babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed


Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » current events   » international news and politics   » Afghanistan, Still losing the war, Part VIII

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Afghanistan, Still losing the war, Part VIII
Catchfire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4019

posted 04 September 2008 04:53 AM      Profile for Catchfire   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 04 September 2008 05:14 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I heard on CBC last night that the vehicle hit a remotely detonated roadside bomb and that the soldiers were picked off when they exited their vehicle. No sophisication there, just an ordinary but effective tactic.
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791

posted 04 September 2008 07:21 AM      Profile for Boom Boom     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think we're being manipulated into showing more sympathy for the troops, maybe by the media in cahoots with government. They want us all to believe "our brave soldiers are being outclassed by a sophisicated and fierce enemy, therefore we have to spend more money to give them better weapons and other equipment".

Nah, that's too cynical.


From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 04 September 2008 08:09 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Boom Boom: I think we're being manipulated into showing more sympathy for the troops, maybe by the media in cahoots with government.

It's a general strategy to conflate support for the mission with support for the troops (as people) in order to strengthen the former. I don't think that has changed one iota. Don't get sucked in.

Canadians died and our answer is to bring the remaining ones home, alive. Let the people who sent them to their deaths try to justify those deaths.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 04 September 2008 09:35 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What does "support for the troops (as people)" mean?

The Canadian Forces are not in Afghanistan "as people" but as fighting soldiers.

When you express support for the troops in Afghanistan it means support for what they are doing there. It's not an expression of brotherly love for all fellow human beings.


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 09:48 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You and I have had this tussle in the past, Spector, and the promised thumping (from you) never materialized. Perhaps I wasn't paying proper attention. I really think it's important to unravel the right-wing arguments and separate the wheat from the chaff. If their arguments get traction then it's ultimately because there's an element - however small - of truth in them. Rip out that truth and there's nothing left.

It's idiotic to wish for Canadian deaths. Idiotic. And politically suicidal. Yet that's a kind of default position that opponents of sending Canadian troops to Afghanistan can easily find themselves boxed into ... by virtue of the political sleight-of-hand in which the troops, who must go where they are told by their political masters, are fused with the mission. We want a withdrawal, orderly perhaps, of the Canadian troops form Afghanistan if we're convinced that the mission is wrong-headed or doomed to failure.

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.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 04 September 2008 10:15 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 04 September 2008 10:23 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 04 September 2008 10:30 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
I really think it's important to unravel the right-wing arguments and separate the wheat from the chaff.
It's not the right-wing arguments I'm worried about. It's the left-wing ones. The ones that say "I disagree with the mission, but I support the troops."
quote:
It's idiotic to wish for Canadian deaths.
I don't wish for Canadian deaths.

But I do support anti-imperialist struggles, and in the case of this war, 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.

Tail between legs optional.


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 10:36 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 04 September 2008 11:06 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
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.
Gee, I guess that's my "problem", too - thinking too far ahead.

I'm not a pacifist. I want the imperialists to lose the war because I want the imperialists to be weakened. I want the working class to defeat the imperialists and establish socialism. That task is made more difficult every time the imperialists score a military victory. Hence my defeatism.

I guess you see ending the Afghan war as an end in itself, rather than as another stage in the class struggle against capitalist rule of the world.


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      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 04 September 2008 11:18 AM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey, why is no one talking about Iraq anymore?
From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 04 September 2008 11:19 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
M.Spector: I guess you see ending the Afghan war as an end in itself, rather than as another stage in the class struggle against capitalist rule of the world.

Yup. Ending war is more important than anything else - even if I reject constructing an utter Chinese Wall between the two. I don't see anything wrong with combining these messages, reserving the right to say to working people the message that you have underlined while taking a less demanding position into the peace and anti-war movements that include a wider cross section of society.

If you really believe, as I do, that war is endemic to imperialism, then calling for an end to war is, in any case, a call to end imperialism.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 04 September 2008 11:30 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Hey, why is no one talking about Iraq anymore?

Exactly. NATO and the U.S. military will be fleeing one job not well done to screw up another country. Their record on democracy and nation-building just isn't there. They've bombed over 30 countries since Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and propped up over three dozen stoogeocracies, and which country is better off for it today? They can't patch up that resume. No credibility whatsoever.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 04 September 2008 11:32 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Good God, Fidel. You bite at the smallest lures.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 04 September 2008 11:32 AM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Sven:
Hey, why is no one talking about Iraq anymore?

Because there are only a handful of Canadian troops in Iraq and none "officialy."

From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 04 September 2008 11:39 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Good God, Fidel. You bite at the smallest lures.

I think it would actually help Afghans for us to point out their occupiers' abysmal record for promoting democracy around the world. Their batting average is terrible, and not a lot of people realize this fact. There are people who believe NATO and the U.S. military are there in Kabul and Kandahar to support and maintain democracy. All I am suggesting is that their record for doing the opposite, as well as Karzai's illegtimacy, needs to be exploited for the sake making a convincing argument against the illegal and immoral occupation to subvert democracy in Afghanistan. That's not a lure, it's a sprat to catch a mackeral.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 04 September 2008 11:43 AM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sven's lure, you so-and-so! He played you like a cheap violin.
From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 04 September 2008 11:49 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 04 September 2008 12:01 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fidel, I thought Sven's remark was a complete non sequitor. Theatre of the absurd. It didn't have any connection to the previous discussion. Probably inserted for his own amusement.

Hence MY remark. Can we move on?


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 04 September 2008 12:09 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have little doubt Sven was joining in off key. I was simply humming a few bars of old demockracy. It's a tune that I think everyone is somewhat familiar with. Righties are already decided as are lefties on Afghanistan. Some issues in the middle ground are still vague for the undecided fence sitters. And I think democracy is a pretty large stone to hand to them, is all. Carry on
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 04 September 2008 12:12 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by N.Beltov:
If you really believe, as I do, that war is endemic to imperialism, then calling for an end to war is, in any case, a call to end imperialism.
"Calling for an end to war" is not the same thing as "calling for an end to this war". The movement against the war in Afghanistan is not a movement against war per se, and thus is not subjectively an anti-imperialist movement.

Anyway, aren't you the one trying to separate the two concepts? You want to focus on ending this war, without trying to change people's consciousness in a way that will make them less likely to support the next war. You can kid yourself into thinking that such a strategy is going to put an end to imperialism, but it's like fighting a forest fire with a water pistol.


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 12:16 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fine. You want to put me in the "supports imperialist running dogs" basket ... then who am I to stand in your way?

It still sounds like quibbling to me.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 04 September 2008 12:21 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think we've all razed important issues here, including Sven. Something else that lends to the idea for Beltov's KISS approach is that fence sitters, I believe, tend to have short attention spans. They are too busy struggling with family and other obligations to worry about anyone else but themselves by design of the current political-economic situation. Some will want to know more without being preached or lectured to, and some couldn't care less about a country on the other side of the world which the U.S. is attempting to destabilize and prevent an outbreak of democracy from happening. So with that I think we should all do the Gore Vidal thin book thing instead of the thick book saga when winning friends and influencing enemies. And do that really well.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 04 September 2008 12:29 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't say you support imperialism. You just don't have a clue about how to fight it.

For example, you think that a liberal-pacifist perspective on Afghanistan and an anti-capitalist one are distinguished by mere "quibbling".

You think it's "quibbling" to suggest that the expression of support for the troops "as people" is not an anti-war (much less anti-imperialist) position; in fact, it's one that General Hillier himself would agree with.


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      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 04 September 2008 01:08 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I think what will happen is the two old line parties will continue to support the occupation for years to come while maintaining a democracy gap here in Canada.

Meanwhile, Obama and McCain are both committed to the phony war on terror and waging war in a desperately poor Afghanistan. The stage is set for a long occupation and probable escalation of the war into Pakistan. More destabilization of Central Asia to come, and the overall goal is to renew the cold war with Russia and China. Perhaps a nuclear showdown


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 04 September 2008 01:18 PM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
...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 certainly do. I make no conditions on my support.

But before we get galaxy-wide socialism a whole lotta people are going to have to come to realize that capitalism, and particularly its imperialist manifestation, is inimical to a humane, just, and ecologically sustainable society. Successful campaigns to stop imperialist wars can be an important part of that process of consciousness-raising.


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 04 September 2008 01:39 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Yanks, Brits, Pakistani military-ISI and Saudis are afraid that the efforts to Talibanize Pakistan and Afghanistan in the 1980's cannot be sustained if there is no perceived purpose for the Taliban. All of them need enemies. At the same time, the Yanks don't want another VietNam or reversal of 1980's cold war roles in Afghanistan. Surrounding countries don't want NATO in their backyards, and I think that's obvious to the U.S. military and Pentagon strategists. The larger concern must then be, what does "NATO" and U.S. hope to achieve in Central Asia? We already know it's not to support democracy, and the global war on terror is a phony war. What are they up to then?
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
N.Beltov
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4140

posted 04 September 2008 01:54 PM      Profile for N.Beltov   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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. Other soldiers, friends of the deceased, were unable to muster any coherent explanation of the sacrifice of their friends, beyond their friendship and camaraderie. It was really quite pathetic and sad.

It's a surprise, really, that there are not more Cindy Sheehans.


From: Vancouver Island | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 04 September 2008 04:25 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.


Reuters

The 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      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Stanley10
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8496

posted 04 September 2008 07:02 PM      Profile for Stanley10     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It would require a very determined government to eradicate the poppy. It is drought resistant, used for cooking fuel instead of dung, burned for caustic soda to make soap, the seeds are crushed for oil, and it earns more than 10 times any other cash crop. In addition to that there are major players involved internationally who benefit both directly and indirectly from its trade and use. All around, a tough thing to eradicate without replacing it with something better for the farmer trying to feed his family. The only really good counter to poppy so far has been certain Muslim values that come with their own baggage.
Best of luck on that.

[ 04 September 2008: Message edited by: Stanley10 ]


From: the desk of.... | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 04 September 2008 07:11 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Stanley10
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8496

posted 04 September 2008 07:15 PM      Profile for Stanley10     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The Taliban were a very determined government.
From: the desk of.... | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 04 September 2008 07:18 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Perhaps you can read the article again.

Weather only played a factor in the north.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 04 September 2008 07:18 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 04 September 2008 07:24 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It's the CIA's fault. They admitted to funding druglords in the 1980's.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 04 September 2008 07:24 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What are you going on about? Canada is one of the largest donors in food aid, why would we stop feeding people?
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 04 September 2008 07:32 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Stanley10
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8496

posted 04 September 2008 07:37 PM      Profile for Stanley10     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
citing Islamic prohibitions against drugs

That and a lot of financial aide are problably the only way of humanely reducing its cultivation there.
One thing Webgear likely knows is that successful counterinsurgency requires a very honest, well respected, host government and its country services. This is lacking and may never appear. Operation medusa was ultimately a failure due to this very thing and likely all operations will fail for the very same reason. people have to trust the host government and its rep in the village. Instead, they are surrounded by thugs of all interests but their own.

From: the desk of.... | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 04 September 2008 07:40 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
al-Qa'bong
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3807

posted 04 September 2008 07:52 PM      Profile for al-Qa'bong   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Other soldiers, friends of the deceased, were unable to muster any coherent explanation of the sacrifice of their friends, beyond their friendship and camaraderie.

That's because soldiers' first loyalty is to the friends and comrades with whom they serve.

The abstract nonsense such as "freedom" and "building democracy" that politicians espouse means squat next the lives of your buddies.


From: Saskatchistan | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged
Stanley10
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8496

posted 04 September 2008 08:13 PM      Profile for Stanley10     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
there was lots of poppies growing in Southern Afghanistan while the Taliban were in their glory

True, the Taliban did not eradicate the poppy as Jester and Webgear mention, but, they did a pretty good job of eradicating music cassette tapes.

[ 04 September 2008: Message edited by: Stanley10 ]


From: the desk of.... | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 04 September 2008 08:19 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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 06:51 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
How can I thank you (er, other than the tryst thingie I suggested before)?

Just keep on being your sunny self. Thats more than enough.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 05 September 2008 07:10 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
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
M. Spector
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8273

posted 05 September 2008 07:15 AM      Profile for M. Spector   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What a disgusting paean to the imperialist assault on Afghanistan!

Why do we have to put up with this shit on babble?


From: One millihelen: The amount of beauty required to launch one ship. | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
jrootham
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 838

posted 05 September 2008 07:33 AM      Profile for jrootham     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Exactly which Babble rule is it violating?
From: Toronto | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 05 September 2008 08:00 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
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
remind
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6289

posted 05 September 2008 08:15 AM      Profile for remind     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
oh, oh, now you can't read either mspector!

Don't you know, he wasn't actually denigrating those in Canada who are against the war in Afghanistan, nor was he calling those people fools and dupes, nor was he fear mongering against Muslims, as represented by the Taliban, nor was he saying; "if we were not there, they would be here". Nor was he calling those "keyboard warriors" cowards whoneed to be instilled with a good fighting against others spirit.


From: "watching the tide roll away" | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 05 September 2008 08:25 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 05 September 2008 09:09 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
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
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 05 September 2008 10:11 AM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Still locked in a vicious battle with that strawman:
quote:
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...
Dupes swallow the 'with us or against us' propaganda, and are unworthy of more attention than a toe in the backside. Since you're out of reach...

From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 September 2008 10:56 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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 12:30 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard Tunderin' Jeezus:
Still locked in a vicious battle with that strawman: Dupes swallow the 'with us or against us' propaganda, and are unworthy of more attention than a toe in the backside. Since you're out of reach...

Espousing violence are you? It must be difficult to effect your strategy with the other toe lodged firmly in your mouth.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 05 September 2008 12:34 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
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
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 September 2008 03:30 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, they(CIA and Pakistani-ISI, General Zia, and with help from the Saudis, Brits etc) created the Taliban in the 1980's. CBC reported a year or so ago that many people in Kandahar believe the Americans and Pakistanis together are still aiding and abetting the Taliban. It sounds a bit bizarre at first, but this is coming from people who've lived it.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 05 September 2008 03:44 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post
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
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 September 2008 04:01 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, I was reading your comments above. It wouldn't surprise me at all. It wouldn't be the first time Uncle Sam or corporate America armed both sides in a war. Create a situation as an invitation to themselves. The phony war on terror is integral to U.S. economy based largely on war and weapons. The U.S. did sign a UN security resolution to ban weapons sales to the Taliban at start of the decade. The Russians said at the time it is a resolution without teeth, however. I think the Russians are playing along. This is not a Soviet style military occupation with over 100, 000 troops and hundreds of jets, helicopters etc trying to establish total control. This is an illusion, and surrounding countries in the region know it, too.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 05 September 2008 04:13 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 September 2008 06:03 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I didn't miss it. I just didn't acknowledge it. The result is the same - grinding poverty under another U.S.-backed stoogeocracy.

[ 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 06:06 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ohhh ok
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 September 2008 06:14 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Why does it matter?
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 05 September 2008 06:20 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Never mind.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 September 2008 06:21 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes sir aye-aye
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 05 September 2008 06:24 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You do not need to call me sir. I prefer not to have a title.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 September 2008 06:26 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Nice to see all you people deciding what is best for Afghans and who really cares about Afghans.

Just wait.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 05 September 2008 06:28 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
How long do I have to wait and what are we waiting for?
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 September 2008 06:29 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Do nothing. It's not your business. Stay out. Look after your own affairs. Be patient. Keep waiting. I'll let you know.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 September 2008 06:34 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Ok, Webgear - are you ready? Have you been patient? Here you go:

Public support for Afghan mission lowest ever: poll

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      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 September 2008 06:45 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 05 September 2008 06:48 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 05 September 2008 06:51 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Your ignorance of history is amazing.
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 September 2008 06:54 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
Your ignorance of history is amazing.

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.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 September 2008 06:56 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 05 September 2008 06:58 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 September 2008 07:02 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 September 2008 07:07 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
The current insurgency is weak and small compared anything that has happen in Afghanistan since its creation in 1747.

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.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 September 2008 07:16 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Unionist

There 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      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 05 September 2008 07:35 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
My mistake, Webgear. I thought they removed the word "Canadian".
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 05 September 2008 07:37 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Creating 10,000 seasonal jobs through the ongoing project to rehabilitate Kandahar's crumbling Dahla dam, and its irrigation and canal systems.
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.

Well if the dysfunction and disorganized CIDA start doing what they are suppose to do, more would have been completed by now.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 September 2008 07:38 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 05 September 2008 07:43 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Jingles

It is disappointing to be branded like consumer product, personally I feel dissatisfied.


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 05 September 2008 07:59 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
personally I feel dissatisfied

That's okay. The give out a medal for that now.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 05 September 2008 08:02 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
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
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 September 2008 02:06 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
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: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 06 September 2008 02:35 AM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
NATO supply cut by Pakistan:

quote:
BARA: In a major development, the federal government on Friday announced disconnection of supply lines to the allied forces stationed in Afghanistan through Pakistan in an apparent reaction to a ground attack on a border village in South Waziristan agency by the Nato forces.

here


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 06 September 2008 03:44 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Whoa! Long thread.
From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca