quote:

---

Early yesterday, the cobalt skies and cool highland air over the Arghandab River valley resounded with the desultory thud of coalition bombing raids on mostly uninhabited areas of the Panjwaii district located south of the river.

Those attacks were not intended to inflict human casualties – the area is largely abandoned – but to serve as a demonstration of the immense firepower that NATO forces mean to train upon Taliban holdouts if the unfolding military operation fails to achieve its goals peacefully.

---

Silly waste of ordinance

1. Cultural translation - We know what it means in Western culture for a big show of force. What exactly does a giant show of force show to people that have been fighting many many years vs what was likely a more robust invading force (Soviet). What does it show to the people we are trying to assist (hey, we destroy your land for the fun of it!)... And what does it show to the nuetrals in the region?

2. Effect on Guerilla troops. As far as I know, the majority of NATO troops coming home in coffins are from improvised explosives and suicide bombers... Does a giant show of force do anything to the Taliban farmer that runs out at night to set up a few trip line explosives (but otherwise looks and behaves as one of the farmers you are helping)? If anything, it reenforces the need for their continued use of these tactics ^^

This PR stunt if anything will have 2 major effects. The troops showing off the power probably feel a bit better about what they got, and our media loves to show off military displays of power.

..... Frustration on the soldiers part, if you can't take it out on the enemy, because you do not know where they are, then might as well blow off some steam on the environment.

quote:

---

They are hoping to entice wavering Taliban adherents to put down their weapons and instead accept peace offerings in the form of cargo containers stuffed with Yuletide treasures – farming implements, cooking oil, seeds for planting and other necessities of life, all scarce commodities in this war-ravaged territory.

Wherever the offer is spurned, however, coalition forces are prepared to respond in more bellicose fashion, training their weaponry upon Taliban fighters while trying to avoid civilian casualties.

---

[ 22 December 2006: Message edited by: sgm ]

quote:

---

Wherever the offer is spurned, however, coalition forces are prepared to respond in more bellicose fashion, training their weaponry upon Taliban fighters while trying to avoid civilian casualties.

---

The ordinance used no doubt probably included enough cluster bombs to ensure that it becomes neutral tetitory for generations.

So if one can neutralize those areas and deny them to the >terrorists>it is easier to concentrate on the remaining ones

Did anyone ask > what about those people that normally live there>

Not bloodly likely!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Let's hope the whole campaign isn't a useless and expensive publicity stunt.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:

Silly waste of ordinance

Let's hope the whole campaign isn't a useless and expensive publicity stunt.

---

Actually I'd prefer they keep using their "massive" weapons to "demonstrate NATO's immense firepower" instead of, you know, killing Afghanis.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
As we speak, on Christmas eve, NATO troops have a large contingent of Taliban forces surrounded in Panjwai Province. About 700 to 900 Taliban troops (According to the Dec 23 National Post) are surrounded in a ten square mile rectangle by Canadian forces on the northern edge, British forces on the west side, and a combination of American-British forces to the south. The eastern side is Route Summit, a Canadian-built road deemed to be impassible to the Taliban.

That fancy firepower force that this thread started about will now be used to annihilate the Taliban forces in that area, unless they surrender. Annihilate or surrender, I'm pretty much ok either way. The Taliban have had every opportunity to demonstrate why they have no right to exist. It's called war.

---

Peace on Earth. Goodwill to all men.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
As we speak, on Christmas eve, NATO troops have a large contingent of Taliban forces surrounded in Panjwai Province. About 700 to 900 Taliban troops (According to the Dec 23 National Post) are surrounded in a ten square mile rectangle by Canadian forces on the northern edge, British forces on the west side, and a combination of American-British forces to the south. The eastern side is Route Summit, a Canadian-built road deemed to be impassible to the Taliban.

That fancy firepower force that this thread started about will now be used to annihilate the Taliban forces in that area, unless they surrender. Annihilate or surrender, I'm pretty much ok either way. The Taliban have had every opportunity to demonstrate why they have no right to exist. It's called war.

---

Some details missing from this sketch:

quote:

---

Elsewhere, about 100 Canadians are taking part in a joint operation by the Afghan National Army and NATO forces in the Panjwaii district, west of Kanahar city.

The mission began a week ago, and the Canadian battle group commander, Lt.-Col. Omer Lavoie, says his soldiers are proceeding with caution because it can be difficult to tell the Taliban from the civilians.

"There is a mix of combatants and non-combatants, so it's certainly one of the reasons we aren't going to go in there with guns blazing," Lavoie told CBC News.

There has been no fighting yet, but NATO forces have reportedly surrounded what they believe are hundreds of Taliban fighters inside 10 square kilometres.

Canadians are stationed along the northern flank of this region near the village of Howz-e Hadad. American and British forces are deployed along the southern and western corridors.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Annihilate or surrender, I'm pretty much ok either way.

---

You really don't see differences between Taliban fighters and trapped Saudi school girls? Between Saudi ideologues and Canadian opponents of the Taliban?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardy:
If you do reject violence as a means to a political end I look forward to your condemnation of Castro's revolution, the Sandinista victory, the Republican battle against Franco, and the victory of the Allies over the Nazis, with anticipation.

---

The comparison I was making was between Brett Mann's casual indifference to the possible extermination of 700-900 (his figures) "Taliban" and the callous killing of 15 Saudi schoolgirls by their religion-crazed authorities.

Brett Mann seems to think the latter event justifies his attitude, even though the so-called Taliban in question had nothing to do with the deaths of those schoolgirls: the only thing they presumably have in common with the Saudi authorities is that they are Muslims, though probably of different sects.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
I had second thoughts about it, until I remembered something - a story last year or so from Saudi Arabia about a girls school which caught fire, and in which all the students burned to death, because religious authorities decreed they were not dressed properly to exit the building. This is the kind of mentality we are dealing with, and cultural sensitivities only go so far.

---

Accusing Brett Mann of "hatred and fear of all things Muslim" is over the top, don't you think?

quote:

---

Those attacks were not intended to inflict human casualties – the area is largely abandoned – but to serve as a demonstration of the immense firepower that NATO forces mean to train upon Taliban holdouts if the unfolding military operation fails to achieve its goals peacefully.

---

Is it actually possible for a military operation to achieve its goals peacefully?

Of course it's the exact opposite.

Because the argument was made by a left-winger. Are you arguing in support of Brett Mann's case, or just showing off your grasp of conservative history?

>edited to add the last seven words of Fidel's quote, that I forgot to paste<

[ 27 December 2006: Message edited by: Cardy ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardy:
Of course it's the exact opposite.

Because the argument was made by a left-winger. Are you arguing in support of Brett Mann's case, or just showing off your grasp of conservative history?

---

2. Cardy posts a note asking why this is relevant, given that Brett Mann is a Canadian leftist, so his arguments should be the opposite of the conservatives argument

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
As we speak, on Christmas eve, NATO troops have a large contingent of Taliban forces surrounded in Panjwai Province. About 700 to 900 Taliban troops (According to the Dec 23 National Post) are surrounded in a ten square mile rectangle by Canadian forces on the northern edge, British forces on the west side, and a combination of American-British forces to the south. The eastern side is Route Summit, a Canadian-built road deemed to be impassible to the Taliban.

That fancy firepower force that this thread started about will now be used to annihilate the Taliban forces in that area, unless they surrender. Annihilate or surrender, I'm pretty much ok either way. The Taliban have had every opportunity to demonstrate why they have no right to exist. It's called war.

---

You really come off like some kind of Nazi propogandist talking about Stalingrad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardy:

2. Cardy posts a note asking why this is relevant, given that Brett Mann is a Canadian leftist, so his arguments should be the opposite of the conservatives argument.

---

You seem to think that left and right are merely appelations, or like football jerseys, as if one becomes left or right simply because one claims to be on the "left," or wears the team colours.

So yes, it would stand to reason that a "leftist" would generally find themselves arguing differently than a conservative.

[ 27 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

I had second thoughts about it, until I remembered something - a story last year or so from Saudi Arabia about a girls school which caught fire, and in which all the students burned to death, because religious authorities decreed they were not dressed properly to exit the building. This is the kind of mentality we are dealing with, and cultural sensitivities only go so far. -Brett Mann

---

You, Brett, Nato and Cardy (who seems to support your arguments) should not ride the high horse of morality.

There has been way more than 15 people frozen to death in Canada for lack of housing. One can argue that capitalist authorities decreed that it is a fair cost of operating a capitalist system.

Only to the naive that this war in Afghanistan is about rescuing Afghanis and their infrastructure. It is the white West doing what the white West has been doing to non-white "others" for about a century: subjugating people and exploiting their lands and resources.

I do not see the world through a neo-colonialist lens, although I acknowledge the unfathomable depth of damage caused by colonialism. I also acknowledge where it has benefited the colonized. Colonization is not synonymous with exploitation, even if it usually turns out that way.

Steven Harper - my impulse is to dislike and deeply distrust the man, based solely on his political and intellectual indebtedness to the worst in American conservativism. I also have no difficulty acknowledging the surprising good things he has done - Quebec as a nation; strengthening the military; ditching income trusts; not challenging the court decision which overturned the secrecy act ... I'm a realist, I think, before anything. It is that realism that led me to the left, and now sometimes seems to be leading me away from it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Stimulating discussion, folks, and hopefully a productive one. Am I a leftist? Sometimes I'm not so sure anymore.

---

Re-arming the mission.

Now the soldiers ask for money for local distribution. Sounds like bribe money to me.

quote:

---

• Our troops are doing an outstanding job, but our local commanders need small sums of cash they can use to contribute to small micro-projects on the ground. These monies would enable our troops to act quickly to resolve local economic needs they see on patrol.

---

They want more money to reconstruct Afghanistan. But if we go by previous experience it take about nine dollars of military expenditure to do one dollars worth of reconstruction.

quote:

---

• Aid must be increased in amount and effectiveness. Afghanistan is receiving one of the lowest per capita investments of any international reconstruction effort in the last 30 years.

---

Ah yes, Karzai must be making a fortune selling off all the prized assets and infrastructure Afghanistan is so well-known for.

Sidra, you said, among other things, "Is there a difference between the ravages created by some pseudo-religious spinning in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia and the ravages created by a capitalist system?"

Ottawa?!?! Kabul?!?!

Like say, the horrible state of the German economy in 1948 was all the fault of the government of the GDR, and the NSDAP and second world war had nothing to do with it. Now we will compare Bonn (48) to New York, (48) and try and say the comparison will give us a meaningful comparison for sociological purposes, to compare the two governing systems.

Apt you are not.

[ 28 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

So, Sidra has postulated that while we will go to hell and back protesting the imposition of rigorous Islamic styled dress codes upon women in Saudi Arabia, and the clear evidence that this is enforced to the point where some women even die because of it, we do not likewise find ourselves equally outraged when homeless people die in the streets because society has enshrined a princple of indivdualistic self reliance.

Rightly, in the first case we condemn the system and the ideologically founded norms it expresses, while in the second we do not, because we are adherents to ideologically founded norms that deem death by freezing to be acceptable consequences of our "higher ideals."

Very few would lay the blame for these deaths upon the system, and when in fact Jack Layton did indeed suggest that those in government are responsible for those deaths, he was forced to retract the statement amid a great hue and cry from numerous quarters.

So, in fact your "thought experiment," is not one.

[ 28 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Well, that is impressive. My interpretation was he said: "Is there a difference between the ravages created by some pseudo-religious spinning in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia and the ravages created by a capitalist system?"

quote:

---

Sidra, you said, among other things, "Is there a difference between the ravages created by some pseudo-religious spinning in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia and the ravages created by a capitalist system?" -Cardy

---

I was comparing the deaths of school girls (thet Brett Mann mentioned) to the deaths of homeless people in Canada.

In addition: When I mentioned "infrastructure", I meant the buildings that are being constructed and that NATO (and Canada) claim they are defending from being demolished by the Taliban.

I did not make a comparison between Canada's and Afghanistan' infrastructures.

[ 28 December 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardy:
Cueball: "Actually what he did was he undescored the functionality of ideologically founded norms of morality in social discourse."

Well, that is impressive. My interpretation was he said: "Is there a difference between the ravages created by some pseudo-religious spinning in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia and the ravages created by a capitalist system?"

And I said yes, there is. But your sentence was very impressive, really.

---

quote:

---

Cueball: Sidra invited comparisons between the 'ravages' experienced in Afghanistan and those in a capitalist country. I responded, comparing the capital of Afghanistan with that of a capitalist country, Canada.
Not very complicated; let me know if you need further clarification. -Cardy

---

quote:

---

Actually what Sidra did was undescore the functionality of ideologically founded norms of morality in social discourse.
So, Sidra has postulated that while we will go to hell and back protesting the imposition of rigorous Islamic styled dress codes upon women in Saudi Arabia, and the clear evidence that this is enforced to the point where some women even die because of it, we do not likewise find ourselves equally outraged when homeless people die in the streets because society has enshrined a princple of indivdualistic self reliance. -Cueball

---

And if you didn't mean to say "Is there a difference between the ravages created by some pseudo-religious spinning in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia and the ravages created by a capitalist system," which clearly invites a comparison between Afghanistan and capitalist countries, why did you say it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardy:
Sidra - if you didn't mean infrastructure, why did you use the word?

---

Well perhaps some people are ESL. Why don't we try this in Arabic or Farsi or Urdu, say?

[ 28 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Sidra - if you didn't mean infrastructure, why did you use the word?
And if you didn't mean to say "Is there a difference between the ravages created by some pseudo-religious spinning in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia and the ravages created by a capitalist system," which clearly invites a comparison between Afghanistan and capitalist countries, why did you say it?

Admittedly it was a silly thing for you to say; I would much rather you talked about the functionality of ideologically founded norms. Way cooler. -Cardy

---

I tried to express myself in english, which is neither my first nor second nor third language.

Now, How come Cueball understood exactly what I meant but you didn't, Cardy ? Any reason other than you being either dumb or for some reason keeping away from people whose mother-tongue is not the same as yours ? Yes, apparently you do travel around the world, but many people did and do travel, not to mingle with people but to subjugate and exploit.

About the word "silly":Haven't I read you in other fora routinely throwing this word at anyone with whom you disagree ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Not even remotely close to that, but I was applying a rather broader use of the term, one that might include people such as Pierre Elliot Trudeau. You are a little further to the right of that mark.

---

How much further to the right can you get than PET ?. By 1984, Trudeau's politics were indistinguishable from those of far right conservatives. With the little guy from Shawinigan at his side, PET rounded up, arrested and interrogated socialists, social workers, and union leaders in 1970. Richard Nixon was right about PET - he was an asshole. There's no such thing as a Liberal. Rene Levesque was a natural leader. Trudeau was a yes-man for the status quo.

[ 28 December 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

[ 28 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

Sidra, the English in your post was just fine, it was the ideas behind it that were foolish. Cueball 'understood' because you share common assumptions, ones that I think are foolish. Birds of a feather...

quote:

---

BTW, your descent into toilet jokes in the other thread was marked by an error in usage; no one would use the word 'silly' in that context. To describe you, however, the word is apt. -Cady

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardy:

Sidra, the English in your post was just fine, it was the ideas behind it that were foolish. Cueball 'understood' because you share common assumptions, ones that I think are foolish. Birds of a feather...

---

Thank you. I indicated that I was worried about this before. You are now indicating that the dispute was about some assumptions which you "think are foolish," not ones that you did not understand -- Just as long as "ol' Cardy ain't out of the loop," eh wot, as they say. Therefore, its really hard not to conclude that you were deliberately misconstruing Sidra's original statement to score cheap debating points, as I said before.

Further rubbing of Sidra's nose in Sidra's occassional lapses when dealing with a second language can therefore only really be seen as more of the same. But Lo. Check this out: Now you are saying that Sidra's language was fine, even when Sidra says that it was not and that the use of the word "infrastructure" needed further explanation, apparently because you were being intentionally obtuse.

Indeed, it is explained:

quote:

---

originally posted by Sidra;

In addition: When I mentioned "infrastructure", I meant the buildings that are being constructed and that NATO (and Canada) claim they are defending from being demolished by the Taliban.

I did not make a comparison between Canada's and Afghanistan' infrastructures.

---

But no, now you insist that Sidra meant what was preferable for you to argue with (Now: "the language was fine") despite the perfectly reasonable explanation. But you knew that was not what was meant all along right, you just disagreed with the "common assumptions."

Fine, unload the hay out of the barn then make everyone put it back. Its still hay.

For the record, I do not necessarily "share" Sidra's "assumptions" about the issue. Please show me were I said I did. (More misrepresentation.) More, I think more that this particular point about ideologically founded norms, is useful in terms of examining our culturally defined norms of morality.

I understood them and was able to explain them. I did this in order to prevent you from using your superior English language facility as a means of prejudicing the arguement based on "objective" factors of your fluency in the particular culture in which this forum is embeded.

How apt is it that this would come into play in the present context of discussion. Heh heh! Wot wot Cardy?

[ 29 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

He even repeated it, saying he was comparing the deaths of the Saudi school girls to the deaths of homeless people in capitalist countries, and you hopped in with your very wordy restatement of Sidra's original thought.

All very clearly written, and all very wrong in fact. You've spent a good number of posts trying desperately to distract attention from the inherent silliness of the statement that started this debate. For that reason I assumed you shared that post's assumptions; if not I guess you just enjoy arguing with me.

[ 29 December 2006: Message edited by: Cardy ]

I don't really see what your post has to do with either the original argument in this thread or even our recent diversion - Humanists? Military means?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardy RE: IMF kick-back and graft in Kabul:

Ah yes, Karzai must be making a fortune selling off all the prized assets and infrastructure Afghanistan is so well-known for.

---

Yes, everything from state-owned Gin and cotton mills, building construction, textiles, agriculture, coal and metals mining.

And there are reports that Afghani's believe exactly that - that Karzai and government officials are looting aid money and profiting from crooked privatization schemes while Afghanistan's infant mortality rates continue to be some of the worst in the third world.

The Enron-isation of Afghanistan?

quote:

---

Yes, yes there is. Compare Kabul and Ottawa, and let me know which is more ravaged, using any standard of human deprivation or disadvantage you like.

---

Saudi Arabia is one vast human rights nightmare. The same is true of Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Pakistan. And the fact that we have Canadian citizens freezing to death for lack of a roof over their heads is an insult to humanity. With the ocean of timber and natural resources heading south at firesale prices 24-7-365, homelessness in Canada is our national shame besides our appalling rates of child poverty.

And Canadian governments refuse to do anything about this tragedy. Ottawa was never destroyed by western-backed mercenaries and mujahideen raining rockets down on any of our cities. We were never carpet bombed by the U.S. military. So what IS Canada's excuse for having so many homeless citizens and children living anywhere below the poverty line ?. ]

[ 29 December 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cardy:
Cueball: I edited my last post before seeing your response. I don't think my changes would have changed yours, but apologies it they did.

I don't really see what your post has to do with either the original argument in this thread or even our recent diversion - Humanists? Military means?

I'll leave you to it, it's bedtime.

---

No it wouldn't change what I said. What I said is that you seem to think that you have the right to tell people what they believe, ala:

quote:

---

I think folks like you and Sidra honestly do believe that countries like Saudi Arabia and countries like Canada are equally awful, in different ways, and that's what Sidra - quite clearly - said.

---

This is a remarkable statement, in particular, since it follows a post where I quite clearly stated:

quote:

---

For the record, I do not necessarily "share" Sidra's "assumptions" about the issue. Please show me were I said I did. (More misrepresentation.) More, I think more that this particular point about ideologically founded norms, is useful in terms of examining our culturally defined norms of morality.

---

But your arrogant thick-headedness seems to have no bounds, so just keep telling me and others what it is we believe, ad infinitum. Others may simply read the record in order to find the truth.

[ 30 December 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]