I went and bought, I is for Infidel by Kathy Gannon, since in the other thread, y'all raved about it so . . .

Her take on the creation of the Taliban is rather different than what some posted. Gannon asserts that, in 1994, the Taliban was an internal response to lawlessness in Afghanistan as a result of the Soviet pull out and rise of the mujahedeen.

Mullah Omar's beginnings "were humble, his kingdom a small mud mosque in a place called Sanghisar in the Panjwali District of Southern Afghanistan. He was a simple man, not well educated, as he had been schooled only at a village madrassa, receiving introductory study of the Quran and little else."

On one trip from Sanghisar to Kandahar, Omar was stopped 5 times at "checkpoints" set up by marauding mujahedeen. Having served in the mujahedeen against the Soviets, Omar knew all the "commanders" who stopped and exhorted money from him. On his return, Omar called a jirga of 60 fellow mullahs. They decided to attack a single check point (run by Saleh) and found that when challenged, Saleh's men ran. So they continued to challenge checkpoints, soon clearing the road into Kandahar.

Omar did not know bin Laden previous to this time. Pakistani agents and bin Laden courted Omar and convinced him of his greatness. Soon the Taliban movement of Omar was taken over by Pakistani intelligence agents, al Queda and others.

"Sixty men founded the Taliban, according to Khaksar. In the final years of the Taliban, more than half of the founding fathers had either died or returned to their mosques, disillusioned with the Taliban they had helped to create." (1995:27)

One was a passenger in the back seat of an SUV that was involved in a head-on collision with another "coalition" vehicle.

"In the other accident," says the report, "a Canadian soldier was hurt when the flatbed truck he was driving was rear-ended by a military vehicle also driven by a Canadian."

New weaponry also -- great horking guns. It seems to me that some in the military were complaining about lack of ammunition to properly train on and sight the weapons.

quote:

---

They (the Taliban) stood for cash crop colonialism and witholding basic human rights in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Fidel

---

Actually the Taliban stood AGAINST cash crop colonialism. As for basic human rights, they are amonst a whole crowd of regimes, except that their fart seems to stink much worse than others, thanks to Western media.

The fact of the matter is that Afghanistan is under US/Western radar because of gaz, not human rights.

How informed are we in North America regarding human rights and women status in countries other than these targeted by imperialistic Western capital ?

Let us go beyond what we hear from Fox News and other mouthpieces of neo-colonialism and imperialism and use some critical thinking.

What standards are we using and which makes the Taliban better or worse than the regimes in Turkmenistan, Kuweit, Egypt, Saudi Arabia or Kazakhstan (allies of the West)? Should we keep allowing our attention to human rights conditions to be guided, directed wherever the White House and the mouthpices of neo-colonialism and imperialism want us to look ?

Should we stop assessing human rights conditions at the criteria of length of a woman's skirt, whether her face is veiled or not ?

[ 30 April 2006: Message edited by: sidra ]

quote:

---

Fidel:
But they were for none of that.

---

Granted

quote:

---

They were power mad elitists themselves bent on fattening their own purses with drug money and covert CIA payoffs.

---

Power elitists, maybe so, but the rest of it? What are your sources for such claims and how do you deal with the fact that they cut back the opium trade?

quote:

---

progressive secular socialist thought

---

[ 30 April 2006: Message edited by: Bobolink ]

[ 02 May 2006: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

Power elitists, maybe so, but the rest of it? What are your sources for such claims and how do you deal with the fact that they cut back the opium trade?

I'm no friend of the Taliban or of any other bunch of religious nuts of which our own North American society has in abundance, but lets hang people for what they are actually guilty of.

---

There is only one year were the Taliban cut back poppy production. One year. The other years leading up to it there was a serious spike, an increase in production.

quote:

---

Reason:
There is only one year were the Taliban cut back poppy production.

---

Unfortunately is was their last year, so we can't tell if they were ending production on a permanent basis or not. But that last year was a radical reduction. We do know that after their demise the Karzai government has overseen a radical increase in production.

Some stats:

Opium Poppy Cultivation in Afghanistan

Year Cultivation in hectares

1994 71 470
1995 53 759
1996 56 824
1997 58 416
1998 63 674
1999 90 983
2000 82 172
2001 7606
2002* 45 000 - 65 000

Since this is a dated report the 2002 figure was an estimate.

Link

A UN site with information on Afghan opium:

Link

quote:

---

When production was cut off. The price of opium went up dramatically. The result was zero loss to the producers of opium.

---

But apparently not true for western organizations invested in the opium trade.

quote:

---

From the first link:

Following the year 2000 ban on poppy production imposed by the Taliban government, opium production collapsed by more than 90 percent, leading to a dwindling drug trade and substantial losses to the inters underlying this multibillion dollar trade including Western financial institutions.3 The Northern Alliance became the main political force involved in protecting the production and marketing of raw opium.

---

The international banking system, major financial interests and politicians who receive their money through corporate donations are all hooked into the drug trade in some way.

Behind all of the rhetoric and propaganda about such, there really is no war on drugs, just a fight between drug dealers. Any move against the opium fields or any other drug production enterprise should be viewed not as a law enforcement operation as much as a business manuever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

Power elitists, maybe so, but the rest of it? What are your sources for such claims and how do you deal with the fact that they cut back the opium trade?

I'm no friend of the Taliban or of any other bunch of religious nuts of which our own North American society has in abundance, but lets hang people for what they are actually guilty of.

---

Oh come on now, Jerry. It's well known that the Taliban owes its existence to U.S., Saudi and British funding and auxiliary support from the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence(Pakistani "CIA"). I'm not laying blame squarely on the shoulders of the Afghani or Pakistani youth who grew up inside a CIA-Saudi brainwashing experiment. The Taliban took up alliances with homicidal thugs of questionable character, like Gulbudden Hekmatyar, according to one Pakistani news journalist based in London. It's said that far more money was shovelled by the CIA and friends to the most violent and anti-democratic factions in that region of the world than was spent on killing an idea in Latin America.

quote:

---

Fidel:
Oh come on now, Jerry. It's well known that the Taliban owes its existence to U.S., Saudi....

---

There is no debate on that, my point is that at the time of the US invasion they may have no longer been planning on using drugs as a source of revenue. We do know that they severely curtailed production, and even though it caused a price spike who knows what the long term effects would have been had they been in a position to continue on that path. It still doesn't make them nice guys, but whether they were still looking for fat drug revenues is a matter of speculation, at least so it seems to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

The international banking system, major financial interests and politicians who receive their money through corporate donations are all hooked into the drug trade in some way.

Behind all of the rhetoric and propaganda about such, there really is no war on drugs, just a fight between drug dealers. Any move against the opium fields or any other drug production enterprise should be viewed not as a law enforcement operation as much as a business manuever.

One might reasonably argue that part of the reason we are in Afghanistan is to protect western interests in the drug trade.

---

Do you not call into suspect going from a banner year of production, to [CORRECTION]near[/CORRECTION]zero? This is something the US, and billions of dollars, and the world's most high tech equipment could not do with pot grown in the US.

[ 01 May 2006: Message edited by: Reason ]

[ 01 May 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Reason:
Do you not call into suspect going from a banner year of production, to near zero?

---

Sure, just like I find the stated reasons for our forces being in Afghanistan suspect. My point is that based on the reduction of production by the Taliban one can logically argue that they were moving away from an opium based economy. Was it a sham? Who knows? We didn't get to see it develop one way or the other, and any paper evidence that predicts what they were up to is only a prediction, and we know how they can be spun.

Personally I'm glad they are gone on one hand, but not too happy about all the people we needlessly killed effecting that, nor the fact that we are there trying to do what is a cultural task by military force, not that I believe at the highest levels any of that really matters other than to put a happy face on things.

quote:

---

This is something the US, and billions of dollars, and the world's most high tech equipment could not do with pot grown in the US.

---

There are apparently, two Taliban organizations. One was formed at the time of the Holy War against the Soviets. Eric Margolis discusses it in his book, War at the Top of the World: The Struggle for Afghanistan and Asia. I believe it may be this Taliban to which much of Fidel's post refers.

The "60 simple Mullahs" Taliban formed following the retreat of the Soviets is something quite different. Their attempts at poppy eradication seem to have been genuine. According to Gannon, poppy eradication under this Taliban was successful as the Mullahs knew village dynamics. They sent a message to every village saying that wherever poppies were growing, both the village elder and the mullah would be arrested, along with the farmer and all jailed for a month. By making an example of one defiant farmer and parading him through his village on their truck, the Taliban scared both the village elders and mullahs into action.

So the Taliban's shrewd bargaining seems to have gotten them into trouble with big business who sent signals to Washington and Pentagon that they couldn't do business with the Taliban. They weren't a "stable" enough regime. Ya right. Anybody remember the end of that movie, Three Days of the Condor with Bob Redford ?. Yep, he learns that it was all about oil. And that was an old movie, too. Basteds

They're trying to turn Afghanistan into a situation similar for Angola, only without oil directly in their midst. Cold war-torn Angola exports oil to the states, and the people live in abject poverty. The Taliban should have accepted whatever the payoff deal was and went on their corrupt merry way like so many other U.S. corporate-friendly regimes while their economies go down the drain.

[ 02 May 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

The West went to Afghanistan in 2001 because Al-Queda had become intertwined with the Taliban leadership. While speculative history is not my strong suite, I wager that had there had been no 9/11 attacks, the Taliban would probably still be running the show here. We are here for security concerns, not economics.

That is not to say that development and reconstruction are not part of establishing and maintaining security. Afghanistan needs to rebuild and develop stable governance. We are here primarily to help them with the security piece.

Cheers,

quote:

---

TK 421:
Its not about oil pipelines.

---

Not entirely, and probably not primarily, but they are part of the mix. I don't have time to pull up the references at the moment, but a good internet search should turn up more than one.

quote:

---

The West went to Afghanistan in 2001 because Al-Queda had become intertwined with the Taliban leadership. While speculative history is not my strong suite, I wager that had there had been no 9/11 attacks, the Taliban would probably still be running the show here.

---

There is no doubt that 911 was the catalyst, however the Taliban and All Qaeda connection as a reason is probably more an excuse rather than a reason, as is the 911 attack. The US administration was looking for a cause celebre to invade the middle east, particularly Iraq, and a 911 gave them the knee jerk justification to do it. Afghanistan was the opening act of the conquest of Iraq.

Check out the Project For A New American Century. Thes guys were hoping for something like 911.

quote:

---

We are here for security concerns, not economics.

---

Economics are the premier security concern. Some individuals may be there out of altruism, misguided or not, but it would be a mistake to believe that that is what is driving policy.

There is lots of money to be made for some in this adventure and in promoting conflict in general.

As an aside, here is a link to an interesting article from today's CSM:

quote:

---

US does not consider Taliban terrorists

Even as the Taliban attacks US, Canadian, and British forces, organization is left off terrorist list in 'political' decision.

By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

When the US State Department issued its annual Country Reports on Terrorism last Friday, it listed numerous state-sponsors of terrorism, like Iran, and groups it considers foreign terrorist organizations, like Hamas, Al Qaeda, and Hizbullah. Conspiciously absent from the lists, however, was the Taliban.

In an article entitled "Terrorism's Dubious 'A' List," the non-partisan Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) reports that the religious extremist organization has never been listed as a terrorist group by the US, Britain, the EU, Canada, Australia, or any of the coalition partners, despite the fact that during its six year rule in Afghanistan, it provided save haven for Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda, and currently is staging terrorist attacks against coalition forces and waging a national campaign of intimidation and fear....

Link

---

quote:

---

...and currently is staging terrorist attacks against coalition forces...

---

This is an example of the way "terrorism" has become a meaningless term.

An IED aimed at an occupying army is not terrorism; nor is a suicide bombing.

Oil barons court Taliban in Texas
by Caroline Lees, The Telegraph

quote:

---

The Taliban, Afghanistan's Islamic fundamentalist army, is about to sign a £2 billion contract with an American oil company to build a pipeline across the war-torn country.

The Islamic warriors appear to have been persuaded to close the deal, not through delicate negotiation but by old-fashioned Texan hospitality. Last week Unocal, the Houston-based company bidding to build the 876-mile pipeline from Turkmenistan to Pakistan, invited the Taliban to visit them in Texas. Dressed in traditional salwar khameez, Afghan waistcoats and loose, black turbans, the high-ranking delegation was given VIP treatment during the four-day stay.

The Taliban ministers and their advisers stayed in a five-star hotel and were chauffeured in a company minibus. Their only requests were to visit Houston's zoo, the Nasa space centre and Omaha's Super Target discount store to buy stockings, toothpaste, combs and soap. The Taliban, which controls two-thirds of Afghanistan and is still fighting for the last third, was also given an insight into how the other half lives.

The men, who are accustomed to life without heating, electricity or running water, were amazed by the luxurious homes of Texan oil barons. Invited to dinner at the palatial home of Martin Miller, a vice-president of Unocal, they marvelled at his swimming pool, views of the golf course and six bathrooms.
....
Unocal, which heads an international consortium of companies from Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Japan, has been bidding for the contract since vast oil and gas reserves were discovered in Turkmenistan, one of the southernmost states of the former Soviet Union, in 1994. The fuel has so far been untapped because of Moscow's demands for high transport fees if it passes through Russian-controlled territory. The quickest and cheapest way to get the reserves out is to build a pipeline through Afghanistan.

It will supply two of the fastest-growing energy markets in the world: Pakistan and India. The Unocal group has one significant attraction for the Taliban - it has American government backing. At the end of their stay last week, the Afghan visitors were invited to Washington to meet government officials. The US government, which in the past has branded the Taliban's policies against women and children "despicable", appears anxious to please the fundamentalists to clinch the lucrative pipeline contract. The Taliban is likely to have been impressed by the American government's interest as it is anxious to win international recognition. So far, it has been recognised only by the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:

This is an example of the way "terrorism" has become a meaningless term.

An IED aimed at an occupying army is not terrorism; nor is a suicide bombing.

In fact, they're not even crimes of war. Soldiers in a war zone are a legitimate target, full stop. You can legally attack them in any way you like, except (of course) with chemical or biological weapons, etc.

---

The terrorism part comes into play when these idiots plant these explosives in built up areas, killing innocent Afghans... Usually missing their mark altogeather at that.

The commentary is more a direct result of the indiscriminate tactics used. Further, other tactics used by the terrorists include the murdering (usually by beheading) of civilians involved in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. Nine times out of ten, these civilians are Afghans themselves.

Soldiers are legitimate targets, I accept that. Civilians are not. Regardless of their function. Full stop.

[ 02 May 2006: Message edited by: Reason ]

quote:

---

Soldiers are legitimate targets, I accept that. Civilians are not. Regardless of their function. Full stop.

---

quote:

---

Soldiers are legitimate targets, I accept that. Civilians are not. Regardless of their function. Full stop.

---

Nice sentiment, but we and our "allies" don't even recognize that. The whole idea behind strategic bombing was, and still is, justified by the perpetrators because the civilians were involved in the war effort, and therefore legitimate targets. Dresden, Berlin, London, Tokyo and the atomic targets were targetted without any qualms about civilian casualties. So far, no unlawful combattant, terrorist, or insurgent has even come close to reaching the levels of depraved indifference to human life and the nuanced differences between civilian or military targets. I would argue that the irregulars, the terrorist, or whatever you want to label them, have shown far more restraint than the uniformed exporters of violence. Take a look at Fallujah, and tell me how an insurgent could even dream of visiting such destruction on a people.

quote:

---

Jingles:
Even at a local level, can you argue that a CIA field agent is not a legitimate target,....

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:

Nice sentiment, but we and our "allies" don't even recognize that.

---

As a matter of policy and law, we do recognize that, wether our breathern to the south want to or not. We go to great lengths, and sometimes put ourselves in peril to protect the civilian population because it is the lawful thing to do, as well as being the ethical and moral thing to do.

quote:

---

The whole idea behind strategic bombing was, and still is, justified by the perpetrators because the civilians were involved in the war effort, and therefore legitimate targets. Dresden, Berlin, London, Tokyo and the atomic targets were targetted without any qualms about civilian casualties. So far, no unlawful combattant, terrorist, or insurgent has even come close to reaching the levels of depraved indifference to human life and the nuanced differences between civilian or military targets. I would argue that the irregulars, the terrorist, or whatever you want to label them, have shown far more restraint than the uniformed exporters of violence. Take a look at Fallujah, and tell me how an insurgent could even dream of visiting such destruction on a people.

---

Strategic bombing (ie carpet bombing) is not something we engage in. It is morally, ethically, and legally wrong.

Further, you are way off the mark with suggesting the insurgents in Iraq "...that the irregulars, the terrorist, or whatever you want to label them, have shown far more restraint than the uniformed exporters of violence. Take a look at Fallujah, and tell me how an insurgent could even dream of visiting such destruction on a people."

The insurgents are killing more then there fair share of civilians. Many hundreds, if not thousands have fallen to insurgent IEDs which went off too early, too late or in crowded markets or city streets. Secondly, take into account that the explosive power to destroy an M1 Abrams levels city blocks, and they are destroying M1's in city cores... Everytime they do there is assured civilian casualties.

Further, some of the insurgent groups have started in-fighting targeting religious services at mosques etc. The insurgents I beleive have exceded in the category of inflicted civilian casualties many months ago over the Americans.

quote:

---

Even at a local level, can you argue that a CIA field agent is not a legitimate target,even though they are, at least nominally civilian? How about the thousands of hired killers from Blackwater, Custer Battles, and like organizations to carry out Rumsfelds privatized wars? Will you argue that the four mercenaries mutilated in Fallujah were not legitimate targets?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:
Strategic bombing (ie carpet bombing) is not something we engage in. It is morally, ethically, and legally wrong.

---

Couldn't agree more, but it is highly likely that RCAF forces were involved in fire bombing Dresden and Berlin, the cities Jingles cites (I assume a WWII reference).

A little off topic but still in the realm of cataloguing events in Afghanistan -- this was posted on Rabble some days previously:

quote:

---

Toppling walls in Kandahar
AFGHANISTAN
Life out from under the shadow of the Taliban

Michael Luongo / Xtra West / Wednesday, April 26, 2006

The Western presence in Afghanistan is a horribly complex situation. The barriers of language, culture, distance and war compound that complexity. After decades of fundamentalist religious rule and war, how do Afghans really view same-sex sexuality? What is life like for those who need to explore their sexuality outside of the socially acceptable and the legal?

Secrets were everywhere and surprisingly easy to discuss during my several visits to Afghanistan from 2003-2005. Besides the ongoing danger of the Taliban, Kandahar has a special reputation among Afghans: it's an open secret that Kandahar is a den of homosexuality.

I was told to be discreet while I was investigating this aspect of the city, to discuss the subject only after being here a few days.

After all, homosexuals were publicly murdered here only a few years back, along with adulterers and other so-called sinners. Yet Abdul, the Afghan journalist accompanying me in Kandahar, a man who at first I knew little about other than his position as a well-respected local radio personality, was the first to bring it up.

---

I reserve the word terrorist for those who deliberately target civilians (non-combatants) with the intent of creating terror in the population. Someone who deliberately sets a bomb off in a market to kill/maim non-combatants is a terrorist in my books.

I do realize, however, that the road to hell is paved with good intentions. When discussing collateral damage (unintended harm of non-combatants), there is not a carte blanche. I suppose that there is some sense of proportionality.

Going out the gate prepared to kill the enemy, however, does not make me a terrorist. It makes me a soldier, subservient to lawful command and bound by laws that regulate my conduct.

We could have a separate thread for the WW II bombing campaign, since it is somewhat divorced in time and space from the situation here.

M Spector,

Again, I do not dispute that some would have liked to build a pipeline through Afghanistan. In time, they probably will. Indeed, I hope it brings some prosperity here. That is only one leg, however, of the proposed pipelines to tap Central Asia's resources. To use a visit by Taliban officials in 1997 as the foundation for the argument that Operation Enduring Freedom is about pipelines is very thin, although I'm sure it would make a good movie.

OEF was initiated because of Al-Queda's use of Afghanistan as a base and the Taliban regime'e intertwining with that organization. 9/11 brought us here, not pipelines. We are staying to give Afghanistan a chance for stability.

Cheers,

quote:

---

Originally posted by TK 421:
OEF was initiated because of Al-Queda's use of Afghanistan as a base and the Taliban regime'e intertwining with that organization. 9/11 brought us here, not pipelines.

---

Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11. The invasion was planned years before then. The terrorist attacks on US soil merely gave Bush the support he needed for his planned war to secure control of energy interests in the Caspian Sea. If Al Qaeda was the real target, it would make more sense to attack Pakistan:

quote:

---

The decision to attack Afghanistan surprised experts on Central Asia and the Islamist terrorist organizations that were based there. Osama bin Laden lived in Afghanistan (near Kandahar) and Al Qaeda operated training camps there, but Al Qaeda’s primary operations were (and remain) in the dusty towns of the remote tribal areas and occupied sections of Kashmir - places like Quetta and Gilgit - in Pakistan. Pakistan was also the main source of money and weapons to the Taliban militia. The Pakistani intelligence service had helped install Mullah Omar’s Taliban in 1996.

---

I suppose we are at an impasse, and we will have to agree to disagree on the motivation for OEF.

Fidel,

I can neither confirm nor deny any prior service in the militaries of other galaxies.

Cheers,

quote:

---

Originally posted by TK 421:
I suppose we are at an impasse, and we will have to agree to disagree on the motivation for OEF.

---

You have offered a theory that seems to suppose that the US and its allies went to war in Afghanistan in 2001 to secure a pipeline route to Pakistan. Your proof is a meeting between Taliban officials and US oil executives in 1997. That's getting into conspiracy theory territory. There was certainly interest in a pipeline, but not enough to wage war.

My thesis is that the US and its allies went to Afghanistan in 2001 in response to the terrorist attacks perpetrated by Al-Queda in September of that year. They did so at great risk for reasons of security, not pipelines. We are staying at great cost for reasons of security, not pipelines. As I have said, there are other routes for pipelines out of Central Asia.

For an interesting inside look at the decision-making between Sep and Dec 2001 you should read "Bush's War."

TK

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

If all you can do is repeat tired old lies, there's no point in arguing with you.
Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11. The invasion was planned years before then. The terrorist attacks on US soil merely gave Bush the support he needed for his planned war to secure control of energy interests in the Caspian Sea. If Al Qaeda was the real target, it would make more sense to attack Pakistan:

---

Ok, for the record. The Taliban rejoiced in the fact that AQ was calling Afghnaistan NOT Pakistan home. OBL was under the protection of the Taliban. OBL got on video tape and claimed responsibility for 9/11 from Afghanistan.

quote:

---

Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11. The invasion was planned years before then.

---

The invasion of Afghanistan occurred when it did because of 9-11. There is no reason to believe it would have occurred otherwise. Planning something "for years" means not doing anything during those years.

The US has "plans" to do many things. These are documents which lie around collecting dust, but which are referred to if circumstances seem to require it.

It is said that a New York State military base is placed where it is, so that an invasion of Canada could be accomplished from that point, by driving straight up the Ottawa River to the capital.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11. The invasion was planned years before then.

---

I'm no fan of the neo-cons, but I don't think this is the truth. It's perfectly true that the neo-cons wanted war, but the war they wanted was Iraq. Afghanistan was a sideshow, made necessary by 911--a step they had to get out of the way before they could start the war they wanted.

This is also the opinion of Gwynne Dyer, in his 2004 book Future Tense: the Coming World Order, so it's not all that radical an idea.

~~

However, that said, I think that once the US invaded, the neo cons immediately turned their attention to how to profit by the now necessary war, and this desire, alternating with uninterested neglect, has driven most decisions made since.

Clearly, it was the pipeline faction that motivated the selection of Karzai as president, and which has driven some of the military decisions on the ground.

On the other hand, it was neglect which drove the US to largely abandon the search for Osama and al Qaeda, and to begin pulling troops out.

It's also neglect which lead the US to send troops into the theatre disguised as development workers, a fact which has caused many aid agencies to pull out, because the afghans they were coming into contact with could no longer be certain if they were aid workers or special forces. This greatly damaged the reconstruction process.

However, I think that the pipeline idea is mostly abandoned or at least back burnered--the region won't be stable enough for a US lead project for years, if then.

quote:

---

As a matter of policy and law, we do recognize that, wether our breathern to the south want to or not. We go to great lengths, and sometimes put ourselves in peril to protect the civilian population because it is the lawful thing to do, as well as being the ethical and moral thing to do.

---

quote:

---

Canada contributed just 18 CF-18 jets to the 800-strong aerial armada NATO deployed against Yugoslavia. But the CAF boasts that Canadian pilots participated in fully ten percent of all bombing missions against Yugoslavia. In two-and-a-half months, Canadian pilots reportedly flew 678 sorties, including 558 bombing missions. Because of bad weather and Yugoslav ground-to-air attacks, Canadian planes actually dropped bombs in just 224 missions, but their targets were spread across the breadth of Serbia and Kosovo.

Canadian planes launched 361 laser-guided bombs and 171 regular, 220-kilogram bombs....

Under questioning from the press, (Lieutenant-General and Deputy Chief of Defence Staff Ray) Henault admitted Canadian culpability in the destruction of Danube River bridges, oil refineries, oil storage facilities, radio transmitters, airports and government buildings, and in the deaths of an unnamed number of Yugolsav soldiers. Canadian warplanes reportedly played an important part in the final days of the war in the extermination of a Yugoslav army battalion that was fighting the Kosovo Liberation Army(my note: The KLA consisting of the same Jihadists, Mujahadeen, or Al Quaeda scumbags that we are currently "fighting". But that was back when we were at war with Eurasia) from on Mount Pastrik, near the Kosovo-Albania border

---

So I guess we don't have any moral qualms about bombing civilian targets after all. Huh.

quote:

---

Secondly, take into account that the explosive power to destroy an M1 Abrams levels city blocks, and they are destroying M1's in city cores... Everytime they do there is assured civilian casualties.

---

So we agree that killing civilians in the act of destroying a military target is a bad thing. Whoopee. Unfortunately, our glorious leaders have determined that when our side does it, it is okay because we really didn't mean to kill the bystanders. Besides they're merely collateral damage, and they themselves bear the responsibility for their own demise by being there in the first place. This is exactly what we hear every time civilians are slaughtered by the military. Like that wedding party in Afghanistan (I know, I should be more specific: which slaughtered wedding party are you talking about?) where they used AC-130s to catch the terrorist bouquet.

I know what you're gonna say "But that's the Americans. We don't do that". Maybe we don't directly, but we are there as their proxys, as their temporary migrant workers, their gastarbeiten. We are under their command. Unless you and your comrades act to stop the Americans from committing these ongoing atrocities, then you too bear responsibilty for those acts.

quote:

---

The insurgents I beleive have exceded in the category of inflicted civilian casualties many months ago over the Americans.

---

You gotta be kidding me. If not directly killed by the American military, Iraqis are being murdered by the militias and death squads clearly answering to those under American sponsorship: the Salvadore Option. Can you honestly say that the staggering amount of ordinance dropped on Iraq in the last fifteen years has killed fewer people than the occasional car bomb?

quote:

---

OBL got on video tape and claimed responsibility for 9/11 from Afghanistan.

Were(sic) is the tired old lie?

---

quote:

---

Jeff House:
The invasion of Afghanistan occurred when it did because of 9-11. There is no reason to believe it would have occurred otherwise.

---

That is was Afghanistan and that it happened in 2001 can be directly attributed to 911, but the indicators are there that they were looking for something, somewhere in the area to give them an excuse to project considerable military force into the Mid-East. 911 provided the excuse, but it is debatable that by itself it was the reason.

quote:

---

TK 421:
Going out the gate prepared to kill the enemy, however, does not make me a terrorist.

---

That depends on your intent and how and why you plan to kill.

quote:

---

It makes me a soldier, subservient to lawful command and bound by laws that regulate my conduct.

---

At least in theory when no one is shooting at you.

quote:

---

OEF was initiated because of Al-Queda's use of Afghanistan as a base and the Taliban regime'e intertwining with that organization. 9/11 brought us here, not pipelines. We are staying to give Afghanistan a chance for stability.

---

And no doubt some German soldiers believed they were in Poland because of a Polish attack on Germany. History is full of official reasons that were manufactured to mask real intent.

If there were not a drop of oil to be found any where 1000 miles either way from a line drawn between Cairo and Kabul, Afganistan might still be a backwater little known in the west and visited by a only a handful of adventure travellers, and the Middle East just a point of reference for historians and religious nuts.

quote:

---

Reason:
Ok, for the record. The Taliban rejoiced in the fact that AQ was calling Afghnaistan NOT Pakistan home. OBL was under the protection of the Taliban.

---

And they offered to make a deal and give him up. The OBL issue could have been settled without a military invasion. OBL, AQ, 911 are all issues of convenience that provide a catalyst for reactions to pursue more important goals.

Oil and control of scarce resources are important to building wealth in our society, and military spending is a lucrative field for transferring taxpayer money to private, corporate pockets. Eisenhower was not being stupid when he warned us almost 50 years ago.

For the core reasons of why we do these things like Afghanistan look to see how the money flows from them, and to who. All of the patriotic and warm and fuzzy rationales that are given are smokescreens and fairy tales.

quote:

---

Jingles:
Unless you and your comrades act to stop the Americans from committing these ongoing atrocities, then you too bear responsibilty for those acts.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:

You just said it. How many times does someone have to provide the evidence that the US refused offers by the Taliban to turn over Bin Ladan before you'll remember that little inconvenient bit of history?

---

Despite your claims in your multiple postings of understand politics, you do not seem to understand the terms of the actual game. Afghan and Taliban culpability in the support of AQ is not in question. So, when 9/11 occurred, and the US demanded the turn over of OBL, it was an unconditional demand. One which the US was well within bounds to make. The Taliban made many offers, all of them with rather grandiose conditions.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:

It is a game. The Taliban made the offers, not for the benefit of the US or world body, but for people like you. And you bought that hook line and sinker.

---

Just imagine. Bin Laden might have been in custody and facing charges. We might have heard the evidence by now (the Bush monarchs haven't deigned to make it public, because that would show they lack testosterone). Thousands of innocent people might be alive. But capturing Bin Laden and avoiding more 9-11s wasn't really the big prize in what you call the game -- was it now? That's why Bush had to make his demands unconditional, and unfulfillable.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Just imagine. Bin Laden might have been in custody and facing charges. We might have heard the evidence by now (the Bush monarchs haven't deigned to make it public, because that would show they lack testosterone). Thousands of innocent people might be alive. But capturing Bin Laden and avoiding more 9-11s wasn't really the big prize in what you call the game -- was it now? That's why Bush had to make his demands unconditional, and unfulfillable.

That innocent Afghans, Canadian and other foreign soldiers have to pay the price for Bush's arrogance (and that of his tiny band of supporters -- including you) is irrelevant. They are expendable.

---

OBL would never have changed hands... The negotiations would be on going today. It would have been easy for the Taliban from our perspective to say "opps, here you go... He's yours.", but they didn't. They attached all sorts of varying conditions. It is also important to note the Taliban's culpability in 9/11 which abdicated any claim to the Taliban being in a negotiable position.

quote:

---

Reason:
It is a game. The Taliban made the offers, ....

---

It's all a game, your playing in it now. What is objectionable is that the US choose the brute force option when the finesse one was still very viable. This tells us that using force in Afghanistan itself was more important thant the stated reasons for using that force. When we seriously ask ourselves why, all of the official reasons and rationalizations by supporters given to date can be picked apart and discounted.

If it is about AQ and OBL that could have been settled without the invasion.

If it is about stability in Afghanistan why wasn't it an issue pre 911? And so on.

quote:

---

From today's NYT:

"During the day the people, the police and the army are with the government, but during the night, the people, the police and the army are all with the Taliban and Al Qaeda."

HAJI SAIFULLAH, a shopkeeper in Tirin Kot, Afghanistan.

Taliban Threat Is Said to Grow in Afghan South

---

The response to 9/11 in Afghanistan was actually quite "finessed." Special Forces combined with local soldiers harnessing precision strikes from aircraft. I guess finesse is in the eye of the beholder, but to me it was pretty slick.

I guess you are implying that the TB would have actually handed over OBL and his supporters and dismantled his network. I think that the TB were feeling pretty secure in 2001, and Afghanistan sure looked far away to US planners.

We went there to get AQ and the TB regime that was intertwined with them to prevent another 9/11. We are staying to help the Government of Afghanistan bring stability and ensure that we don't have to come back in a couple of years and start over again.

Had there been no AQ in Afghanistan and no 9/11 attack, the nasty Afghan civil war would, I believe, still be dragging on and I would not be here (and have been here before). "Nation-building" was not on the agenda in August 2001.

Cheers,

quote:

---

TK 421:
The response to 9/11 in Afghanistan was actually quite "finessed." Special Forces combined with local soldiers harnessing precision strikes from aircraft. I guess finesse is in the eye of the beholder, but to me it was pretty slick.

---

That is finesse from a military standpoint, not quite the same as finesse from a broader political standpoint. Once we get to military finesse we already have either a failure to control the situation or ulterior motives. Using describing airstrikes as finesse is pretty funny.

quote:

---

I guess you are implying that the TB would have actually handed over OBL and his supporters and dismantled his network.

---

We don't know since that option was aborted early on in the game. No telling what would have happened if all of the money spent on the military option so far was used instead to buy off or buy out people to change the situation.

The military option was used because a military response was required for other issues outside of the specific ones in Afghanistan.

quote:

---

We went there to get AQ and the TB regime that was intertwined with them to prevent another 9/11.

---

AQ is still there, the TB are still there, OBL is still somewhere, 911 was more the fault of poor US security than anything else, and terrorism seems to have increased since 2001.

quote:

---

We are staying to help the Government of Afghanistan bring stability and ensure that we don't have to come back in a couple of years and start over again.

---

More likely we are staying to help the US save face and any good that comes from that will be incidental.

What happens if the insurgency really takes off and tens of thousands of more foreign troops are required to hold the line?

quote:

---

Had there been no AQ in Afghanistan and no 9/11 attack, the nasty Afghan civil war would, I believe, still be dragging on and I would not be here. "Nation-building" was not on the agenda in August 2001.

---

Civilized countries do not use ultimatums and invasions.

We had an example last year of the USA wanting Canada to hand over Marc Emery, who was accused of selling marijuana seeds to USians by mail from Canada. The US did not give us an ultimatum; they did not threaten to invade Canada to get Emery. They followed legal extradition procedures.

If this were Afghanistan, the US would have come and grabbed Emery, killing anyone who got in their way, and shipped him off to a torture camp.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
When one country wants another to hand over a suspect for prosecution, there are accepted legal procedures for doing so. It's called Extradition.

Civilized countries do not use ultimatums and invasions.

We had an example last year of the USA wanting Canada to hand over Marc Emery, who was accused of selling marijuana seeds to USians by mail from Canada. The US did not give us an ultimatum; they did not threaten to invade Canada to get Emery. They followed legal extradition procedures.

If this were Afghanistan, the US would have come and grabbed Emery, killing anyone who got in their way, and shipped him off to a torture camp.

Aren't you glad Canada is an "ally" of the US?

---

First you try to justify the attack on Afghanistan by pointing to the Taliban's failure to hand over OBL on demand. Then when it is pointed out that that is not a legitimate excuse to go to war, you shift ground radically, and claim that the occurrence of the 9/11 attacks themselves was sufficient justification.

I suggest you choose a fantasy scenario and stick with it.

As has been pointed out many times in babble, OBL denied responsibility for 9/11 until after the attack on Afghanistan had begun.

There were no Afghanis involved in the 9/11 attacks; it would make more sense to "declare war" on Saudi Arabia, if anyone.

The Taliban allowed Al-Queda to become intertwined with their regime. Al-Queda was not hiding in some remote area but was openly training, planning and organizing. The nationality of the hijackers is not the issue, it is where they got their intitial training and support. The Taliban had willingly allowed their country to become a terrorist base. Perhaps they believed they were invincible?

OEF was (and is) about more that OBL. It was about destroying that organization's capabilty to conceive and plan more attacks like 9/11.

Cheers,

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
You really are ignorant, aren't you?

First you try to justify the attack on Afghanistan by pointing to the Taliban's failure to hand over OBL on demand. Then when it is pointed out that that is not a legitimate excuse to go to war, you shift ground radically, and claim that the occurrence of the 9/11 attacks themselves was sufficient justification.

I suggest you choose a fantasy scenario and stick with it.

As has been pointed out many times in babble, OBL denied responsibility for 9/11 until after the attack on Afghanistan had begun.

There were no Afghanis involved in the 9/11 attacks; it would make more sense to "declare war" on Saudi Arabia, if anyone.

But if you knew anything about international law you would know that unilateral declarations of war are not legal.

---

Speaking of fantasy. Wow. See above.

quote:

---

Insurgents linked to AQ

"Some of the people that have been captured during the fighting or some of the suicide attackers are Arabs; they're not Afghans, they're Arabs and some other nationalities," Karimi said. "So the Arabs are directly connected to Osama bin Laden, and many other militants or extremists from other nations are also under the control and training of al-Qaida."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by eau:
Didn't Kharzai initially support the Taliban? Wonder what he saw that was attractive?

---

It shows that we really don't understand Afghan politics when we try to map "good guy/bad guy" or "freedom/tyrany" dichotomies onto it.

I'm sure the actual politics on the ground are tribal, and allegiances are fleeting, being solely concerned with momentary advantage.

So Karzai at one point saw temporary advantage in aligning with the Taliban. Once they got too powerful and started consolidating power, they became a threat.

Similarly, Karzai now sees advantage in temporarily aligning with the US. However, he's no more committed to western ideals than he was to the taliban.

President Karzai may have initially supported the Taliban, but he had broken with them early on. Many may have initially seen the Taliban as a chance to break from the warring Mujahadeen parties and factions, but later turned from them once they saw what they had in mind for the country. It is believed that the Taliban assassinated his father, and President Karzai fought in the field against the Taliban.

It is an understatement to say that Afghanistan is complex. Ethnic groups, tribes within groups, clans within tribes, religion, and the dichotomy between the cities and the rural areas all make for a highly intricate situation. Thrown in some twenty five years of war and you have the current situation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:

It shows that we really don't understand Afghan politics when we try to map "good guy/bad guy" or "freedom/tyrany" dichotomies onto it.

I'm sure the actual politics on the ground are tribal, and allegiances are fleeting, being solely concerned with momentary advantage.

So Karzai at one point saw temporary advantage in aligning with the Taliban. Once they got too powerful and started consolidating power, they became a threat.

Similarly, Karzai now sees advantage in temporarily aligning with the US. However, he's no more committed to western ideals than he was to the taliban.

He is not unusual in this, I don't suppose.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Reason:

Karzai is Queen's U alumni. By all accounts, having talked to people who knew him then, he was not a bad guy over all.

---

quote:

---

Reason:
Frankly, if OBL had of kept his mouth shut, things might be different today.

---

But that would have defeated his purpose. So far it appears that the biggest beneficiary from the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq is OBL and AQ.

The US and its vassal nations have been sucked into operations far from home on unfamiliar ground with long lines of supply. And the US has given OBL the extra added benefit of engaging in this very expensive business of doing all of this on borrowed money rather than by raising taxes to cover expenses. Not to mention the fact that this involvement is tearing apart the US military.

Victory in asymetrical warfare goes not to those who can win tactical engagements on the battlefield, but to those who can last the longest. In the case of OBL there is little to lose. Not so for the US and company. There is a point when balloon of deficit spending and increasing troop dissatisfaction will burst and leave the invasion forces grabbing for whatever exit they can find.

Now, if the Americans fold are we staying on without their support? Even more, if the Americans attack Iran (slim chance, I hope) and the Iranians carry the war into Afghanistan are we going to foolishly engage them too, or stand by, witholding aid from the US forces while they fight the Iranians?

quote:

---

TK 421:
The Taliban allowed Al-Queda to become intertwined with their regime. Al-Queda was not hiding in some remote area but was openly training, planning and organizing. The nationality of the hijackers is not the issue, it is where they got their intitial training and support. The Taliban had willingly allowed their country to become a terrorist base. Perhaps they believed they were invincible?

---

First, the fact that the Taliban allowed AQ to maintain a presence in their country does not necessarily implicate them in the planning or execution or even foreknowledge of 911.

People in Canada have plotted terrorist acts to take place in the US. Should Canada have been invaded too?

Second, how guilty are those countries from whence the bulk of AQ's financial support comes from? I bet it isn't and wasn't Afghanistan.

And how about the pilot training. How many AQ members learned to fly airliners in Afghanistan. Perhaps the countries that provided the flight training should be held accountable too.

The fact that the Taliban willing allowed their country to be used as a terrorist base is not unremarkable. The US is also a terrorist base with some terrorists actually being trained by the US government (at Fort Benning, among other places), so the fact that a country is a terrorist base by itself is of no important consequence.

quote:

---

OEF was (and is) about more that OBL. It was about destroying that organization's capabilty to conceive and plan more attacks like 9/11.

---

Then it is based on a false premise. One could conceive and plan attacks like that anywhere. The Taliban probably could have been bribed to sell out OBL and AQ, but that would defeated the purpose for the US who wanted a war. It is quite possible that the US doesn't even want OBL and AQ, except enough little pieces now and again to keep the story alive.

quote:

---

Reason:
Arabic tribes are not indigenous to Afghanistan.

---

No kidding?

And the point is? The article of course says SOME of the insurgents are Arabic. I am willing to bet that ALL of the insurgents are Muslim, at least publicly. What we probably have in Afghanistan now, thanks to the invasion, is a melding of a religious based war with a nationalistic/ethnic one.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jerry West:

No kidding?

And the point is? The article of course says SOME of the insurgents are Arabic. I am willing to bet that ALL of the insurgents are Muslim, at least publicly. What we probably have in Afghanistan now, thanks to the invasion, is a melding of a religious based war with a nationalistic/ethnic one.

And let us not forget that General Karimi says nothing that isn't weighed and calculated to support a given position. (as do others) How much is reality and how much is spin is open for debate.

---

Same could be said of all of us... You included.

Now having said this. I have said it before, I will say it again. It is not just Christians in the CF, nor is it just Christians involved in the mission in Afghanistan. The CF has about 5%, maybe more (I do not have the stats handy, and frankly, I hate stats) Muslim practitioners in the ranks (I am low balling). We also have an Imam amongst the ranks of padres.

quote:

---

Reason:
Slanting this on the basis of a religious war is wrong-headed and does no one good.

---

Actually, it probably does the radical Islamists good.

One should not deny the religious aspect to the conflict, anymore than the ethnic/nationalist/tribal elements in some areas. Of course all of these have underlying economic interests which provides the bedrock for most of our problems.

The fact that there are Muslim troops in the US coalition is of no real importance. The Muslim community is no more united around the claims of the fundamentalists than the Christian community was around the Reformation or today around the views of the their own fundamentalist nut bars. However, disagreements and infighting within these cults aside, there is still a religious element in the war against the Afghans and Iraqis.

What is of importance is that religion provides a binding agent to bring together diverse ethnic and nationalistic interests in cooperation against a common enemy. Were the majority of Afghans Jewish, the Iraqis Buddhists and only the Saudis Muslim, we would not have the situation that we have now.

quote:

---

Same could be said of all of us... You included.

---

Of course, but the more people have vested in a certain point of view, like military spokespeople and politicians, the more careful they are going to be to spin their stories and pare out the unpleasant parts so that the message contains only what they want heard.

quote:

---

Originally posted by eau:
Didn't Kharzai initially support the Taliban? Wonder what he saw that was attractive?

---

I believe it was their policy towards women. Check out what RAWA has to say about the Karzai regime's achievements in that regard.

quote:

---

South Asia
May 5, 2006

It's showdown time in Pakistan
By Syed Saleem Shahzad
Asia Times OnLine

KARACHI - Across the jihadi world, there is a strong conviction that by the end of this year Taliban leader Mullah Omar will be back in power in Afghanistan, from where he was driven by US-led forces in 2001.

Realistically, eight months is likely to be too ambitious a time frame for a Taliban victory, if victory is achievable at all.

Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the Taliban movement is poised to enhance its nuisance level significantly in the United States' strategic back yards in the region - notably Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Acutely aware of this, the US is leaning heavily on Pakistan, its key ally in the "war on terror" in the region, to go on the offensive
against the strong Taliban foothold in the North and South Waziristan tribal areas on the border with Afghanistan.

What the US is asking for, in effect, is a Tora Bora-style aerial bombing of the area, similar to that undertaken in the mountains of that name in Afghanistan during the rout of the Taliban five years ago. (Incidentally, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora long before the bombs began to fall.)

---

Oh and some inspiring, decidedly religious quotes from al Zawahiri to Muslims everywhere, but especially targeting Musharraf in Pakistan:

quote:

---

The first of these woes is Musharraf's combating of Islam in Pakistan. With an order from the Crusaders, he provided all the backing needed to expel the Islamic emirate from Kabul. And he has made war on the Islamic schools, and is seeking to review the Hudood Act related to rape], in addition to inventing - with Crusader guidance - a new Qadiani creed which invites the people to an Islam without jihad and without enjoining of good and prohibition of evil and without observation of the rules of the sharia, which he calls "Enlightened Moderation".

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

And Musharraf is the one who wars against the Arab mujahideen and their brothers from all corners of the Islamic world, who represent one of the most important weapons in the liberation of Kashmir, in the same way that they contributed before to the liberation of Afghanistan from the Russians. And Musharraf is the one who brought American military and intelligence forces to Kashmir under the pretext of helping the victims of the earthquake. They came in under this cover and commenced to strengthen their defenses and fortifications in order to establish permanent Crusader bases on the Pakistani-Indian border.

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

And in keeping with Musharraf's worship of wealth and his mad dash for bribes, he tries to persuade the Pakistani people that they must take care of their interests without paying attention to any moral or religious considerations. This is the same logic of drug dealers, white-slavery gangs, spies and traitors, and the outcome of this attitude is the loss of this world and the next. Allah the Exalted says, "Satan threatens you with poverty and bids you to immorality, while Allah promises you His forgiveness and bounties, and Allah cares for all and He knows all things." - Al-Baqarah 2:268.

I address the Pakistani people, to call on them to stand today in the ranks of Islam against the Zionist/Crusader assault on the Islamic ummah and on Pakistan, and I call on them to strive in earnest to topple this bribe-taking, treacherous criminal, and to back their brothers the mujahideen in Afghanistan with everything they have until they defeat the plan of the Crusaders and Zionists allied with India.

---

[ 04 May 2006: Message edited by: siren ]

Good question, and I'll offer my thoughts in response. My thesis is that the Coalition became involved in Afghanistan because of Al-Queda and the attacks of 9/11. We have stayed to make sure that when we do leave there is a stable Afghanistan.

The Coalition did not come here because Afghanistan was in a state of anarchy, although there was an ongoing civil war. The Coalition came here because of Al-Queda's integration into the Taliban. If the Coalition had simply pulled up stakes in April 2002 after toppling the Taliban and either destroying or scattering Al-Queda operatives, I think that Afghanistan would have slid back into open civil war on a scale similar to the early 90s. The Taliban may well have come back into power and Al-Queda would have had its base back.

We are staying here to give the Government of Afghanistan some time to build its institutions and governance. We are also still involved in the war on terror (hunting for AQ etc).

You ask about other countries and why we are not there helping them. I'm getting way above my pay grade here, but foreign policy (which includes military force as an instrument) is usually guided by stragetic interests. These can coincide with humanitarian issues, but national security is usually the prime motivator. Resources are finite, and foreign intervention is usually seen as a last resort. Somalia is an example of what can happen when the desire to help is not matched with stragetic interests/stakes. Terrorism (Al-Queda's) was the stragetic interest that brought us here.

Straight humanitarian assistance is a little different, if it is a case of disaster relief for a nation without an ongoing conflict. In those cases, you may see military forces deployed for short periods in places that are of little strategic importance to the nations sending troops.

Cheers,

quote:

---

The most controversial pocket of new money is in Sherpur, a neighborhood being built near central Kabul. Originally the site of a Defense Ministry barracks, the Sherpur plots were parceled out to government favorites at a bargain price two years ago. Rows of giant mansions are springing up along the rutted streets. With towering staircases, chiseled balconies and green-mirrored windows, many resemble giant concrete wedding cakes.

"The owners are the ones who killed our people and drank our blood," said Hussain, a construction worker who like many Afghans uses one name. "But at least it is providing us with work."

...
Drugs are fueling much of the new wealth. According to the latest report of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, opium production and smuggling accounted for $2.7 billion, or one-third of Afghanistan's gross domestic product, last year.

There also is a widely held belief that international aid has lined the pockets of the wealthy. Basher Dost, a pulpit-pounding former government minister who gained the second highest number of votes in the September parliamentary election, charges that Western aid has been squandered by overpaid foreign consultants and corrupt Afghan officials.

---

The Soviet Progress tour would be fairly short, in my opinion. Don't get me wrong, they built lots of stuff, and women's rights did progress in Kabul. The backlash, however, virtually destroyed it all. I worked amongst the wreckage of Soviet Progress in Kabul.

Soviet Progress is what started this mess. The communist elites of 1970s Kabul, indoctrinated in the USSR, tried to change Afghanistan radically in the face of opposition from the traditionalists. The result was a widespread rebellion and civil war. If ever a country was unsuitable for that kooky old Marx's ideas, it was Afghanistan. Not that I think that any country was suitable for his ideas, but perhaps that's another thread.

Cheers,

quote:

---

TK 421: The communist elites of 1970s Kabul, indoctrinated in the USSR, tried to change Afghanistan radically in the face of opposition from the traditionalists. The result was a widespread rebellion and civil war.

---

The "traditionalists" as you call them, were the Asian equivalent of the contras and were on the payroll of Uncle Sam just as the contras were. Without that funding they would have gone nowhere. They used the same tactics: killing school teachers and health care workers, etc. and deserve the same contempt.

quote:

---

If ever a country was unsuitable for that kooky old Marx's ideas, it was Afghanistan.

---

quote:

---

Soviet Progress is what started this mess. The communist elites of 1970s Kabul, indoctrinated in the USSR, tried to change Afghanistan radically in the face of opposition from the traditionalists. The result was a widespread rebellion and civil war.

---

Now, we have US Progress trying to do the same thing, and creating a widespread rebellion.

Someone once said that the cold war was a war between the moderate and radical wings of the Enlightenment, which the moderates won.

But each of the two ideologies is radically foreign in large parts of the world. That is why military occupation gives rise to opposition, not new and democratic nations.

The Afghan monarchy saw it as a way to stick to the British in India (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). Don't think of it as an endorsement of Communism. Afghanistan did fall into the Soviet orbit over time, and this influence on the elites brought about the civil war once they started trying to bring some communism back home along with their duty free. The Soviets stepped in to "stabilize" things and only made it worse.

The opposition to the Soviets was massive, and entire units of the army had already defected en masse. After all, an ideology that calls for the demise of religion is going to cause a big problem here.

Jeff,

I do hope that we can leave here soon enough. I can't offer a timeline. The Afghan government structure (I'm not talking about buildings) is improving along with their security forces. I think it would be a mistake, however, to leave anytime soon.

Cheers,

TK

quote:

---

TK 421: I do hope that we can leave here soon enough. I can't offer a timeline....I think it would be a mistake, however, to leave anytime soon.

---

Of course, the "war" party line. When will there be enough Canadian and Afghani dead? What's the "exit strategy"? What's the clearly defined goals? Of course, the warmonger has no answers. He just obeys orders.

quote:

---

p.s. Are there still Communists out there? Cool. If so this is like a Lost World or something.

---

quote:

---

TK 421:
....foreign policy (which includes military force as an instrument) is usually guided by stragetic interests. These can coincide with humanitarian issues, but national security is usually the prime motivator.

---

Yes, and strategic interests and national security in the end boil down to economic interests. Ergo the invasion of Afghanistan is tied to economics. Troops are dying to improve someone's profit margin. When it becomes unprofitable or a risk to profits no amount of humanitarian concerns will keep it going.

quote:

---

In those cases, you may see military forces deployed for short periods in places that are of little strategic importance to the nations sending troops.

---

Take out the word strategic and insert the word economic and you hit the nail on the head.

Too bad our policy isn't driven primarily by humanitarian interests.

quote:

---

We are also still involved in the war on terror (hunting for AQ etc).

---

That is not a war on terror, it is a war between terrorists. We are in bed with a country that harbours terrorists, trains terrorists, and supports brutal dictatorships. There is no honour in serving in this cause.

quote:

---

Soviet Progress is what started this mess.

---

Perhaps it was US intervention that made it worse. Imagine intervening on behalf of people who believed in the supression of women, supression of free speech, supression of religious belief and practice, and brutal legal punishments. Regardless of the faults of the Soviet backed regime, there is no good moral excuse for supporting anyone with the views of their opposition in Afghanistan.

Of course it wasn't about Afganistan at all, was it. The Afghans got to be road kill in a US move to weaken the Soviet Union. A move that spawned AQ and lead us to the current predicament. We can thank the Americans for the bulk of the trouble we now face, and rather than supporting them we should be holding them to account.

quote:

---

N. Beltov:
Interesting, then, that Afghanistan even under a monarchy was the first country in the world to recognize the Russian Revolution, while countries like Canada (and 18 others) were sending in troops to overthrow the new government in Russia.

---

Yes, and the last of them didn't pull out until 1925, seven years after invading Russia. No wonder the Soviet Union developed into such a paranoid state, the western industrial nations went to war against it practically from day one of its existance.

quote:

---

TK 421:
Are there still Communists out there?

---

I've been up talking to Canada. I have two days here, an Afghan day and a Canada day. Now it is time to sleep.

Jerry,

My observation is that countries go to war primarily for security, not profit. War isn't that profitable.

We are here because of security, not pipelines. Events in Afghanistan ended up resulting in the attacks of 9/11. That is why you don't see robust coalitions in other places that are unstable right onw. Going to war entails huge risk and commitment, and national security is what causes governments to take those risks.

Some former Mujahadeen are now my enemies. That's war. The Taliban and Al-Queda came after, and I'm here because of what happened in 2001, not 1983.

N Beltov,

I am a soldier, which does not make me a war-monger by default. Still, I guess I threw out the communist label so fair is fair! Am I also a pathological anti-communist? I do find communism kind of funny, like modern history's terrible practial joke. Ah well, enough of that.

I do indeed follow orders, and my personal timeline in measured in months, not years. When I leave there will be another soldier to take my place and advance the yard sticks a little further. I have a little part to play, and I focus on that part. We are, however, working towards an Afghanistan where we can depart and leave a stable democracy behind. That democracy will be in a form decided by the Afghans (and that is already happening). We work closely with our Government of Afghanistan security forces allies and they are becoming stronger and more capable. That is a big piece of our exit strategy. We are also assisting with reconstruction.

Cheers,

quote:

---

TK 421: My observation is that countries go to war primarily for security, not profit. War isn't that profitable.... national security is what causes governments to take those risks.

---

C'mon. You're kidding, right? Next to illegal and legal drugs, military production is the most profitable business in the world. It should be relatively easy to confirm. But also, the term that you've used is worth looking at.

I mean "National Security" of course. Defending the borders of our country, sure, OK. In fact, we could do a better job of that, especially in relation to a certain neighbour to the south of us. But "National Security" in relation to a military operation on another continent? And that, after the Taliban have been long booted out of Government in Afghanistan? That's ridiculous. In fact, a very good argument can be made that participation in the US-led "Operation Enduring Freedom" will increase the insecurity of our country by creating enemies that we didn't have before the operation.

You might find it useful to google "National Security State" and read people like Noam Chomsky et al. People like Chomsky can do a much better job than I in a few short sentences.

One thing I do understand. A soldier probably needs to believe in the worthiness and legitimacy of the operation he/she is involved in, escpecially one that is potentially life-threatening. Reading stuff that challenges the legitimacy of the presence of Canadian combat troops in Afghanistan might weaken a soldier's resolve. Maybe a soldier has to believe. I dunno. Just a thought.

quote:

---

I am a soldier, which does not make me a war-monger by default.

---

Fair enough. A poor choice of words on my part.

quote:

---

We are, however, working towards an Afghanistan where we can depart and leave a stable democracy behind.

---

I truly appreciate and value each and everyone of you, and the restraint all are showing in a subject that is plainly of significance to all the participants.

It is good to know that human beings can disagree, and yet still be civil, and even down right friendly (special mention to Jerry West there on the friendly disagreement thing, you have a way of being sincerely friendly, which on the net, is very difficult to put across).

A tip of my hat to all here today... I have to get back to studies for a course I am on, and will be gone till the 14th.

quote:

---

TK 421:
My observation is that countries go to war primarily for security, not profit. War isn't that profitable.

---

It is profitable for many. It depends on how you look at it. Show me how much money the defense industry is losing because they have to produce war materials?

Tell me that access to and control of resources is a non-profitable thing.

Don't forget that wars and patriotic war hysteria allow for greater political control of a society, control that provides those with the levers of power a better environment for protecting and advancing their economic interests.

Security and economic advantage are often interchangable terms when it comes to understanding government policy.

Sure, wars cost money, and where does it come from and where does it go? Those who are on the receiving end of the cash flow are usually also those who provide the financial support for the politicians that make the policy. War is not profitable for taxpayers and those in society who depend on public funding for education, healthcare and so on. But it is very profitable for a certain class of people. This is not an unknown fact. Eisenhower was right. So is N. Beltov.

quote:

---

We are here because of security, not pipelines.

---

Don't limit your view of profit to pipelines, it is much bigger than that.

quote:

---

Events in Afghanistan ended up resulting in the attacks of 9/11.

---

That is a stretch, more accurate would be that events in Palestine and surrounding countries ended up eventually resulting in the attacks. Afghanistan became a centre of Islamic fundamentalism, certainly, but the reasons for the attacks are much more complex. Besides, the whole Afghan issue could have been dealt with without an invasion and occupation.

quote:

---

....I'm here because of what happened in 2001, not 1983.

---

Unfortunately you can not reasonably separate the two. History does not work that way. The chain of events that lead to the invasion of Afghanistan stretches back centuries.

quote:

---

N. Beltov:
One thing I do understand. A soldier probably needs to believe in the worthiness and legitimacy of the operation he/she is involved in, escpecially one that is potentially life-threatening. Reading stuff that challenges the legitimacy of the presence of Canadian combat troops in Afghanistan might weaken a soldier's resolve. Maybe a soldier has to believe. I dunno. Just a thought.

---

Many do. Some just want to fight and others are looking for personal security and a regular paycheck. I've personally known them all. What happens when the official myths collapse is that morale drops and effectiveness goes out the window. Nasty things happen on the way to that state of affairs as those clinging to the propaganda are not nice to those questioning its validity.

quote:

---

TK 421:
I am a soldier, which does not make me a war-monger by default.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Democracy can't be exported like cheeseburgers.

---

Mmmmmmm. Cheeseburgers!

I think the bloom is definitely coming off the rose of "democracy". Maybe it is Little Boot's speeches claiming democracies don't make war on others (uh, little boots -- mirror?); that liberty (aka "democracy) is god's plan for humanity and on and on. Or perhaps it is any of these claims in light of the electoral monster that is Diebold.

There are many forms of government and any can be bad or good. Some monarchs rule(d) justly and wisely, others are/were not so divine.

Why don't we go for a more Canadian concept of "peace, order and good government". Under whatever political system others choose to pursue.

TK 421 -- hope your rest is peaceful.
And you were just pulling our legs about war not being profitable, right? Everything from the vehicle you ride in, the weaponry you shoot, the aid you help give to Afghans, right down to the damnable Tim Horton's coming your way -- they all turn profits, although not for the soldiers sent to fight.

[ 06 May 2006: Message edited by: siren ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by siren:

Mmmmmmm. Cheeseburgers!

I think the bloom is definitely coming off the rose of "democracy". Maybe it is Little Boot's speeches claiming democracies don't make war on others (uh, little boots -- mirror?); that liberty (aka "democracy) is god's plan for humanity and on and on. Or perhaps it is any of these claims in light of the electoral monster that is Diebold.

There are many forms of government and any can be bad or good. Some monarchs rule(d) justly and wisely, others are/were not so divine.

Why don't we go for a more Canadian concept of "peace, order and good government". Under whatever political system others choose to pursue.

TK 421 -- hope your rest is peaceful.
And you were just pulling our legs about war not being profitable, right? Everything from the vehicle you ride in, the weaponry you shoot, the aid you help give to Afghans, right down to the damnable Tim Horton's coming your way -- they all turn profits, although not for the soldiers sent to fight.

[ 06 May 2006: Message edited by: siren ]

---

I can't speak for TK... In my own opinion, there is zero profit to be made from war, by the guys that actually fight it. Zero. We have everything to lose, and nothing to gain. Even governments have nothing to gain from such painful endeavors.

Multinationals like SNC Lavalin (makes bullets) have everything to gain. It does cause me to wonder, who much influence multinationals have in the world stage.

So on a personal perspective, no. War is NOT profitable.

Honestly. As much as I believe in the mission (I think it is clear how strongly I believe in it lol). I would be happier to stay home all next year. Question is, how much does personal happiness cost me? And so, I keep my bags packed, and my shots uptodate, ready to go.

The government makes the decision to go to war. Government can certainly be influenced by a variety of actors, but it is a little paranoid to think that the defence lobby lobbies the government to go to war. Money gets spent pretty freely in peacetime as well.

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) is a pretty clear war. The US was attacked by a terrorist organization that was openly hosted and supported in another country. That's cause for war. We're staying to try and ensure that we leave a stable country behind when we do leave.

There were certainly other policy options open, although I think that in this case military action was indeed required. Nevertheless I can see that military action is not always the most popular decision for a government to make, and there are indeed times when it is not the most appropriate. Policy is about decisions, and nobody can read the future.

I have a harder time with arguments that suggest another, more sinister, aim for the war.

As for "yardsticks", that is a fair question since I brought it up! I am now swimming well outside my own lane, but I'll give it a go. The country has certainly made progress since late 2001. There have been three "Loya Jirgas" where the various leaders of Afghanitan have sat down and hammered out a constitution. There have been two sets of elections that were overseen by the UN. There is now an Afghan National Army (ANA) that consists of disciplined, mixed-ethnicity units that is growing in capability.

From a security standpoint, a big yardstick to reach is the point when the ANA and the other Afghan National Security Forces (police) are able to defend the country and the government from attack (both internal and external). When this point is reached is a little hard to quantify, and the Government of Afghanistan may well be the best judge of this. The ANA has certainly progressed in terms of numbers and ability in the two years that passed since I was last here. We should reach a point where we can withdraw most of our "ground troops" and leave behind "enablers" to assist the ANSF (advisors, helicopters etc). These would then leave once the ANA reached full capability.

Regarding democracy, I'm aware of how long it took the West to develop that concept to the point it is now. Ultimately, the form of government that runs Afghanistan is an Afghan choice. That is what they argued about for several month-long Jirgas. The level of centralization will be a matter of debate for some time (as in Canada). The interplay between traditionalists (an admittedly weak and fuzzy term I've chosen) and the modernists (wait, aren't they artists?) will also be a fault line in the political landscape for some time.

I've travelled north into the remote valleys, and a journey of eight hours can take you back 800 years in terms of development. That is a challenge when you are trying to work out how to organize and run your country. Of course, we need to be careful, and the motivation to modernize and develop should come from within, not without. Bringing them tractors is not necessarily going to help. Schools, roads and clinics, however, can be good things. Of course, if they fall apart we are no further ahead. The simple things are hard sometimes.

Cheers!

quote:

---

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) is a pretty clear war. The US was attacked by a terrorist organization that was openly hosted and supported in another country. That's cause for war.

---

I recommend that you read "Understanding Terror Networks" by Carl Sageman.

TK

p.s. N Beltov,

quote:

---

Reason: I can't speak for TK... In my own opinion, there is zero profit to be made from war, by the guys that actually fight it.

---

Well, soldiers are just people that work for a living like the rest of us plebs. That's important for every person on the left of the political spectrum to remember; the attitude of the rank and file soldier towards the population is no matter of indifference to those that challenge the powers that be.

quote:

---

TK 421: My profs made me read Chomsky in school. My mom also made me eat brussel sprouts. At least brussel sprouts were good for me.

---

Fine. My reference to Chomsky was simply to suggest that it might be worth your while to read those who discuss the "National Security State" from a critical point of view. Chomsky was the first one that came to mind, but if you check out ZNet, for example, you'll find many more. "National Security" is a term that is used to stop thinking and questioning altogether - like some incantation from the nether world stops "evil" spirits.

quote:

---

TK 421: There have been three "Loya Jirgas" where the various leaders of Afghanitan have sat down and hammered out a constitution. There have been two sets of elections that were overseen by the UN.

---

These "elections" are a farce. Intimidation is rampant, many of the members of the Loya Jirga are, in fact, bandits and local drug lords who are consolidating their power with the blessing of NATO governments.

Time for President Karzai to show he is a genuine reformer

Just a few days ago, the Human Rights Watch organization noted the following:

quote:

---

President Hamid Karzai should not appoint known human rights abusers and warlords as provincial police chiefs, Human Rights Watch said today.
If Karzai decides to appoint known human rights abusers to the country’s top police posts, he would be endangering the human rights of Afghans, not protecting them. These candidates should be investigated for their human rights abuses and other crimes, not appointed as police chiefs.

---

It sure looks like Karzai, blessed by the NATO powers occupying Afghanistan, is making things worse for the people of Afghanistan. Why should Canadian troops be helping warlords, abusers and drug dealers consolidate their power? Fuck that shit.

quote:

---

The appointment of known human rights abusers to the country’s most important and powerful police positions would undermine the benchmarks laid out in January in the Afghanistan Compact for stamping out corruption and bolstering good governance and upholding international human rights standards

---

Looks like things are going backwards. And there is still more.

Human Rights Overview

quote:

---

U.S. forces operating against Taliban insurgents continue to generate numerous claims of human rights abuses against the civilian population, including arbitrary arrests, use of excessive force, and mistreatment of detainees, many of whom are held outside the protection of the Geneva Conventions.

---

quote:

---

Political repression, human rights abuses, and criminal activity by warlords—the leaders of militias and remnants of past Afghan military forces, who were brought to power with the assistance of the United States after the Taliban’s defeat—are consistently listed as the chief concerns of most Afghans

---

Worse or better?

quote:

---

Local military and police forces, even in Kabul, have been involved in arbitrary arrests, kidnapping, extortion, torture, and extrajudicial killings of criminal suspects. Outside Kabul, commanders and their troops in many areas have been implicated in widespread rape of women, girls, and boys, murder, illegal detention, forced displacement, and other specific abuses against women and children, including human trafficking and forced marriage...

---

These are the guys we're helping?

quote:

---

The medical aid organization Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF, Doctors Without Borders), decided to pull out of Afghanistan after five MSF workers were killed in the northwest of the country in June 2004—a momentous decision given that MSF worked in Afghanistan through the worst violence of the early 1990’s. Overall, nearly fifty aid workers and election officials were killed in 2004, far higher than in any previous period.

---

Getting worse or getting better?

quote:

---

In many areas around Afghanistan, poppy production has reached record highs, and many factions—including Taliban and anti-government forces—are suspected of engaging in drug trafficking.

---

quote:

---

U.S. and coalition forces active in Afghanistan under Operation Enduring Freedom since November 2001, continue to arbitrarily detain civilians, use excessive force during arrests of non-combatants, and mistreat detainees. There are also credible reports of Afghan soldiers deployed alongside U.S. forces beating and otherwise mistreating people during arrest operations and looting homes or seizing the land of those being detained.

Ordinary civilians caught up in military operations and arrested are unable to challenge the legal basis for their detention or obtain hearings before an adjudicative body. They have no access to legal counsel. Release of detainees, where it did occur, is wholly dependent on decisions of the U.S. military command, with little apparent regard for the requirements of international law—whether the treatment of civilians under international humanitarian law or the due process requirements of human rights law. Generally, the United States does not comply with legal standards applicable to their operations in Afghanistan, including the Geneva Conventions and other applicable standards of international human rights law.

---

There are security concerns. That is why we are here.

quote:

---

The United States, Canada and other countries have spent $8-billion (U.S.) on reconstruction and emergency relief in Afghanistan since 2001, when the Taliban regime was toppled by a U.S.-led military coalition. They've also poured in thousands of troops, including 2,300 Canadian soldiers, to support the reconstruction process. Yet despite the massive spending, Afghanistan's biggest city is still mired in an electricity crisis - and it's getting worse.

Most of Kabul's four million inhabitants have a few hours of electricity, at most, every second night. About 40 per cent of the population has no access to electricity at all. At night, the city is dim and gloomy, with few lights visible and the streets shrouded in darkness.

Normally the city's electricity supply improves every spring. But this year it is actually deteriorating. Kabul has only 83 megawatts of power today, compared with 140 megawatts last year and about 275 megawatts in the 1970s when the city's population was much smaller.
....
Most of the electricity crisis is due to a quarter-century of wars, plus a recent shortage of rain water for the hydroelectric dams that supply much of Kabul's power. But there are widespread allegations that the reconstruction money has been stolen by corrupt Afghan officials.

"When the new government was established in 2001, we were given a lot of promises," said Mr. Beg, the fruit vendor. "They promised electricity in six months or a year at the most. Now it's more than four years and there's still no electricity."

For most families, the only alternative is a portable diesel-fuelled generator, but many cannot afford even the $40 price of the cheapest generator. "And even if I could afford a generator, I couldn't afford the fuel for it," said Mr. Beg, who earns less than $2 a day by selling oranges in the market.

The electricity shortage has severely hampered Kabul's economic recovery. Many factories are running on limited hours because of a lack of power. Abdul Kabir Aryub, for example, operates his steel-door factory for only eight hours a day, even though he would prefer to work for 16 hours a day. He has no electricity supply from the city, so he was forced to buy a $1,000 generator and pay $10 a day for diesel fuel -- a heavy burden for a factory that earns only $100 to $200 in monthly profits.

Mr. Aryub, who was a refugee in Pakistan for 12 years, returned to Kabul in 2002 and set up his factory. "There were a lot of hopes back then," he said. "We expected the situation would get better every day. That's why we came back. But it didn't improve. We are struggling just to earn a living. People are upset and disappointed."

He said he will have to return to Pakistan if the situation doesn't change in the next few months. He is mystified by the billions of dollars in foreign aid that were given to Afghanistan. "Our leaders put this money into their own pockets," he said. "They completely neglected the whole country. Some of these leaders have built castles with their stolen money."

---

quote:

---

Reason:
In my own opinion, there is zero profit to be made from war, by the guys that actually fight it.

---

That is not totally true. There are those who manipulate the situation and divert supplies into the black market for a profit, and then there is the extra duty pay that some get for being in a war zone and so on. None of these are the profit at issue, however.

quote:

---

Even governments have nothing to gain from such painful endeavors.

---

That is not true at all. Governments can gain power and prestige by winning for one thing and their financial backers usually profit win or lose unless the loss is catastrophic such as the defeat of Germany and Japan. Of course, even then the German and Japanese industrialists didn't fare too badly in the long run, thank you Korean War.

One of the reasons for post WWII economic advances was the money spent on the Cold War which fuelled all sorts of industry. Then of course one could also argue the role of defense spending in WWII in ending the depression.

quote:

---

Multinationals like SNC Lavalin (makes bullets) have everything to gain. It does cause me to wonder, who much influence multinationals have in the world stage.

---

Evidence seems to indicate that they are the biggest players on that stage. Look at who provides the funds for politcal parties that form governments and look who controls or heavily influences the majority of the information industry from news and education to entertainment.

Multinationals are richer, more powerful and bigger players than many countries.

quote:

---

So on a personal perspective, no. War is NOT profitable.

---

Maybe in your case and for many rank and file troopers, and for most taxpayers and those dependent on public services not financed because of the war machine's vampirism on resources, but for many of those who make the decisions it is very profitable.

quote:

---

I would be happier to stay home all next year. Question is, how much does personal happiness cost me?

---

Not going is probably a bad career decision. Unfortunately war often presents a real quandry for professional soldiers with progressive ideals and a high moral standard.

quote:

---

TK 421:
I agree that corporations can and do make profits off of war by providing materials or services. There it is. That doesn't mean that they are calling the shots, or that the aim of a given war was to make money for the arms industry.

---

Who is calling the shots, then?

quote:

---

The government makes the decision to go to war.

---

And who finances the campaigns of those who get to form government, and what class do many of them come from? There is one piece of advice that is almost always true in understanding war and government and many other things: follow the money.

quote:

---

Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF) is a pretty clear war. The US was attacked by a terrorist organization that was openly hosted and supported in another country. That's cause for war.

---

There is a big difference between cause and reason here. And there are many levels of reason. What if China had been providing sanctuary to AQ, do you suppose we would have invaded it?

quote:

---

I have a harder time with arguments that suggest another, more sinister, aim for the war.

---

Is seeking economic advantage all that sinister? It has been what has driven most policy since recorded history. Why should we imagine it to be any different in this particular case?

The threat posed by AQ was miniscule in the big picture, yet the response was initiating a series of foreign wars at considerable loss of life. This is like the cops using F18 air strikes to subdue a speeder on the 401 during rush hour. It is overkill and we have to ask why.

quote:

---

Of course, we need to be careful, and the motivation to modernize and develop should come from within, not without.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TK 421:
You should read my quote more carefully. I said nothing of the nationality of the terrorists.

I recommend that you read "Understanding Terror Networks" by Carl Sageman.

---

"We are seen as a hypocritical bully in the Middle East and we have to stop!"

BTW, I read nothing in your 'quote' that qualified attacking Afghanistan and Iraq instead of the places that actually fostered the attackers. You've deliberately avoided the point.

[ 07 May 2006: Message edited by: Lard Tunderin' Jeezus ]

quote:

---

KANDAHAR, Afghanistan - Islamic militants, some armed with machine guns, battled Afghan, U.S. and Canadian forces and exploded two suicide car bombs Thursday, some of the deadliest violence in
Afghanistan since the fall of the Taliban.

More than 100 people were killed in the string of attacks that started Wednesday: dozens of insurgents, at least 15 Afghan police, an American civilian training Afghan forces, and the first female Canadian soldier to die in combat.

The fighting concentrated in the southern provinces of Helmand and Kandahar raised new concerns for the future of Afghanistan's fragile democracy. The Taliban have stepped up attacks in recent months, with roadside bombs and suicide assaults, but this week's fighting marked an escalation in a region where the U.S.-led coalition is to cede control of security operations to
NATO by July.

President Hamid Karzai said the violence emanated from the mountainous border trial regions of neighboring Pakistan, populated by the ethnic Pashtuns who make up the majority of the Taliban militants and are believed to be hiding
Osama bin Laden.

"We have credible reports that inside Pakistan, in the madrassas, the mullahs and teachers are saying to their students: 'Go to Afghanistan for jihad. Burn the schools and clinics,'" Karzai said.

Pakistan's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Tasnim Aslam, called the allegations "baseless."

The violence started Wednesday in the small remote town of Musa Qala in Helmand, when an estimated 300-400 militants with assault rifles and machine guns attacked a police and government headquarters.

The attack sparked eight hours of clashes with Afghan security forces, the fiercest in Helmand since U.S.-led forces ousted the Taliban in 2001 for hosting al-Qaida, said Deputy Gov. Amir Mohammed Akhunzaba. He said the fighting started at 10 p.m. Wednesday, though the Interior Ministry put the time at earlier.

He said the bodies of about 40 Taliban militants were recovered and that 13 police were killed and six wounded in the fight, some 280 miles southwest of Kabul.

Afghan police reinforcements forced the militants to flee. British soldiers helped evacuate casualties but did not provide military backup, in part so Afghan forces could prove themselves, said British military spokesman Capt. Drew Gibson.

"If they're the ones who are seen beating off the Taliban, there's a lot of credibility for them," Gibson said. "The ANP (Afghan National Police) did admirably in the circumstances, proven by the fact that Musa Qala is now back under ANP security."

In neighboring Kandahar province, Canadian soldiers were supporting Afghan forces on a mission to oust Taliban fighters outside Kandahar city late Wednesday when militants attacked with rocket-propelled grenades and small-arms fire, Canadian military spokesman Maj. Scott Lundy said.

Those killed included 18 militants and Capt. Nichola Goddard. Although Canadian women died in action in both world wars, Goddard, from Calgary, Alberta, was the first killed in a combat role, Lundy said. About 35 militants were detained.

Also in Kandahar, the U.S.-led coalition said up to 27 Taliban militants were killed in an airstrike Thursday near the village of Azizi.

The deadliest fighting since the ouster of the Taliban was in June 2005, when 178 people were killed in an offensive between Afghan forces and militants in the Miana Shien district of Kandahar province.

As many as 87 Taliban fighters were killed in the fighting Wednesday and Thursday, U.S. and Afghan officials said. Commanders of the U.S.-led coalition were still studying whether the attacks across the south were coordinated, Lundy said.

Defense Ministry spokesman Gen. Zahir Azimi said the impending handover of power in the south to NATO troops could be fanning the southern violence.

---