO forces killed 12 militants in a five-hour gun battle, while a Taliban ambush left nine police dead in the south, officials said.

.................

Suicide attacks have become more frequent as Taliban militants have intensified their insurgency against the Afghan government and foreign troops backing them. According to U.S. military figures, there were 139 suicide attacks during 2006, up from 27 in 2005.

Tuesday's was the deadliest since Sept. 30, when an attacker killed 12 people outside the gates of the Interior Ministry in Kabul.

...................
Meanwhile, Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, an Afghan warlord whose fighters operate in eastern Afghanistan's mountains alongside Taliban and al-Qaida remnants, said the U.S. faces a Soviet-style humiliation in the country.

``Everyone knows that the American aggressors are faced with defeat in every part of the country,'' Hekmatyar said in the recording obtained by The Associated Press in Pakistan. ``They are preparing to leave like the Soviet troops.''

The 24-minute recording was the third from Hekmatyar to surface this month.

Guardian

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

We are just watching things get worse.

---

That is an interesting article. I had no idea there was a woman's police academy in Kabul. I wonder who set that up? Too bad they only have 4 recruits. And the wedding halls? What country/NGO did that?

And there is even some ammunition for Brett Mann in there:

quote:

---

Like all the other women I meet on my trip, Kochai is very sure that despite all the insecurity and lack of progress, life would be far worse if western forces pulled out. "If the British and American soldiers left now, we wouldn't be able to leave our houses. We would lose all that we have."

Yet everyone knows that the Taliban are regrouping in and around Kandahar; Safia Ama Jan, the head of the department of women's affairs, was assassinated there recently, and Kochai says the actual number of kidnappings and assassinations is far higher than we hear about. "In one week six women were killed. They were ordinary women, working women, but the Taliban say they are spies of the government. They tell them, 'Don't work,' and if they do not listen, then they are kidnapped and killed far from the city." She has two bodyguards who take her to work and back, but after work she has no bodyguards - so in a way they only make her more of a target. "I wear the burka, and I change the colour of it regularly so that I hope nobody knows it is me under it. The morale of women in Kandahar is getting worse every day," she says.

---

quote:

---

Like all the other women I meet on my trip, Kochai is very sure that despite all the insecurity and lack of progress, life would be far worse if western forces pulled out. "If the British and American soldiers left now, we wouldn't be able to leave our houses. We would lose all that we have."

---

Far worse, maybe, for those directly under the protection of the western forces, but how many areas can be kept constantly under immediate western control? And does the foreign presence fuel the resistance and increase the danger to women who can not be protected?

No-holds-barred mercantilism. Its worked before.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
My friend tells me the most noticable thing to a visitor to Afghanistan is the deep tribal divisions and the extreme degree of tribal influence over many aspects of life. This probably means that if the Taliban were resurgent, they still would not control the lands of their tribal enemies, and a protracted civil war would likely be the result?

---

I have a friend also. I ran your friend's analysis by my friend. My friend laughed her head off, saying your friend is probably an unschooled ass, and you should keep better company. She says civil and regional wars are directly attributable to foreign imperial intervention and meddling, with outside powers instigating and/or financing local warlords and interest groups to engage in proxy battles. As examples, she points to Afghanistan, Iraq and Iran, and the internecine and regional wars waged since the Soviet invasion, the expulsion of the Shah, and the U.S. financing and organizing its proxy and puppet forces.

But before we retreat to the cities, I'm not ready to concede defeat in Kandahar province, yet. I was impressed with the stories of locals returning to homes ruined by the destruction of the battle of Panjwai, and saying they trusted ISAF to protect them from the Taliban while they rebuild. I'm seeing enough of this kind of evidence to be more and more convinced that the only reason ordinary Aghans might turn against us is if they perceive the Taliban is winning and they have no choice. But the steady flow of arms and fighters from Pakistan must be stopped somehow. And if Bush attacks Iran, then God only knows what will happen to Afghanistan and our troops there.

Unionist, your Marxist/colonialist model needs revisiting I think. It does not seem to be capable of perceiving nuance, complexity or reality.

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: Brett Mann ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
...I was impressed with the stories of locals returning to homes ruined by the destruction of the battle of Panjwai, and saying they trusted ISAF to protect them from the Taliban while they rebuild...

---

please. I'd place the odds of any local speaking openly against any arm of the government that put that asshole of governer they had there in the first not having to sell his first-born to get out jail the following week just the other side of slim to none.

and there isn't a hope in hell the UN is going to rethink its position on eradication. the fact its been around so long already ensures there too much vested interest to the contrary.

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: BitWhys ]

wrong button

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: BitWhys ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:

Unionist, your Marxist/colonialist model needs revisiting I think.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by inkameep:
Perhaps you are confusing the Taliban, an indigenous Afghan formation, with al-Qaeda.

---

While mostly Afghan, there has always been a strong Pakistani influence on the Taliban - that is afterall where it originated. Perhaps even more so today.

Plus, as Jerry West pointed out, there are other actors at play. Perhaps it is a little sloppy of me, but I more or less meant "Taliban" as all of the forces arrayed against the Afghan government at the ISAF - which includes the actual Taliban as well as others.

[ 25 January 2007: Message edited by: Free_Radical ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Kind of silly to assert that the anti-colonialist model is somehow inherently Marxist, given that it was the President of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, who first brought into popular usage the term "self-determination" of peoples...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by BitWhys:

please. I'd place the odds of any local speaking openly against any arm of the government that put that asshole of governer they had there in the first not having to sell his first-born to get out jail the following week just the other side of slim to none.

[ 24 January 2007: Message edited by: BitWhys ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:

I don't think you would be so dismissive if you had seen the original piece in the Globe and Mail "Noise of war gives place to re-building" Jan 13. Unfortunately it's behind a subscription wall and I can't link to it.

---

Click here, then click on the first hit that comes up. It's a great feel-good article, with the real truth hidden in one innocuous paragraph that captures the essence of how the Afghan people have wiped out all the do-good crusading armies over the centuries:

quote:

---

One local Taliban sympathizer said he doesn't expect the quiet to last. The insurgents from villages such as Zangabad have hidden their weapons and returned to their homes, he said, and they are expected to rejoin the fight when the warm weather returns in a few months.

---

quote:

---

The US defence secretary, Robert Gates, said yesterday he was "strongly inclined" to send more troops to Afghanistan after a threefold increase in Taliban attacks in the past four months.
....

The US commander in Afghanistan, Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry, said he had asked to extend until the end of the year the combat tours of 1,200 American soldiers in Afghanistan who had been due to go home in the spring.

There are 44,000 international troops in Afghanistan - 24,000 of them American - with about half under Nato command. The rest, including some 3,300 British troops, are hunting al-Qaida and Taliban fugitives on the Pakistani border.

Lt Gen Eikenberry said the overall US presence was higher than at any time since the October 2001 invasion.

---

It’s still a US war, with the likes of Canada and UK tagging along.

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
He said that in the event of a western military withdrawal and a consequent re-instatement of the Taliban, things would be much worse for the women in the cities.

---

Western military withdrawal does not automatically mean re-instatement of the Taliban, but I would guess that he is correct, in areas that were under western control where women had expanded freedoms, they would suffer a set back should the Taliban return. Whether that would include retributions or merely a requirement to abide by the new rules remains to be seen.

Extricating as many pro-western Afghans as possible in the event of a Taliban take over on one hand would protect those individuals, but on the other hand it would also reduce the resistance to the Taliban.

If we really want to be rid of the Taliban the Afghans will have to do it by themselves, and it will involve major cultural adjustments.

quote:

---

In the country side, many women are already living under conditions close to Taliban rules, and would probably accommodate to the change of government fairly safely.

---

Which makes the point that outside of limited areas under western control the situation for Afghan women has not improved, and in the case of war lord areas may be worse than it was for women under the Taliban..

quote:

---

....if the Taliban were resurgent, they still would not control the lands of their tribal enemies, and a protracted civil war would likely be the result?

---

No, a protracted civil war is already underway. And it can not be won by foreign troops.

quote:

---

unionist:
She says civil and regional wars are directly attributable to foreign imperial intervention and meddling, with outside powers instigating and/or financing local warlords and interest groups to engage in proxy battles.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:
While mostly Afghan, there has always been a strong Pakistani influence on the Taliban - that is afterall where it originated.

---

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
things would be much worse for the women in the cities

---

FWIW here are the statistics as per the CIA World Factbook. I threw in Canada and the USA for purposes of comparison. It seems that even the most impoverished former Soviet republics have literacy rates comparable to the US or Canada, while the rich Middle Eastern oil states, which have been under Western tutelage for a century or more, have rates that are considerably lower. I didn't tabulate the male rates, but in all cases they are equal to or higher than the female rates.

Country/Female literacy rate (%)/(GDP per capita USD)

Tajikistan 99.1 (1,300)
Canada 99 (35,200)
USA 99 (43,500)
Uzbekistan 99 (2,000)
Turkmenistan 98.3 (8,900)
Kyrgyzstan 98.1 (2,000)
Kazakhstan 97.7 (9,100)

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Many on the left seem happy to say that the US created al Qaeda and brought about the conditions leading to Islamic extremism, and therefore it's not really our problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Whatever the causes of Islamic extremism, (and not all of them are attributable solely to America) this phenomenon has now become global and threatens alll modern countries and civilizations.

---

Don't forget other solar systems and galaxies.

ETA: Please feel free to use the above sentence as a sample quote to show the indifferent attitude of the "Left" toward the threat of Islamic extremism.

[ 25 January 2007: Message edited by: unionist ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by inkameep:
As I understand it, the Pakistani/Afghan border is an artificial colonial creation that divides the Pashtuns in two, and that the Taliban is based among the Pashtuns on both sides. If that's the case, then the Pakistan connection doesn't really constitute "outside” influence or interference.

---

You are correct. Based on a treaty signed by Britain and Afghanistan, it is called the Durrand Line, and it originally came into existance as are result of the Russians and British determining agreed too spheres of influence, within which Afghanistan is a independent buffer state between to the two empires.

Not much has changed really.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
There is an important piece missing in much leftist analysis of Afghanistan and other conflicts, and that is the reality of Islamic extremist terrorism and the need to defeat it...

---

Just because we're doing something (anything, it seems) doesn't mean its the right thing to do.

Why are we even talking about this? NOT A SINGLE SITTING FEDERAL PARTY wants Canada to get out and stay out and hopefully they all muster up the collective brains to realize that its about helping others up, not pushing others down (whether they'll ever manage to get Steve up to speed or not).

[ 25 January 2007: Message edited by: BitWhys ]

wrong button again. sorry 'bout that.

[ 25 January 2007: Message edited by: BitWhys ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:
The only way that women will get the freedom that we seem to think that they should have will be if they organize, and revolt against the system in large enough numbers to be unstoppable. This requires a cultural change that is probably being retarded by the presence of foreign troops.

---

I would label the current government in Kabul as "O.K." or perhaps just "less bad" - but do the people of Afghanistan have the means (or desire) to demand something better (by our standards - more democratic, greater adherence to human rights, etc.)?

In many ways it brings to mind Nepal. Not long ago (the past year or so) the people staged a massive demonstration against their government - an authoritarian monarchy - succesfully demanding a return to democracy.

Of course, at the same time, Nepal's government and people had been fighting an exceptionally violent Maoist insurgency - who were, not surprisingly as Maoists, about as blood thirsty and reprehensible as the Taliban.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Whatever the causes of Islamic extremism, (and not all of them are attributable solely to America) this phenomenon has now become global and threatens alll modern countries and civilizations. Ignoring or diminishing the reality of this threat is not an option.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
we need to take Islamic extremism seriously

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:
Nobody wanted the Maoists to come to power, just as nobody wants the Taliban to come back in Afghanistan, but they didn't want the king either.

---

News flash: The Maoists are coming to power in Nepal. Does this affect your argument?

quote:

---

Originally posted by inkameep:
... notwithstanding the UN fig leaf.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
News flash: The Maoists are coming to power in Nepal. Does this affect your argument?

Nepal Maoists to join government in February

---

Only someone with the mind of a child would construe the Maoists giving up their weapons and sitting in parliament as them "coming to power".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:

Only someone with the mind of a child ...

---

Funny, I take that as a compliment. Somehow, I feel you intend it as an insult (sort of on the intellectual level of spitting at someone when words fail).

Thank you, anyway.

quote:

---

... Maoists, about as blood thirsty and reprehensible as the Taliban.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
I'll look around for suitable quotes, Pogge,

---

Uh huh.

quote:

---

the conclusion that many draw from it - that therefore the enemy of my enemy is my friend and we should have some sympathy for Islamic extremism

---

quote:

---

I would label the current government in Kabul as "O.K." or perhaps just "less bad"

---

I'd disagree there... We've seen enough from Karzai to suggest it's not going to be any different from the regime we outed (after our presence is gone atleast). I won't say this is because of Karzai directly, he'll be under huge pressure from the same warlords that supported the Taliban that are now supporting him.

quote:

---

... for now I'll just note that every time I have suggested we have legitimate security concerns in Afghanistan, I've been met with a chorus of disbelief and distain...

---

I think you're missing the line on the chorus of disbelief on these things As the topic of this thread states, our activity in Afghanistan increases the legitimate threat that you're stating here... Not reduce it. A rejection of our current methods leads you quickly to beleif it means a rejection of the security concern... Curious as to why? If you are being driven solely by a concern of security, why would you be supporting a policy that actively increases the risk and not decrease it?

quote:

---

Ignoring or diminishing the reality of this threat is not an option.

---

But apparently following a course of actions increasing the threat is the path you are suggesting. There are 2 options out there... Empower the moderates, or fight the extremists. As we've plainly seen, fighting the exteremists tends to do no more than to swell their numbers.

Is there a way to 'not ignore the reality of the threat' that doesn't include blindly supporting the path of war Harper is following? Is this an arguement intended to stimulate discussion, or is it simply being thrown out as after the fact reasoning to justify the war in Afghanistan?

[ 25 January 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

If ISAF were running around Afghanistan like the US did, kicking in doors, ignoring local customs, ignoring "collateral damage" - then I would not be supporting it, and we would lose for sure in Afghanistan, and our efforts there would indeed increase the threat to Canada. But I think there is plenty of evidence that this is not the way ISAF is proceeding. I'm impressed with what (little) I've read of the Dutch commander's philosphy and doctrine. I will be very interested in what Dawn Black (?) the NDP defence critic currently touring Afghanistan has to say when she returns. I will not automatically dismiss her views if she still maintains the mission is hopeless and wrong, but I will examine her evidence as closely as one can.

Some random, unattributed internet quotes:

"After all what is more dangerous to the international rule of law, the aforementioned power who flount it routinely or a gang of armed individuals in a remote, isolated area of the globe who do not have the means to even cover their own territory, much less to threaten other nations ?"

"The mission in Afghanistan has already cost Canadians more than $4 billion. That money could have been used to fund human needs in Canada or abroad. Instead it is being used to kill civilians in Afghanistan and advance the interests of corporations."

quote:

---

The grand ayatollah spoke out against Mr Ahmadinejad in remarks to reformists and opponents of the president in the religious city of Qom last Friday, the Associated Press news agency reported.

---

I'd like to find the full remarks made, CNN went a bit further with it then that article does... Apparently theres alot of Iran afraid of an invasion they don't want and really only want civilian nuclear power.

Added:

quote:

---

(but even here, I'll bet Canada's lop-sided support of Israel creates far more animosity towards Canada among Muslims generally).

---

Its always about Israel ?

[ 25 January 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

More added:

quote:

---

But we are also weakening the means to do so.

---

I think I disagree with that one as well, infact I think in some ways we're giving them new means. Post 9-11, with security at what it was... Theres little chance a person trained in Afghan or Iraq was going to be able to do what they did prior. Heh, think what would have happened if a cold war president didn't get briefed by the CIA until after and attack on the US? Our biggest threat as proved in Britain is homegrown, not overseas. I don't see how the war in Afghanistan does anything but strengthen such a threat

[ 25 January 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

[ 25 January 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Brett Mann:
There is an important piece missing in much leftist analysis of Afghanistan and other conflicts, and that is the reality of Islamic extremist terrorism and the need to defeat it.

---

The realtiy of Islamic extremist terrorism is that it is highly over rated for one, and for two it is not a military problem. In fact it is more of a symptom of a problem rather than the problem itself.

It is questionable that we would have much of an Islamic terrorist problem at all had the west stayed out of the middle east to begin with.

The war on terror is really a war between terrorists and Islamic terrorism is a convenient boogeyman used by the corporate world order and US nutbars to generate fear and loathing and create mob support for their expansionist polices.

Rather than being missing in progressive analysis of Afghanistan and other conflicts, Islamic terrorism is mostly irrelevant.

The Taliban, by the way, are not Islamic terrorists, at least not on an international scale that threatens anyone although they may certainly cause terror in the hearts of Afghans under their rule who defy them.

quote:

---

We may be increasing the motivation to attack Canada. But we are also weakening the means to do so.

---

Given that the Afghans never attacked us this is a funny statement. The Saudis I am sure are cowed by us being bogged down in Afghanistan.

quote:

---

It seems clear to me that the Taliban, if they re-conquered Afghanistan would provide safe haven for international terrorists.

---

a) it seems that they were ready to sell out Al Qaeda after 911 and were not taken up on the deal, and

b) even if they did terrorist camps can be identified and taken out with surgical strikes without throwing zillions of dollars and endless numbers of lives into trying to dominate the country. And, there are other more subtle and long term effective ways to deal with the problem.

Of course this assumes that terrorists are a problem for the corporate order in the first place. They might be a revenue source instead.

quote:

---

If ISAF were running around Afghanistan like the US did,....

---

I think a better term is does. And the US is the dominant foreign force in Afghanistan, and do the average Afghans make any distinction between ISAF and US forces? Canada is besmirched merely by being associated with the US in its international enterprises. We would be better off joining a coalition of unaligned nations.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Nothing like thoughtful, balanced analysis. I'll post more as I come across them.

---

1. Neither of those quotes support your contention as to what "many on the left" have said. Not even close.

2. Don't give me random, unattributed quotes. Name names and/or supply links. Otherwise how do I know they can be considered to speak for the left? Anybody can go dumpster diving and find some isolated quote and then claim it represents an entire anonymous group of people.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:

Some random, unattributed internet quotes:

"After all what is more dangerous to the international rule of law, the aforementioned power who flount it routinely or a gang of armed individuals in a remote, isolated area of the globe who do not have the means to even cover their own territory, much less to threaten other nations ?"

---

I'm pretty sure that's a paraphrasing of Zbigniew Brzezinski's take on Afghanistan and Soviet relations.

As to the part about ISAF not going around like the US, kicking in doors, etc? I have seen Canadian troops doing exactly that on CTV & CBC nightly news. There was a thread on it some time ago.

"The war on terror is really a war between terrorists and Islamic terrorism is a convenient boogeyman used by the corporate world order and US nutbars to generate fear and loathing and create mob support for their expansionist polices."

and :

"The realtiy of Islamic extremist terrorism is that it is highly over rated for one, and for two it is not a military problem."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Fortunately for me, I don't have to go far to see leftists dismissing the threat of international terrorism. Jerry West, above, was kind enough to supply these statements:

---

Cars are more dangerous. As are handguns in the USA.

"Terrorism" is a fact. It is marginally preventable, but not something that can be erradicated. You might as well declare war on Avalanches.

[ 26 January 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Fortunately for me, I don't have to go far to see leftists dismissing the threat of international terrorism.

---

Firstly, I doubt that even Jerry West himself believes that he speaks for the entire "left" so even if his quotes supported your position, you haven't made your case.

Secondly, Jerry's putting the threat of terrorism into perspective, not indicating that it isn't a problem at all. Nor is he sympathizing with Islamic extremism as you suggested "the left" does.

You've given us post after post berating progressives for a position that you appear to have created out of whole cloth. In your own way you've been as big a moral scold as James Dobson is in his and apparently because it allows you to ignore the very real arguments that people are presenting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
...This smells like a cause that will quickly be championed by those who want to spend an even bigger chunk of our tax dollars on "defence" than we already are.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Some random, unattributed internet quotes:

"After all what is more dangerous to the international rule of law, the aforementioned power who flount it routinely or a gang of armed individuals in a remote, isolated area of the globe who do not have the means to even cover their own territory, much less to threaten other nations ?"

"The mission in Afghanistan has already cost Canadians more than $4 billion. That money could have been used to fund human needs in Canada or abroad. Instead it is being used to kill civilians in Afghanistan and advance the interests of corporations."

Nothing like thoughtful, balanced analysis. I'll post more as I come across them.

---

These quotes are neither random nor unattributed. The first is from HERE, and the second is from HERE.