Author
|
Topic: Discuss Afghanistan from an anti-imperialist point of view
|
|
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798
|
posted 05 April 2006 10:16 PM
Imperialists? Canadians have never been imperialists.Imperial henchmen for the Brits and perhaps now as henchmen for NATO's unworkable attempt to bring western democracy to a country that wants to kill a man for apostacy.The whole scheme is a waste of lives and money.Estimates of 20 years of involvement and two billion looneys spent so far give vision to a momentous boondoggle. Leave the Afghans to their feudal society.No western adventure will succeed in the face of generations of Afghanistan's culture of resistance to forced change..It is more productive to offer immigration to Afghans who aspire to a different life. More coalition service personnel have died from aircraft and vehicle crashes than from hostile actions but they are still dead.Waste of lives and resources.
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
farnival
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6452
|
posted 05 April 2006 10:32 PM
if i may humbly suggest an excellent book that did more to enlighten me on the reality, due to the history, of the Afghan situation....Tournament of Shadows : The Great Game and the Race for Empire in Central Asia (A Cornelia and Michael Bessie Book) (Hardcover) by Karl E. Meyer, Shareen Blair Brysac the thing i got out of it, more than anything, is that Afghanistan never really had a central govt. and historically has been ruled by emirs (currently called warlords) governing fortress cities, and it has never been able to be controlled by any outside force, including the powerful Ghengis Khan, said to have the largest empire in human history. get out of there fast i say. now, before it's too late.
From: where private gain trumps public interest, and apparently that's just dandy. | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Polunatic2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12238
|
posted 05 April 2006 10:45 PM
This is an excellent article.Eric Margolis Don't Expect to Change the Afghanis quote: As Canadian casualties mount in Afghanistan, it�s important to correct three major falsehoods being promoted by the ill-informed, flag-waving media. 1. “Taliban are terrorists.” 2. “Canada is defending ‘democracy’ in Afghanistan.” 3. “Canada is defending women’s rights...” Cheerleading for war and flag-waving may sell papers, but it is not responsible journalism.
From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 05 April 2006 11:07 PM
quote: Originally posted by jester: Imperialists? Canadians have never been imperialists.
There are many who disagree. quote: "The history of the RCMP's role as troops of Canadian imperialism gets re-written by cultural products of singing Mounties," says Prof. Gittings, an assistant professor of English at the University of Alberta. "The RCMP have always stood in as an icon for the nation, but it is one that is freighted with ideological baggage and the colonization of the west."
quote: Canadian imperialism and colonization has been suppressing Indigenous people on their own land for over 500 years, he explained as he stressed the need for unification of all oppressed people to stop this racist war machine.
Canadian Imperialism Helps Smash Haiti for Profit quote: SNC-Lavalin, Canada's largest engineering company, Is a near-perfect reflection of the policies of the Canadian government. From their bullet production for the occupation of Iraq to their mining-related projects in Namibia, Guyana, Mozambique, to their projects in Cree, Mohawk and Innu lands, here at home, their hands have been bloodied in virtually every place around the globe where there are resources to be exploited and populations to be pacified. Their corporate profits benefit from and dictate the policies of Empire. SNC-Lavalin is Canadian imperialism.
quote: The myth that Canadian imperialism is "gentler and kinder" than other powers has enabled Canadian soldiers to be accepted in many parts of the world as "peace-keepers," often with the approval of anti-imperialist leaders and workers. The Somali people found, to their grief, that the Canadian army there served the interests of imperialism, suppressing working people through torture and murder. The Canadian ruling class has been as brutal as any other, but because of its relative weakness, it is unable to play as heavy a cop role.
quote: Mining is one of the most important means by which Canadian imperialism profits from the labor of toilers in the semi-colonial world. Canadian imperialism has invested $6.4 billion in Indonesia, most of it in oil, gas, and mining.
quote: Yes, Canada's economy is small relative to the U.S. But that is true for many other advanced capitalist countries. When Belgium, Holland, Italy, France and company are thrown into the mix, then Canada can be seen very clearly to belong in the same category as other middle-level advanced capitalist and imperialist countries.The world-economy standpoint also highlights the not-unimportant fact that there are many countries that themselves experience oppression by Canada's own transnational corporations. Canada is, after all, the home of Talisman, Bombardier and Barrick Gold. Canada is home to banks whose long stranglehold on the economies of much of the Caribbean is a matter of some importance. In economic terms, Canada's relationship with the Third World is that of an imperialist power."
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pandemic, incompetent politicians
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5012
|
posted 05 April 2006 11:20 PM
Well, I won't bother posting discussion, will just refer people to one of my posts in which supporting articles are linked, and clearly enough identified or explained, I believe clearly enough anyway.http://www.cmaq.net/en/node/24047 cmaq.net, for those who wonder what it is, is the Indymedia Centre website of Quebec, so there's no danger in going to the above webpage. The original post of that page, as well as at least an additional comment post that I later added, provide links to articles strongly pertinent to this discussion forum. Mike Corbeil
From: Quebec | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798
|
posted 05 April 2006 11:27 PM
quote: Originally posted by al-Qa'bong: [QB][/QB]
Oh you kidder! The rose,the thistle and the shamrock intertwined indeed.The Maple Leaf Forever...reminds me of grade school textbooks that glorified the Empire but failed to tell Riel's side of the story. Henchmen to imperialists in the Boer War. Cannon fodder for the Brits in WWI-used as replacements in British formations. Not as Imperialists in their own right but in typical Canadian fashion,as the minions of others.Vimy Ridge indeed!
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798
|
posted 05 April 2006 11:41 PM
quote: Originally posted by M. Spector: [QB][/QB]
There are many who disagree OK, I withdraw the quote.It was made in the narrow context of international military adventurism,not economic imperialism or national subjugation of FN. Your point is relevant to Afghanistan in the broader sense.Since the Brits backstabbed us by giving the panhandle to the Gringos,I have blamed every other unsavory episode in Canada's history on them also. I now stand corrected for my bias and grudgingly assume the burden of guilt for association with an imperialist aggressor.
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798
|
posted 05 April 2006 11:51 PM
quote: Originally posted by farnival: if i may humbly suggest an excellent book that did more to enlighten me on the reality, due to the history, of the Afghan situation....Tournament of Shadows : The Great Game and the Race for Empire in Central Asia (A Cornelia and Michael Bessie Book) (Hardcover) by Karl E. Meyer, Shareen Blair Brysac the thing i got out of it, more than anything, is that Afghanistan never really had a central govt. and historically has been ruled by emirs (currently called warlords) governing fortress cities, and it has never been able to be controlled by any outside force, including the powerful Ghengis Khan, said to have the largest empire in human history. get out of there fast i say. now, before it's too late.
Makes sense. There is no concept of a central government to Afghans.It does not appear logical that forcing this foreign concept upon them will meet with any more success than previous British and Russian attempts to enforce their foreign concepts of governance.
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 06 April 2006 01:16 AM
quote: Originally posted by jester:
Makes sense. There is no concept of a central government to Afghans.It does not appear logical that forcing this foreign concept upon them will meet with any more success than previous British and Russian attempts to enforce their foreign concepts of governance.
The US-managed elections in Afghanistan couldn't have been more fraudulent if the backdrop was Central America. Banana anyone ?. [ 06 April 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 06 April 2006 08:29 AM
quote: Afghanistan: Not the reasons why we're there. 1. We are not there to rebuild it. U.S.-led forces entered Afghanistan in 2001 for one reason — al-Qaeda was there. If Canadian forces want to rebuild a country, there are lots to go to without having to attack first, then fight an insurrection. It's an after-the-fact rationalization. 2. We are not there to liberate it, though Chief of the Defence Staff General Rick Hillier confused the issue by suggesting Canada went in, as it did 66 years ago when it joined the Second World War against the Nazis. Afghanistan was not occupied; we invaded it and installed a new government, which then invited us in. 3. We are not there because the people clearly want us. The reception is mixed. That's because the locals know their history. When the U.S. first got involved, in the 1980s, it sent in Islamist fanatics like Osama bin Laden, who helped warlords overthrow a Soviet-backed, secular regime.
Rick Salutin
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Andrew_Jay
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10408
|
posted 06 April 2006 10:11 AM
quote: Originally posted by John Chuckman: That recording, along with other post-invasion recordings, was almost certainly a CIA fraud, for Osama bin Laden had to be killed in the heavy bombing of his mountain redoubt. . . . Activities in Afghanistan and Iraq are building a vast reservoir of resentments and a training school for future terrorists.
I assume Chuckman has some supporting evidence for his claims? What, he doesn't? I'm shocked, shocked and awed.A CIA team (I believe the commander has a book out now) had Bin Laden cornered in the mountains near Tora Bora, but could not get General Franks to send ground forces in (they apparently weren't equipped to fight at that altitude). Huge fuck-up on the part of the U.S., but that doesn't excuse Chuckman's foolishness. More importantly however; telling the Afghans, "sorry folks, you don't deserve any help from Canada, we're going to leave you to continue languishing in poverty and oppression . . . see, it's because you're just not worth the effort" isn't going to build a vast reservoir of resentment? I wish I lived in bizzaro world, seems like an interesting place, to say the least. quote: Originally posted by Rick Salutin We are not there because the people clearly want us. The reception is mixed.
It's funny. There have been surveys of how Afghans feel about the presence of foreign forces, and they have overwhelmingly been positive. Of course, they're dismissed around here as being unreliable (and it's quite possible that they are unreliable). I guess Salutin has more sound evidence to back his claim that the people "clearly" don't want Canadian forces there? quote: Originally posted by Birguy Just one: How does a person develop such a simplistic view of the situation?
Look around you, I was wondering the same thing about most people here too.I think the best part about Harper's "take note" debate is that we're going to see all four parties coming out and more or less supporting the mission. I wonder if our "anti-imperialist crusaders" will actually feel out of touch then? [ 06 April 2006: Message edited by: Andrew_Jay ]
From: Extremism is easy. You go right and meet those coming around from the far left | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
sgm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5468
|
posted 06 April 2006 01:00 PM
quote: I guess Salutin has more sound evidence to back his claim that the people "clearly" don't want Canadian forces there?
Salutin makes no such claim: it's your fabrication. He says the reaction to our presence is "mixed."
From: I have welcomed the dawn from the fields of Saskatchewan | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 06 April 2006 02:10 PM
Print out this checklist and keep it handy during Monday night's Commons debate on Afghanistan.Tick off each essential debating point as it is covered by the NDP's speaker(s): [ ] Operation Enduring Freedom was illegal in 2001 and remains so today. [ ] Canada is now participating in the illegal OEF. [ ] The people we are "hunting down" in Afghanistan had no quarrel with Canada (until now). [ ] Why are we not being told how many hundreds of Afghans and others our troops have killed? [ ] NATO is an aggressive imperialist alliance and Canada must withdraw from it. [ ] The Afghan elections were rigged and the government we are defending is illegitimate. [ ] Even if we didn't hand prisoners over to the US, the Afghan government and legal system cannot be trusted to deal with them fairly. [ ] Reconstruction and humanitarian aid are better done by unarmed NGOs than by soldiers. [ ] Stephen Harper and Paul Martin should be tried for war crimes. [ ] We are in Afghanistan only to make up to the US for our less-than-total commitment to the illegal Iraq war. [ ] This war is really about oil. [ ] Canada's presence is freeing up US troops for redeployment elsewhere. [ ] Every Canadian soldier's death or wounding is a tragic waste and will make no difference to the future of Afghanistan. [ ] Bring the troops home NOW. Scoring: 0-1 points: about par for the course. 2-5 points: a breakthrough for the NDP, but really, Gwynne Dyer could have done better. 6-9 points: you're kidding, right? 10-14 points: speech was ghostwritten by Eric Margolis or Noam Chomsky. ------ Link to other thread on What is the NDP's position on Afghanistan?
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 06 April 2006 02:44 PM
This thread contains some useful debating points:10 Reasons to Debate Afghanistan ..... And it's 1-2-3, what are we fighting for? Selective Outrage quote: The implication is clear: By "liberating" Afghanistan, the Christian West now stakes a claim in its internal affairs. Recognizing this influence, vocal leaders have discovered a sudden interest in international law and universal values -- but it is a piecemeal recognition, avoiding the systemic issues of human rights violations seen in Afghanistan on a daily basis. Before one applauds the outcome, it is important to understand that [Abdul] Rahman's religious freedom case is a symptom of a much larger problem.While Family Research Council (FRC) President Tony Perkins laments that "such a 'trial' is a flagrant violation of Article 18 of the United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights," he does not cite Article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: the right to education. The Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission (AIHRC) reports that the number of educational facilities for women has actually been reduced in the past year. In southern Afghanistan, the United Nations reports about 300 girls' schools were burned down in 2005. Nationwide, women's literacy rates are half that of men. Some provinces report literacy rates of 3 percent for women. For Afghanistan's approximately 15 million women, "universal values" do not include women's rights. A UNICEF report released last week warned of the grim statistics concerning Afghan women and children: ... The case of Abdul Rahman has drawn attention to Afghanistan's judicial system, which has been in dire need of reform since it was set up at the end of 2001. But, other than Rahman's case, most commentators have a meager understanding of how this system has affected the lives of Afghans, especially women, its greatest victims. Amnesty International notes that "the current criminal justice system is simply unwilling or unable to address issues of violence against women. At the moment (October 2003) it is more likely to violate the rights of women than to protect and uphold their rights".... The main legal document of Afghanistan is the constitution, drafted and passed in early 2004 with the oversight of then U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad. In March 2004, we warned of the constitution's ambivalent stance toward women's rights. ... The New York Times sarcastically commented that if Rahman was to be executed, "maybe Afghanistan should also return to stoning women to death for adultery." Perhaps the Times will recall last spring, when 29-year-old Amina of Badakhshan province was stoned to death after being accused of adultery by her husband and convicted by local officials.There was no international outcry from the United States or other foreign countries and no attempts to get President Karzai to enforce universal human rights. ... Note that Bush administration officials have remained entirely silent on the fate of a brave Afghan woman named Malalai Joya. Joya is one of the youngest members of Afghanistan's parliament and a fierce critic of U.S.-backed fundamentalist warlords. She has survived four assassination attempts and has received over 100 death threats. The only action the Karzai government has taken recently is to withdraw the security guards that she was previously provided. In early 2005, the position of U.N. independent expert on human rights in Afghanistan, held by Cherif Bassiouni, was eliminated at the request of the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Just before he was fired, Bassiouni had published a report describing "arbitrary arrest, illegal detentions and abuses committed by the United States-led coalition forces," as well as activities by these forces which "fall under the internationally accepted definition of torture."
[ 06 April 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 08 April 2006 12:13 AM
An interview with Ahmed Rashid, one of Pakistan’s leading journalists (excerpts): quote: Q. Since the invasion of Afghanistan in October 2001, the United States has provided about $4 billion or $5 billion in aid to that country, is that right?A. Yes. If you take into account the rebuilding of the Afghan military. Q. That's less than what the United States is spending in one month in Iraq. A. The U.S. is spending something like $6 billion a month in Iraq. It's spending $1 billion a month in Afghanistan for its military effort. It has something like 15,000, 16,000 troops in Afghanistan, and they are costing about a billion dollars a month. And here we have a total figure of perhaps the U.S. has been giving, on average, about less than a billion dollars a year for economic reconstruction. When the U.S. is giving so little, it's difficult to persuade other big donors—the Europeans, the Arabs, the Japanese—to give more. As a result, what we've seen is that actually reconstruction has been actually terribly, terribly slow. There have been a couple of roads that have been built. Not a single new power station has been built. In fact, there is not even proper power in Kabul. Only about a third of the city gets electricity. Without power, of course, you can't have industry, you can't pump water, all sorts of things. So what has been really lacking has been a serious effort at reconstruction, something that President Bush and Prime Minister Blair, all the world leaders had promised in 2001. Q. Only about a third of Kabul has electricity. What's the situation in the rest of the country, if that's what's happening in the capital city? A. In many parts of the country it's even worse. Some cities have managed to import electricity, like Herat in western Afghanistan is importing electricity from Iran. Kunduz, a town in the northeast, is importing electricity from Tajikistan. But the point is that nobody is putting down the kind of money which is needed to build power stations. Q. You may have put your finger on one of the reasons why development money has been slow to go to Afghanistan. In a late January article you wrote in the Daily Telegraph, “Donors have been frustrated at the growing corruption, nepotism, and drugs culture at senior levels of government in Kabul, the lack of capacity in many ministries and the failure to deal with human rights abuses.” A. Certainly that's true, but it's a vicious circle. What we've seen over the last five years in Afghanistan is the fact that because reconstruction has not taken place, nor job creation, investment in agriculture, by which 17% of the population live, people have grown back to growing what is the simplest and most lucrative crop, which is poppy. With poppy comes, of course, massive corruption. Poppy is outside the formal economy. It's part of the black economy, and a lot of the profits are taken out of Afghanistan. But those that remain form an enormous bank, if you like, for corruption and corrupt practices. The other thing that certainly has happened is that because the reconstruction has been missing, there has been enormous speculation in property, in drugs, in all of the kind of nonproductive aspects of the economy. And thirdly, there is a lot of disillusionment amongst the government. As I say, it is a chicken-and-egg situation. The Afghans want reconstruction and they want economic development. That's not going to come without foreign help and foreign money. And with that foreign money then should come, of course, scrutiny and better management techniques and people making sure that there is no corruption. I think an opportunity after 9/11, after winning the war, has really been lost here. And now, of course, you are faced with enormous corruption, a huge drugs problem, something that can't go away or can't be pushed out of the window very easily. .... Q. Given the increasingly unstable security situation in Afghanistan, whatever happened to those pipelines, the pipe dreams of bringing natural gas and oil from Central Asia through Afghanistan? Is that all on hold now? A. Actually, they have been revived. The main plan in the 1990s, if you remember, the Americans were trying to do a deal with the Taliban to build a pipeline from Turkmenistan through Afghanistan and on to India. The idea of a gas and oil pipeline from Turkmenistan, which could then perhaps suck in other Central Asian oil and gas entities, is very much on the agenda.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 10 April 2006 01:59 PM
The cheerleading continues tonight quote: In Ottawa, all political parties have voiced support for the mission. It was the previous Liberal government that made the decision to send troops to Afghanistan, and the members of that caucus say they remain fully supportive of the role Canadians are playing there. Liberal Defence critic Ujjal Dosanjh said he hopes the debate will provide a boost of morale for those who are overseas.Mr. Ignatieff told CTV's Question Period yesterday that he strongly supports the Afghan mission, but that he thinks "when Canadian lives are on the line Parliament should be consulted. . . . There are Canadian families who have made the ultimate sacrifice here. It doesn't get more serious than this. So I'm glad we have a debate tonight. There may come a time when Parliament should be heard in a formal vote on this matter." The Bloc Québécois also supports the mission. But a party spokesman said yesterday that its members have questions about matters such as the treatment of prisoners and whether our troops will use controversial weapons like land mines. The NDP, which led the call for tonight's debate, wants to ask about the cost and the nature of the mission, as well as how long it is anticipated to continue.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 18 April 2006 05:34 PM
Now where was I? Oh yeah...There was a retch-inducing episode during the so-called "debate" in Parliament last week, when the NDP raised the issue of Abdul Rahman, the Christian who was threatened with death for converting from Islam. The government hack who responded (was it Stockwell Day?) tried to make it sound as if the decision to spare Rahman from execution resulted from Stephen Harper's intercession on his behalf with President Karzai. He added triumphantly that it was the presence of our 2200 troops in Afghanistan that gave ol' Harpoon the diplomatic clout to be able to save Rahman - a clear justification for the presence of our troops there! The case of Rahman got a high profile in the west, of course, because he is a Christian, and it provided an opportunity for right-wing Christians to pretend that they are interested in the rights of individual Afghans against the Islamic fundamentalists who rule Afghanistan. At the same time those critics support the presence of foreign military forces that are helping to prop up that same oppressive regime. And the apparent success of their campaign of hypocritical outrage has only served to confirm in their own minds the idea that the presence of these western military forces is actually doing some good. They conveniently ignore, however, the thousands of non-Christian Afghans who are suffering at the hands of the same Afghan fundamentalists whose rule we are helping to prop up. These cases never get any press in the West. Basic human rights like the right to education, health, and the protection of children from exploitation and abuse, are being violated thousands of times every day. According to UNICEF, 600 children under the age of five die every day in Afghanistan, mostly due to preventable illnesses, a mortality rate that is the 4th worst in the world. Some 50 women die every day due to obstetric complications. One in five children does not survive long enough even to reach school age. Others will drop out of school, to support their families. Half of the girls who should be in school are kept at home. Who spoke for them in the "debate"?
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851
|
posted 19 April 2006 10:48 AM
Jester made a key point earlier, that we are basically one of anglo-american imperialism's henchmen like Australia. While recently, we have deviated a bit from our traditional role (thank Quebec for that), with the Conservatives we are firmly back in the imperial column with Australia.Harper's rhetoric is the main problem here as he plays up the (anglo) nationalism card to cover for kissing american ass. This line is being articulated in the right-wing media (Macleans, the National Post, Globe and Mail) whose full force is only now being felt across the country. The push to align with the US is giving rise to strange language as Harper's is echoing the American line from 2001 (22 minutes did a good segment on this), but it is being amplified through all the corporate media outlets who are throwing their weight behind the Conservatives. It's interesting that supporters of intervention in Afghanistan are trumpeting up all the achievements of occupation (disingenuous as nobody would argue that the Taliban were amongst the most repressive societies on earth, so even a tiny change would be an improvement), while playing down the complete destruction of Iraqi society.
From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|