Author
|
Topic: Afghanistan, Still losing the war, Part VIII
|
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019
|
posted 04 September 2008 04:53 AM
Continued from here.Sophistication of deadly Taliban attack concerning quote: The complexity of a Taliban attack that claimed the lives of three young Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan on Wednesday is worrisome because of its sophisticated nature, said Canada's top soldier.Gen. Walter Natynczyk, chief of defence staff, was commenting just hours after Cpl. Andrew Grenon, Cpl. Mike Seggie and Pte. Chad Horn were killed in an insurgent assault on their armoured vehicle while they were on a security patrol in the Zhari district of the southern Kandahar province. All three were members of the 2nd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry based in Shilo, Man., and were set to return to Canada as they neared the end of their six-month tour. Natynczyk said he wasn't sure of all the details, but said it was different than the usual Taliban strategy of using roadside bombs. "This attack is worrisome in the kind of sophistication of the attack," said Natynczyk.
'Sophistication'? Wtf?
From: On the heather | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 04 September 2008 10:15 AM
quote: Originally posted by N.Beltov: It's idiotic to wish for Canadian deaths. Idiotic. And politically suicidal.
Ok, N.Beltov, I hear you. I happen to wish, ardently, for the victory of the Afghan people over the invaders (especially the Canadian ones, because they're the ones I'm involuntarily financing). It's exactly the same wish I harboured during the U.S. war against the people of Indochina many years ago. Is that idiotic? Have I just committed political suicide? Am I now to be dubbed "Taliban Unionist"? This is a serious question, because quite honestly, Taliban Jack's messages of condolence over Canadian deaths, and no message ever of sympathy over hordes of Afghan deaths, leaves me feeling idiotic and politically suicidal. Please help straighten out this point of principle for me. In the course of it, you might let us know also whether you are hoping for the victory of the insurgency.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 04 September 2008 10:22 AM
quote: Originally posted by N.Beltov:
It's idiotic to wish for Canadian deaths. Idiotic. And politically suicidal. . ./~/ And it's the peaceniks who should be complaining about the Government of Canada sending Canadians to their deaths, not the Federal Government, and others I might add, using the deaths of Canadian soldiers to build a political base for themselves.
Exactly. So how to we convince yellow ribbon Canadians that this is a phony-baloney war on terror led by the U.S. that will bear no positive results? I think the left should concentrate on pointing out the fact that Karzai's election was a total fraud, and that Afghans are actually worse off today than during PDPA rule in which a dirty proxy war, a deniable war was fought and Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan occurred.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 04 September 2008 10:36 AM
quote: I happen to wish, ardently, for the victory of the Afghan people over the invaders ...
It doesn't follow that you, therefore, wish for Canadian deaths. You might want to see the Canadians leave. You might want to see the Canadians taken prisoner, and traded for the prisoners in Bagram, or Guantanamo. There is a whole range of possibilities. Furthermore, you can wish for the NATO occupiers, including the Canadians, to leave without supporting any one faction of the Afghans who succeed in driving the foreigners out. It's up to the Afghans to decide those sorts of things. Remember? The whole thing is a political trap. quote: Fidel: I think the left should concentrate on pointing out the fact that Karzai's election was a total fraud, and that Afghans are actually worse off today than during PDPA rule in which a dirty proxy war, a deniable war was fought and Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan occurred.
Too complicated. I think the focus should be on identifying what the alleged goals of the NATO occupation are, how they have failed to be achieved, how they are getting no closer now than 7 years ago, and on the horrific humanitarian disaster of the occupation, both for the loss of foreign troops (especially Canadians, whose lives are being wasted) and Afghans. The ugly truth is that far too many Canadians care more about 1 dead Canadian soldier than 100 dead Afghans. So you emphasize accordingly.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 04 September 2008 10:37 AM
quote: Originally posted by unionist: But should the left support the insurgency, Fidel? The insurgency against the U.S.-U.K.-NATO-Canadian invaders? Or should we just be "neutral" on that particular little point?I'm not neutral.
Personally, I tend to want to support not Taliban's overall cause but rather their immediate goal to throw foreign invaders out the country. I think it would be difficult to convince Canadians that the Taliban are the good guys in all of this without going into long and drawn out explanations of what's happened in Afghanistan since 1973-70 to 1985-89 and 1989 to 92 and then NATO turning their backs on the ensuing carnage after "stirring up a radical Islamic hornets' nest" to rid the region of secular socialism in the beginning. As soon as certain Canadians hear the world "secular socialist though", their cold war instincts likely kick-in and we're back to complicated cold war mumbo-jumbo. So I dunno. Best keep it simple I guess. The U.S. is attempting to prop up another of what is a long line of kleptocratic and undemocratic regimes for the sake of an overall war on democracy and destabilizing Central Asia in general.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 04 September 2008 10:40 AM
quote: Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Too complicated. I think the focus should be on identifying what the alleged goals of the NATO occupation are, how they have failed to be achieved, how they are getting no closer now than 7 years ago, and on the horrific humanitarian disaster of the occupation, both for the loss of foreign troops (especially Canadians, whose lives are being wasted) and Afghans. The ugly truth is that far too many Canadians care more about 1 dead Canadian soldier than 100 dead Afghans. So you emphasize accordingly.
Sounds good to me.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 04 September 2008 10:42 AM
M. Spector: "I am an advocate of revolutionary defeatism. The optimal outcome would be no more deaths, and the immediate surrender or withdrawal of the imperialist forces." Lenin's idea was inseparable from the supplementary idea of turning the weapons provided by the government on that same government. He was thinking further ahead than simply ending an (inter-imperialist) war. It was also a period of conscription in Russia as well, so Lenin had way more traction, politically, than current opponents in Canada of the Afghan war have. James Connolly in Ireland, incidentally, advocated much the same thing as Lenin did. But it's a round peg in a square hole. I don't think it fits at all. [ 04 September 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 04 September 2008 10:46 AM
Although I do think the illegitimacy of Karzai's municipal government is a weakness for the overall plan in the Stan. quote: CNN's Christiane Amanpour summarized the day's events succinctly in an interview with presidential candidate, Ahmed Shah Ahmadzai who said: "This is a completely, completely prearranged fraud. I have cast my vote but the ink was removable. This is ridiculous."
And warlords in the municipal gov threatening death to Malalai Joya, an elected but "banned" parliamentarian herself, is not a good sign for Afghan democracy, imo. These are obvious telltale signs of a stoogeocracy [ 04 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 04 September 2008 10:57 AM
Emphasizing cosmetic or demonstration elections is still doing a favor, of sorts, to those who want to legitimize those "elections". Real differences in Afghan lives, like the bombing of wedding parties, and the lack and vagueness of the "improvements" under NATO (and its puppet regime) is a better emphasis. Karzai isn't responsible for the NATO bombings in his own country. We should talk about who's really in charge. And how Canada isn't achieving the alleged goals, should therefore leave, etc. "Karzai is not President of Afghanistan. B-52 is President." That's the way to go. Go for the jugular. [ 04 September 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 04 September 2008 10:58 AM
quote: Originally posted by N.Beltov: I think the focus should be on identifying what the alleged goals of the NATO occupation are, how they have failed to be achieved, how they are getting no closer now than 7 years ago, and on the horrific humanitarian disaster of the occupation, both for the loss of foreign troops (especially Canadians, whose lives are being wasted) and Afghans.
This is the same sort of position the Democratic Party took on Iraq (eventually): - The war is a "failure" or it was a "mistake" - "We" have failed to achieve "our" goals - "Our" brave patriotic troops are dying in a losing cause - etc. etc.In other words, accept the whole premise of going to war to achieve the ruling class's goals, and argue that if the goals aren't achieved then "we" should cut and run. The subtext is not that the war is/was wrong and should never have been started, but that "we're" losing, so "we" should quit. Well, I don't think the left should identify with the goals of the imperialist warmakers, as if to say the war would have been OK if only it had achieved its stated goals. The left has a responsibility to denounce the goals of the war themselves, and call for withdrawal of imperialist forces regardless of how "well" or "badly" the war has turned out. This kind of ambivalence towards imperialist war leads to errors like "I oppose the mission - but I support the troops, so I'm glad when they get new and improved body armour or aircraft, and I buy Tim Horton's gift certificates to send to them to keep up their fighting morale, and I send them Christmas cards and I put yellow ribbon decals on my fire trucks and ambulances, and I wear red on Fridays. But gee, I don't like the mission."
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140
|
posted 04 September 2008 11:12 AM
quote: Well, I don't think the left should identify with the goals of the imperialist warmakers, as if to say the war would have been OK if only it had achieved its stated goals.
I think the mission was doomed to failure from the start. It was premised on a lie from the very beginning. That lie was that the Taliban regime would not help the US capture Osama bin Laden. What the attack on Afghanistan was, in addition to geopolitical and geostrategic manuvering, is PRACTICE for Iraq a few years later. Unravelling those lies, exposing the BS of the mission parameters, seems the best, clearest and surest way to reject the NATO, and Canadian, presence in Afghanistan. Furthermore, a compulsory rejection of imperialism shouldn't be a condition of opposition to a particular war. That can only be PART of the message of the left. The main message is to end the war and occupation. I really don't see what's wrong with conveying a different message (from the left) depending on the audience. We know that imperialism will forever be a cause of wars until it's gone from planet earth but that's only one part of the message.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 04 September 2008 11:12 AM
quote: Originally posted by N.Beltov: Emphasizing cosmetic or demonstration elections is still doing a favor, of sorts, to those who want to legitimize those "elections". Real differences in Afghan lives, like the bombing of wedding parties, and the lack and vagueness of the "improvements" under NATO (and its puppet regime) is a better emphasis.
Okay, but I think that also leaves the door open for "a better plan" If only the democracy-loving Karzai had some decent help from NATO and Canada, then things would be better. Our stoogeocrats and theirs can then remake themselves into the democrats they are not. The stoogeocracy in Kabul is illegit from the beginning, like Batista's U.S.-backed mafia government, the Shah, JER Montt, or Papa&Baby Doc. Those people were bad for democracy in those countries, and so is Karzai bad for the large majority of Afghans. They are a drug-dealing, power hungry stoogeocracy like a string of of U.S.-backed kleptocracies before them. And I think side-stepping this issue is ceding something precious to the illegit government and NATO military occupation overall.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 04 September 2008 11:49 AM
quote: Originally posted by N.Beltov: Sven's lure, you so-and-so! He played you like a cheap violin.
I think Sven made a salient point that should have led us to an obvious conclusion: military occupations and democracy are totally incompatible. And the historical record is there to support this general idea. If anything is being played here, it's the Stradivarius of issues namely democracy itself, their alleged reason for the occupation. Dance around that issue, and I think you will be the one played like an out of tune violin. [ 04 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 04 September 2008 11:53 AM
quote: Originally posted by N.Beltov: Unravelling those lies, exposing the BS of the mission parameters, seems the best, clearest and surest way to reject the NATO, and Canadian, presence in Afghanistan.
You're not going to unravel any lies by saying you support the troops "as people". Rather, you allow the perpetuation of the lies that say the imperialist armed forces are a force for good - a humanitarian force, even - and that the reason for their failure is lack of support from their political masters, who aren't equipping them to "get the job done" so they can come home safely to their wives and children. It's a position entirely consistent with a pro-imperialist ideology. quote: Furthermore, a compulsory rejection of imperialism shouldn't be a condition of opposition to a particular war.
I agree and I never said otherwise.But an individual's opposition to a particular war can evolve into opposition to all imperialist wars, and opposition to imperialism itself. That process can be helped or blunted, depending on how the anti-war forces frame the message. I think anti-imperialist opposition to the war should be framed somewhat differently than, say, the Liberal Party's "opposition" to the war. The latter never question the assumption that sending troops to Afghanistan was a humanitarian act; their only opposition is to seeing a bunch of Canadian soldiers dying in a losing cause. An anti-war movement built around that perspective would do nothing to advance the acceptance of an anti-imperialist critique. An anti-war movement that proceeds from the assumption that Canada's role in Afghanistan is wrong - regardless of whether the war succeeds or fails in its objectives (propping up the puppet Karzai regime, advancing the war on terror, making the country safe for a gas pipeline, destroying the poppy trade, opening up the country to foreign investment, etc.) - and fights for the withdrawal of Canadian and NATO troops on that basis, is going to put squarely on the table the issue of the legitimacy of the geopolitical goals and alliances of the ruling class. That will make it more likely that Canadians will oppose the next imperialist war that our government gets us into (as it inevitably will) and it will open up avenues for the left to make gains among the population. quote: The main message is to end the war and occupation.
This is the pacifist position. It is devoid of any class analysis or perspective of struggle for social change.
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 04 September 2008 12:43 PM
So, N.Beltov and M. Spector, do you support the Afghan people's struggle to rid their country of invaders and puppets - even if it doesn't herald in galaxy-wide socialism instantaneously?I do. You're right, N.Beltov, I want that to happen by the Canadian government and other governments being forced to withdraw by their own insurgent populations. But military defeat, humiliation, surrender, and retreat are also acceptable alternative options. I am not a pacifist. I support the war. Do you? Or is that question way too un-nuanced?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 04 September 2008 04:25 PM
quote: Originally posted by N.Beltov: Today's radio coverage of the deaths of the 3 Canadian soldiers was remarkable, I thought, for the utter lack of broader meaning to their deaths.
Same with this coverage: quote: I was deeply disturbed today to learn of the eight Canadian casualties in Afghanistan. The lost of three brave soldiers, means now that 94 Canadians have lost their lives in Afghanistan.It is with great sadness that New Democrats across Canada pass on our sincere sympathies to the friends, families, and colleagues of Cpl. Andrew Grenon, Cpl. Mike Seggie and Pte. Chad Horn. We also keep the five soldiers injured in the road-side attack in our thoughts and hope for a full recovery. We hope those close to these fine soldiers find solace in knowing that we are thinking of them at this time. These casualties are a stark reminder of the danger faced by our Canadian Forces in Afghanistan. Our thoughts and prayers are with all of them on this tragic day.
It's profound all right. He's even lost count of the number of Canadian fatalities. Can't they hire better editors? I've given up hoping for decent writers.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273
|
posted 04 September 2008 05:06 PM
Looks as if the French are beginning to go through the same doubts about Afghanistan as Canadians. quote: A French magazine published photos on Thursday of Taliban fighters with trophies taken from French soldiers killed last month in Afghanistan, setting off a new round of pained debate about France's presence there.President Nicolas Sarkozy and his ministers have said again and again since 10 French soldiers were killed in an ambush on Aug. 18 that France would not falter in its determination to fight the "medieval" and "barbaric" Taliban. But the pledges ring hollow in the ears of many French people who are suddenly being served blanket coverage of a faraway conflict involving about 2,600 French soldiers that had previously been confined to the inside pages of newspapers. The weekly magazine Paris Match rekindled emotions with its spread of photos of Taliban fighters displaying French army guns, uniforms, helmets, a walkie-talkie and a wristwatch they said were taken from dead soldiers during the Aug. 18 ambush. "It's a shock to see our children's killers parading their uniforms, their weapons," said Joel Lepahun, the father of one of the dead soldiers, on RTL radio. Defence Minister Herve Morin suggested the magazine's reporters had done the Taliban a favour in the propaganda war…. "The Taliban are waging a war of communication with this kind of operation. They have understood that public opinion is probably the Achilles' heel of the international community that is present in Afghanistan," he said. Eric de Lavarene, the journalist who arranged the meeting with the Taliban fighters and interviewed their leader, defended himself against accusations that he was manipulated by them. "I wouldn't say that. No one talks of propaganda when we set off embedded with NATO troops, yet information is always very tightly controlled on those occasions," he said on i-Tele TV. "However it is true that the Taliban have become masters in the art of communication," he added. Unease over the Paris Match photos and the quotes from the Taliban leader named as "Commander Farouki", who threatens to kill every single French soldier in Afghanistan, revived the debate about whether France was doing the right thing there…. But the agonising over the deaths, France's worst single military loss in 25 years, shows no sign of abating. The magazine Le Nouvel Observateur ran yet another interview with the parents of one of the dead soldiers on Thursday. Mother Chantal Buil said she had written a letter to Sarkozy. "Stop following the example of President Bush. His arrogance comes out of every pore. Let's stay French. Let's get our soldiers out of the quagmire," she wrote in her letter.
ReutersThe Defence Minister is of course correct: public opinion is indeed the "Achilles heel" of the imperialist intervention in Afghanistan. [ 04 September 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]
From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 04 September 2008 06:19 PM
Opium cultivation in Afghanistan down by a fifth "26 August 2008 - Released today, UNODC's Afghanistan Opium Survey 2008 shows a 19 per cent decrease in opium cultivation to 157,000 hectares, compared to the record harvest of 193,000 in 2007." "Despite these improvements, the situation is vulnerable to setbacks. "Afghanistan's drug control strategy should be to consolidate and reduce", says Antonio Maria Costa, Executive Director of UNODC. "Afghanistan is one of the poorest countries in the world, and the latest food crisis has made farmers even more vulnerable. Opium is a seasonal plant. It may be gone today, but back again tomorrow," he warns."
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 04 September 2008 07:11 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stanley10: It would require a very determined government to eradicate the poppy.
Yeah, right. The preceding government banned poppy cultivation and wiped it out completely. The U.S., Canada, NATO, and their puppets brought it back to record crop levels. Webgear publishes this idiotic story saying it's down from last year - but that's because of bad weather! Here's what the New York Times said in May 2001, before the Crusading Saviours arrived: quote: The first American narcotics experts to go to Afghanistan under Taliban rule have concluded that the movement's ban on opium-poppy cultivation appears to have wiped out the world's largest crop in less than a year, officials said today.The American findings confirm earlier reports from the United Nations drug control program that Afghanistan, which supplied about three-quarters of the world's opium and most of the heroin reaching Europe, had ended poppy planting in one season. But the eradication of poppies has come at a terrible cost to farming families, and experts say it will not be known until the fall planting season begins whether the Taliban can continue to enforce it. ''It appears that the ban has taken effect,'' said Steven Casteel, assistant administrator for intelligence at the Drug Enforcement Administration in Washington.
So, what were you saying?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798
|
posted 04 September 2008 07:18 PM
quote: Originally posted by unionist:
So, what were you saying?
So, if NATO passes an edict stating that anyone growing poppy will be beheaded and their families shot, will that work? The Taliban didn't eradicate poppy, they merely restricted it to raise the price. The Karzai government and Karzai himself,through his brother, are complicit in the drug scene and all profit from it.
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 04 September 2008 07:19 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stanley10: The Taliban were a very determined government.
And if the invaders financed by your tax dollars actually touched the poppy cultivation, they would be dropping dead at a far faster rate than they are now. Here is how the Times described the Taliban's methodology: quote: The Afghans are desperate for international help, but describe their opposition to drug cultivation purely in religious terms.At the State Department, James P. Callahan, director of Asian affairs at the Bureau for International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs who was one of the experts sent to Afghanistan, described in an interview how the Taliban had applied and enforced the ban. He was told by farmers that ''the Taliban used a system of consensus-building.'' They framed the ban ''in very religious terms,'' citing Islamic prohibitions against drugs, and that made it hard to defy, he added. Those who defied the edict were threatened with prison. Mr. Callahan said that in the southern provinces of Kandahar and Helmand, where the Taliban's hold is strongest, farmers said they would rather starve than return to poppy cultivation -- and some of them will, experts say.
Perhaps Canada should take a similar approach, Webgear?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 04 September 2008 07:32 PM
quote: Originally posted by Webgear: What are you going on about? Canada is one of the largest donors in food aid, why would we stop feeding people?
What do you think of Canada using its influence and armed might to destroy poppy cultivation in Kandahar? Or do you favour the industry? The Taliban wiped it out, the Canadians and their allies brought it back. Do you know the history, or do you only go back one year at a time?
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 04 September 2008 07:40 PM
I hate to tell you, but there were lots of poppies growing around Kandahar and Zabol provinces in 2001.Look at UNODC products from 1999 and 2000, you will see there was lots of poppies growing in Southern Afghanistan while the Taliban were in their glory. I am not aware of Canada having any involved with any poppy reduction programs.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 04 September 2008 08:19 PM
quote: Originally posted by jester: So, if NATO passes an edict stating that anyone growing poppy will be beheaded and their families shot, will that work?
No, NATO loves the Afghan people too much to do that. So Afghanistan continues to produce most of the world's heroin. quote: The Taliban didn't eradicate poppy, they merely restricted it to raise the price.
Right, and the Canadians and U.S. restored record crops in order to drive the price down and make it more affordable around the globe. You know, besides the meaning of love, I learn so much from you about economics. How can I thank you (er, other than the tryst thingie I suggested before)? quote: The Karzai government and Karzai himself,through his brother, are complicit in the drug scene and all profit from it.
Right, but those white people hate drugs and love Afghans, so they're so conflicted they have to call in air strikes on wedding parties just to clear their pretty little heads.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 04 September 2008 09:48 PM
quote: Originally posted by Webgear: I hate to tell you, but there were lots of poppies growing around Kandahar and Zabol provinces in 2001.
I've read that opium addiction was essentially flat in Afghanistan, and Lahore, Islamabad-Pakistan etc up to about 1980-85, approximately the same time the CIA, and using the Dept of Agriculture and University of Nebraska to hide the money trail "cough", began funding and arming druglords and several other special interest groups in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Turkey, Iran etc. The Real Drug Lords: A brief history of CIA involvement in the Drug Trade William Blum And speaking of real, there is Edward S. Herman's The Real Terror Network (1982) Herman's co-author on Manufacturing Consent(1988) is famous American socialist Noam Chomsky [ 04 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798
|
posted 05 September 2008 07:10 AM
quote: Right, but those white people hate drugs and love Afghans, so they're so conflicted they have to call in air strikes on wedding parties just to clear their pretty little heads
The problem with not only the air strikes but also other types of counter-insurgency is that the Americans do not vet their intelligence with others and as a result are used by various Afghan elements to settle tribal scores and vendettas. The cozy relationship US Special Forces and especially the CIA have cultivated with certain elements are not working for them but for the elements' own interests. The users are being used and the Taliban propaganda machine is very good at creating maximum exposure for any negative PR they can spin. Visualise that there are actually individuals and entities in our own country who are dupes and tools of the Taliban PR machine. They parrot every taliban claim as gospel without bothering to ascertaine the facts because it plays into thier own agenda of 'bringing the troops home'. I know its hard believe otherwise educated and intelligent people could be so blind but being in the political wilderness for so long creates a sort of 'cabin fever' that detaches reality from their political asperations of socialist utopia. This detachment from reality is fostered by several generations of residents in the Peacable Kingdom never having exposure to the ravages of violent conflict. The Peacable Kingdom is a good place but others eye it as an easy place to pillage,considering the residents too soft and weak after generations of 'peace activism'. It stands to reason that the optimal place to overthrow is one dedicated to peace,with no experience of violent conflict does it not? What we really need is for the Taliban to send a training mission to the peacable Kingdom to instill that much admired warrior ethos in our own keyboard warriors.
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798
|
posted 05 September 2008 08:00 AM
quote: Originally posted by M. Spector: What a disgusting paean to the imperialist assault on Afghanistan!Why do we have to put up with this shit on babble?
Read it again, Spector. Its a disgusting paean to the imperialist assault on common sense.
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798
|
posted 05 September 2008 09:09 AM
quote: Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus: Speaking of 'keyboard warriors', I'm betting dollars to dog biscuits that jester wouldn't dare to get up on his hind legs in public and make his cowardly accusations.
Whyever not? Its not a novel position. If the supporters of Taliban propaganda were to state a balanced position that included the predations of the Taliban on their own people and such injustices as burning schools,killing teachers,aid workers and such then they would not be dupes but the focus is always on one-sided Taliban propaganda to reinforce the 'bring the troops home' meme. I've stated it publicly before. Its a free country isn't it?
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 September 2008 10:56 AM
quote: Originally posted by jester:
Whyever not? Its not a novel position. If the supporters of Taliban propaganda were to state a balanced position that included the predations of the Taliban on their own people and such injustices as burning schools,killing teachers,aid workers and such then they would not be dupes but the focus is always on one-sided Taliban propaganda to reinforce the 'bring the troops home' meme.
If the Republican cabal considered Taliban to be an enemy of school girls and democracy everywhere, then why were they still trying to cut deals with them in 2001, five weeks before 9-11? And why did the CIA-FBI refuse to cooperate with Moammar Qaddafi's intel and security in pursuing Osama bin Laden, and after bin Laden apparently tried to put a hit on Qadaffi inside Libya? The Taliban, like al Qa'eda, were useful for the CIA. They were useful in preventing universal education, basic human rights, and with maintaining backward conditions in the new frontline state in the effort to disintegrate the former Soviet Union and create several militant Islamic republics. Militant Islam was useful like the Contras were useful in bombing schools and hospitals and waging dirty war on a tiny nation of poor people in Central America. This is the main tactic used by political hawks to strangle socialism in the cradle. Destabilize and maintain as corrupt and repressive a regime as possible. Apparently even the Taliban weren't as malleable as the mercenary Contras, but they are perhaps more highly motivated than previous U.S.-backed terrorists on Uncle Sam's payroll.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798
|
posted 05 September 2008 12:34 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel:
If the Republican cabal considered Taliban to be an enemy of school girls and democracy everywhere, then why were they still trying to cut deals with them in 2001, five weeks before 9-11? And why did the CIA-FBI refuse to cooperate with Moammar Qaddafi's intel and security in pursuing Osama bin Laden, and after bin Laden apparently tried to put a hit on Qadaffi inside Libya? The Taliban, like al Qa'eda, were useful for the CIA. They were useful in preventing universal education, basic human rights, and with maintaining backward conditions in the new frontline state in the effort to disintegrate the former Soviet Union and create several militant Islamic republics. Militant Islam was useful like the Contras were useful in bombing schools and hospitals and waging dirty war on a tiny nation of poor people in Central America. This is the main tactic used by political hawks to strangle socialism in the cradle. Destabilize and maintain as corrupt and repressive a regime as possible. Apparently even the Taliban weren't as malleable as the mercenary Contras, but they are perhaps more highly motivated than previous U.S.-backed terrorists on Uncle Sam's payroll.
Agreed. I'm sure that neither the Taliban or the US or Pakistan or even elements of the Afghan government want stability. Not while there is pillaging and corruption enough for all. None of the above have the interests of Afghans at heart.
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798
|
posted 05 September 2008 03:44 PM
It may look bizarre filtered through a western lens but the prevailing tribal culture makes it a possibility. The fact that Pakistani and American interests both abet the Taliban doesn't surprise me.US Special Forces attacks on unarmed parties or weddings is based on 'intelligence' from suspect Afghan forces who use the opportunity to get rid of tribal foes or for revenge. Weddings are ideal because all the tribal foes are clustered nicely together. So, when the US creates 25 casualties at a wedding, they create hundreds more enemies - and recruits for Taliban operations - from the victims' tribal relations.
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 05 September 2008 04:13 PM
Fidel I think you missed Jester's point, I think his point is the some tribal/clan/families have used US forces to remove their rivals. This tactical was used in July 2002.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 05 September 2008 06:34 PM
Ok, Webgear - are you ready? Have you been patient? Here you go:Now, if one single party had the nerve to seize this moment and demand immediate withdrawal of Canada from Afghanistan, they'd pick up some votes. And if we lived in a democratic country, the trigger-happy military would listen to the people and get their cowardly asses home tout de suite.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 September 2008 06:37 PM
quote: Originally posted by unionist: Nice to see all you people deciding what is best for Afghans and who really cares about Afghans.Just wait.
In all likelihood this phony-baloney war on terror is going to last a number of years more and with Afghans living in grinding poverty and fear as a result. And Canada will continue sending soldiers and contributing billions of taxpayer dollar to an American project that was never intended to build democracy in Central Asia - unless Canadians do something nearly as radical as militant Islam and send an unprecedented number of NDP MP's to Ottawa.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 05 September 2008 06:42 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel:
In all likelihood this phony-baloney war on terror is going to last a number of years more and with Afghans living in grinding poverty and fear as a result. And Canada will continue sending soldiers and contributing billions of taxpayer dollar to an American project that was never intended to build democracy in Central Asia - unless Canadians do something nearly as radical as militant Islam and send an unprecedented number of NDP MP's to Ottawa.
No, Fidel. The Afghan people will destroy the Canadian "mission" long long before anything "unprecedented" happens in Ottawa. Especially if the NDP skates around the issue the way some babblers do. Defeat or retreat - those are the choices facing Canada. Would that progressive people prevail upon the NDP, the Bloc, and others to make that a reality. The end is very near, my friend. Check history.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 05 September 2008 06:48 PM
Results of a poll can change every daily. I believe there should be a nation referendum to solve the Afghan question.Well if the NDP were the moral party they believe they are, Afghanistan should be their main policy for the election however we both know that will not happen. Here is a poll for you. "Even though they don't see their soldiers as warriors, the study suggests a vast majority of Canadians -- 71 per cent -- regard the military as a source of pride." DND Poll
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 05 September 2008 06:49 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel: And I think some people would prefer Afghans endure a genocidal ten thousand day war sooner than vote for the one political party calling for troop withdrawal.
The Afghan people have long experience in destroying their enemies and sending them screaming out of their homeland. I do believe their fierce pride and spirit resistance may even precede the existence of the NDP. Maybe even the existence of Canada. So don't kid yourself. They don't need your help. The best advice for Canadians in Afghanistan is to run. Very fast. Now.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 05 September 2008 06:51 PM
quote: Originally posted by Webgear: Results of a poll can change every daily. I believe there should be a nation referendum to solve the Afghan question.
Yeah, you think Canadians should vote on the Afghan question. I think Afghans should decide the Afghan question. That's the difference between you and me.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 September 2008 06:56 PM
quote: Originally posted by unionist:
The Afghan people have long experience in destroying their enemies and sending them screaming out of their homeland. I do believe their fierce pride and spirit resistance may even precede the existence of the NDP. Maybe even the existence of Canada. So don't kid yourself. They don't need your help. The best advice for Canadians in Afghanistan is to run. Very fast. Now.
Sure Afghanistan can lose many more of its youth to American bombs and Canadian bullets for years to come. That's what the two old line parties are pledging to do. Afghans don't need the federal NDP to withdraw Canadian troops. They can handle it themselves. That's what I believe you're trying to say. And I must say that I am shocked. I guess you've finally decided to admit where your allegiance lies [ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 05 September 2008 07:02 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel: Afghans don't need the federal NDP to withdraw Canadian troops. They can handle it themselves. That's what I believe you're trying to say. And I must say that I am shocked.
Of course you're shocked. You weren't old enough when the people of Viet Nam sent the U.S. scurrying like rats out of their country. And it was a Republican in power, not the NDP, not even the Democrats. You think the U.S. and Canada are powerful enough to carry on this war for years? That is the same delusion that afflicted the Soviet Union. Not only did the Soviets suffer a humiliating military defeat at the hands of plain ordinary Afghan folks, but arguably this cowardly invasion was the last nail in the coffin for that dying society. The Afghan people do not need any well-meaning social gospel White Fathers to win their war. They have crushed the British and the Soviets. They will crush Canada. "Will"? They're doing it now. Is there actually one single politician who has the nerve to stand up and say: "We must leave - now! This is not our country! We must retreat, apologize, pay reparations!" I didn't think so. But Fidel, your deep concern for the poor helpless Afghan people is duly noted and appreciated. ETA: quote: Originally posted by Webgear: The current insurgency is weak and small compared anything that has happen in Afghanistan since its creation in 1747.It is not a popular insurgency by any means, there is no large uprisings or united fronts.
What's that - Afghan History 101 ŕ la CAF syllabus? It is just delusional. The insurgency runs huge portions of the country. Just keep your own words in mind when your comrades run screaming from Afghanistan, like all their predecessors. [ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: unionist ]
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 05 September 2008 07:03 PM
quote: Originally posted by unionist:
You're a bit worried, aren't you, that Canadians have figured out the truth: That you and your comrades-in-arms are losing, miserably, and they don't support you any more. Wake up, while you still can. It's over.
What are you basing your analysis on?
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 05 September 2008 07:06 PM
quote: Originally posted by Webgear:
What are you basing your analysis on?
Today's CBC poll, which I cited, and which you neglected to take the time to read. I told you: Slow down, be patient. Read. The truth is available to those who seek.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 05 September 2008 07:16 PM
Hahaha, this is hilarious:Canada outlines 21 goals for Afghanistan quote: # Build, expand or repair 50 schools in Kandahar. So far, only one is complete.# Train 3,000 teachers in Kandahar. So far, none has gone through Canada's training program. # Eradicate polio in Afghanistan through vaccine. In 2007, 27.7 million vaccines were administered, but 17 cases of polio were reported nationally.
These are the delusions of war criminals, aided and abetted by the opinions of people in this very thread - people who lack not only any sense of history, but of simple ordinary morality. We need a clarion voice of solidarity, of peace, condemning these murderers for what they are, and calling on Canadians to wake up from its nightmare of empire-building.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 05 September 2008 07:17 PM
quote: Originally posted by unionist:
Today's CBC poll, which I cited, and which you neglected to take the time to read. I told you: Slow down, be patient. Read. The truth is available to those who seek.
You can not be serious? The CBC has not reported anything accurate in years, I have seen them in many places around the world, and they have horrible reporters.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 05 September 2008 07:19 PM
quote: Originally posted by Webgear:
You can not be serious? The CBC has not reported anything accurate in years, I have seen them in many places around the world, and they have horrible reporters.
Thank God for the Canadian Armed Forces and its truthful accurate reporting of world affairs. Please convey my personal gratitude to your colleagues.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 September 2008 07:20 PM
quote: Originally posted by unionist: Of course you're shocked. You weren't old enough when the people of Viet Nam sent the U.S. scurrying like rats out of their country. And it was a Republican in power, not the NDP, not even the Democrats.
The doctor and madman bombed hell out of VietNam and Cambodia. Millions died and many more were left homeless and several family members light. If you think the Vietnamese won that war, guess again. Not one thin American dime went to reparations in VietNam for the massive loss of life and destruction, all for the sake of a handful of warfiteering sonsobitches. No, it was not a party for the people who had to endure it, unionist. They could have used the help of good people all over the world. Like western world leaders stood by and watched Franco destroy democracy in Spain, and watch Stalingrad unfold over two years, and ignored the carnage in Afghanistan from 1992 to 1995 - Afghans need people in NATO countries to do the right thing and vote for troop withdrawal and get the hell out of Central Asia altogether. Now.
quote: You think the U.S. and Canada are powerful enough to carry on this war for years? That is the same delusion that afflicted the Soviet Union. Not only did the Soviets suffer a humiliating military defeat at the hands of plain ordinary Afghan folks, but arguably this cowardly invasion was the last nail in the coffin for that dying society.
There were more than just "ordinary Afghans" in that country and Pakistan during the 1980's. We've been over this before, and you it looks like you understand about as much now as you did before about the proxy war.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 05 September 2008 07:25 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel:
So are Can-Am troop numbers in Afghanistan relatively small. They don't intend on "stirring up the hornets' nest" again like the 1980's. Millions of proxy fighters are waiting to pour in over the borders from surrounding countries if a larger occupation and conflicts were to begin. I really believe that Canadians would come home to their families in plastic bags in greater numbers at that point. If the Soviets found it somewhat easy to arm NVA in VietNam, imagine how easy it would be for SCO countries to arm the Taliban in their own backyard. Yanks are just playing around right now. They don't know what to do next other than maintain grinding poverty and the overall war on democracy/poor people.
Fidel The Red Army made hundreds of serious mistakes when they were invited into Afghanistan in 1978. Anything from poor equipment, tactics and training, the type of soldiers involved, medical staff and supplies, the list is endless. I believe the NVA and the VC were armed pretty good from their communist allies. All those AK-47s did not just appear out of nowhere. Hanoi had an impressive SAM and defence system provided by the Soviets.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 05 September 2008 07:27 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel: Afghans need people in NATO countries to do the right thing and vote for troop withdrawal and get the hell out of Central Asia altogether. Now.
Correct. At last you got it. Now write to your party please (as I've been doing since 2005, when Layton forgot what McDonough had said) and just ask them please to proclaim what you just said in that sentence. Please do it. Then not only will they be on the side of the angels... they will get a whole huge truckload of votes, as Mulcair did in my riding. Please, just do it.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 05 September 2008 07:29 PM
UnionistThere is no organization called the Canadian Armed forces, the Liberal government removed the word “Armed” in about 1996. Did you not see the memo? They though it seemed too aggressive and army like.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322
|
posted 05 September 2008 07:35 PM
quote: Even though they don't see their soldiers as warriors, the study suggests a vast majority of Canadians -- 71 per cent -- regard the military as a source of pride."
DND poll. quote: Canadians "are resistant to change to the Canadian Forces, a brand with historic roots that they clearly admire and respect," said the analysis portion of the survey.
How does it feel to be a brand, Webgear? Like Nike. Or Kotex. The unsettling part of the article and survey is that the results (Canadians don't want the military fighting imperial wars) are seen as a failure; a perception management issue that can be changed by clever marketing. quote: "Political leaders were not generally believed to be an accurate source of information about Afghanistan, with some attributing ulterior motives to the government's reporting of events."
Hmm. The public isn't quite as stupid as Conservatives, Liberals and the DND hoped they'd be.
From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 September 2008 07:38 PM
quote: Originally posted by Webgear:
Fidel The Red Army made hundreds of serious mistakes when they were invited into Afghanistan in 1978. Anything from poor equipment, tactics and training, the type of soldiers involved, medical staff and supplies, the list is endless.
The Soviets had dated "equipment" yes. The CIA armed mujahideen with stinger missiles and bullets costing U.S. taxpayers $5 bucks apiece. Cold warriors would have loved for that one to have gone on and on. There are few stinger missiles in Taliban hands now. And there are few U.S. helicopter gunships or troop carriers or cargo planes buzzing around in broad daylight in this war. Canada is going with drone aircraft for reconaissance, and I don't believe this is because they are simply better at making war than the Soviets were - they simply aren't taking any chances. 15, 000 U.S. troops more in 2009. Meanwhile, as I was saying before, millions of proxy fighters in Iran and surrounding stani nations would pour in over the borders if their religious minorities in Afghanistan were to come under direct threat from either NATO or Taliban or a combination of the two sides with an escalated war. The U.S. want to keep this thing low level and stretch it out over a long time ... for reasons other than establishing full control or even "democracy building" or the all-time knee-slapper, "nation building" in Afghanistan.
quote: I believe the NVA and the VC were armed pretty good from their communist allies. All those AK-47s did not just appear out of nowhere. Hanoi had an impressive SAM and defence system provided by the Soviets.
The NVA had a will to win. Kalashnikovs were dropped in muddy river water and retrieved three weeks later by "the unseen enemy", women and kids and the NVA. Women and children learned how to build booby traps in the jungle, and leave instructions for other NVA with something as simple as a broken twig or jungle fern bent the right way. Jerry West knows all about it. U.S. troops' will to fight was at an all time low toward the end. Lowest tech army didn't beat the highest tech army in the world, as Jerry West said they outlasted the Americans and their will to fight an immoral war against poor people. A ten thousand day war was no match for a culture several thousand years old, it's true. But the massive loss of life and destruction caused great hardship to VietNamese for decades after and to this day. [ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 September 2008 08:02 PM
quote: Originally posted by unionist:
Correct. At last you got it. Now write to your party please (as I've been doing since 2005, when Layton forgot what McDonough had said) and just ask them please to proclaim what you just said in that sentence. Please do it. Then not only will they be on the side of the angels... they will get a whole huge truckload of votes, as Mulcair did in my riding. Please, just do it.
Troop withdrawal from the U.S.-led counterinsurgency is NDP policy and right there in Dawn Black's report, once in the introduction and again in the conclusion. Patsies to an immoral, U.S.-led military occupation in Afghanistan is the wrong mission for Canada. The NDP should be reiterating its policy for troop withdrawal soon, even though it's in printed document form, and even though Dewar and Black have both been highly critical of the mission from just about every angle thus far.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 05 September 2008 08:03 PM
quote: Originally posted by Fidel:
The Soviets had dated "equipment" yes. The CIA armed mujahideen with stinger missiles and bullets costing U.S. taxpayers $5 bucks apiece. Cold warriors would have loved for that one to have gone on and on. There are few stinger missiles in Taliban hands now. And there are few U.S. helicopter gunships or troop carriers or cargo planes buzzing around in broad daylight in this war. Canada is going with drone aircraft for reconaissance, and I don't believe this is because they are simply better at making war than the Soviets were - they simply aren't taking any chances. 15, 000 U.S. troops more in 2009. Meanwhile, as I was saying before, millions of proxy fighters in Iran and surrounding stani nations would pour in over the borders if their religious minorities in Afghanistan were to come under direct threat from either NATO or Taliban or a combination of the two sides with an escalated war. The U.S. want to keep this thing low level and stretch it out over a long time ... for reasons other than establishing full control or even "democracy building" or the all-time knee-slapper, "nation building" in Afghanistan. [ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
The Soviets equipment in was not outdated, the Soviet high command did use their resources correctly. The old Soviet army was based off of manpower not quality of soldiers. The only effective Soviet units in Afghanistan were their professional soldiers in special units like the Paratroopers and Special Forces. There are plenty of helicopters and aircraft flying in the daylight. Drone aircraft are being used by most nations, the Soviets used them in Georgia just last month.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 05 September 2008 08:06 PM
quote: Originally posted by Jingles:
That's okay. The give out a medal for that now.
Why did you leave the military? I do not qualify for the medal plus I do not care for medals.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 September 2008 08:35 PM
quote: Originally posted by Webgear:
The Soviets equipment in was not outdated, the Soviet high command did use their resources correctly.
What I've read about Panjshir Valley tactics, the Soviets had a habit of calling off the attack and retreating whenever their tanks had the Tajik mujahideen leader and his mountain warriors trapped. Massoud switched sides after the CIA cut off his funding in 1992 for declaring war on the Taliban. I wouldn't say the Soviets fought a perfect war against the Afghans and international mercenaries brought in from as far away as Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and even Brooklyn New York. Men and women PDPA volunteers probably fought the most courageous battles against mujahideen who were armed to the eye teeth by the Americans and company. After the Soviets final withdrawals in 1989, the PDPA held out for over two years and even trounced the better armed mujahideen at Jalalabad. This is not the same war. NATO and U.S. military aren't facing an insurgency comprised of international mercenaries in addition to Afghan warlords and mujahideen as it was in the 1980's. "The Soviets" are not supplying the enemy similarly. And the U.S. isn't the only country to make heat-seeking shoulder rockets, and they understand that we can be sure. The Yanks worst fear in Iraq was that the Iranians would supply SAM's or Stinger equivalents to Iraqi and foreign insurgents in Iraq. I think Ahmadinejad wants to see the Americans bleed slowly. Theyve since denied any efforts to supply those kinds of weapons. RPGs are not as accurate but just as deadly for low flying pilots apparently [ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 05 September 2008 08:56 PM
The Soviets failed miserably in their war in Afghanistan.Massoud is seen as a hero in northern Afghanistan, he is picture is painted all over Kabul, there is also a very large monument to him also. The Russians left plenty of weapons and resources for the PDPA when they departed in 1989. NH-5 and other MANPADs have been used in Afghanistan for the last several years. There are plenty of international mercenaries fight for the Taliban. Can you explain to me your thoughts on the origin of the Taliban? Perhaps in another thread?
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 September 2008 09:11 PM
quote: Originally posted by webgear: The Russians left plenty of weapons and resources for the PDPA when they departed in 1989.
And the CIA was funelling billions of dollars worth of aid and weapons to Massoud and dozens of other mujahideen and their proxy warriors. It must have been like Stalingrad for the men and women volunteers of the PDPA, except that there would be no red army to sideswipe marauding invaders at the kessel. The CIA spent more on that war than any other dirty war in cold war history. You're not going to convince me that NATO and U.S. military are fighting the same war. And they're still there and squabbling with a bunch of barely equipped Taliban volunteer brigades. Next time you have the chance, tell those guys to either get their shit together and rout those peasants once and for all or find an enemy that doesnt fight its weight in wildcats. [ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 05 September 2008 09:23 PM
It is not the same war, that is my point, the Taliban is not the popular movement compared to the Mujahedeen of the Soviet/Afghan war.I do not believe the Taliban are formed in to brigade size units. The insurgents are determined however they are not the fighters their fathers and grandfathers were.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 September 2008 09:32 PM
And they're not as well armed or as well paid as the mujahideen were in the 1980's. A lot of the Arab and Turk, Pak, Tajik and some Afghan mujahideen leaders and their proxy warriors were transported to the Balkans in the 1990's in order to destablize Bosnia leading up to NATO bombing of a sovereign nation. Iranian Revolutionary Guard was there too and aided by SAS and CIA. NATO operates something like the mafia did at one time only they are quite a bit more ruthless. Well paid and well-armed Islamic Gladios served a purpose in the 1980's, and I believe the CIA never really did sever ties completely as they claimed to have done after 1992. [ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 05 September 2008 09:43 PM
Where do you come up with this stuff? Honestly can you provide some links, footnotes?You are bouncing all over the place with your statements. Please help me out here, discussing this topic is frustrating with you because of your constantly using the same phrases and blanket statements over and over. You are not providing details to you points.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 September 2008 10:37 PM
Five posts up, I believed you were attempting to liken this war to the 1980's proxy war.Khaled Ahmed described it as General Zia's covert war, a deniable war fought through mercenaries who used Pakistan as a staging country for marauding into Afghanistan. The Taliban apparently don't enjoy those same freedoms as Zia's militia society did in the 1980's. The Taliban aren't being funded and armed by the CIA, Brits and Saudi princes as the mujahideen were in the 1980's. And the Taliban apparently don't enjoy the multi-billion dollar CIA funding and weapons shipments that the mujahideen did when the Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan was underway in the 1980's. Twice for added emphasis. In fact, there exists a UN security council resolution banning weapons sales to the Taliban today, The Russians said that resolution has no real teeth, but it at least exists in order to make the Yanks appear committed to the phony war on terror. Does any of this appear odd to you? Do you only trust certain U.S. and Canadian government-approved information sources? If so, then I'm afraid the man with the wonky leg and pink boxing glove won't be back until Tuesday next, if you know what I mean. "Mandrake, do you recall what Clemenceau once said about war?" [ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 05 September 2008 11:13 PM
No, I was attempting to link the current war in Afghanistan to the Soviet Afghan war.I believe most organizations and historians agree that the Taliban did not become an organization until 1994 as the earliest. Why do keep stating they existed in 1980s? I gather my information from many sources, which have a wide range of political affiliations.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 05 September 2008 11:15 PM
quote: Originally posted by Webgear: No, I was not attempting to link the current war in Afghanistan to the Soviet Afghan war.I believe most organizations and historians agree that the Taliban did not become an organization until 1994 as the earliest. Why do keep stating they existed in 1980s? I gather my information from many sources, which have a wide range of political affiliations.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 05 September 2008 11:46 PM
quote: Originally posted by Webgear:
I believe most organizations and historians agree that the Taliban did not become an organization until 1994 as the earliest. Why do keep stating they existed in 1980s?
As you know from your varied and diverse information sources, Taliban means religious students - an Afghan fundamentalist force supported by Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and the US. (USA=planning agency; Saudi Arabia=funding agency; Pakistan=implementing agency) The many madrassahs set up taught a seventh century low school version of Islam to a burgeoning population of orphans of the 1980's war and through the 1990's when NATO turned its collective back on ensuing Darwinian battles that took place in Afghanistan up to 1995-96 causing millions of Afghans to flee the country. Many Pakistanis are said to blame Afghans for the Talibanization of Pakistan, but it was actually their own country from where Talibanization of the two countries originated, as Lahore-London news journalist Khaled Ahmed explained to UC-Berkeley Institute of International Studies. [ 05 September 2008: Message edited by: Fidel ]
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|