quote:

---

Despite tens of thousands of Nato-led troops and billions of dollars in aid poured into the country, the insurgents, driven out by the American invasion in 2001, now control "vast swaths of unchallenged territory, including rural areas, some district centres, and important road arteries", the Senlis Council says in a report released yesterday.

On the basis of what it calls exclusive research, it warns that the insurgency is also exercising a "significant amount of psychological control, gaining more and more political legitimacy in the minds of the Afghan people who have a long history of shifting alliances and regime change".

It says the territory controlled by the Taliban has increased and the frontline is getting closer to Kabul - a warning echoed by the UN which says more and more of the country is becoming a "no go" area for western aid and development workers.

---

quote:

---

. . . there are four times as many air strikes by international forces in Afghanistan than in Iraq.

---

There's the rub. If Nato forces are pushed back, they will most likely step up the bombing. The Americans are particularly prone to air strikes. This does not look good for the people on the ground.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Toby Fourre:
Sorry, but the Nato forces should have allowed Pashtuns into the government when they had the chance.

---

Here is the Senlis Council report.

[ 21 November 2007: Message edited by: Webgear ]

Here's one of their wise recommendations:

quote:

---

A proportional level of commitment from every NATO member state is an important benchmark, and would send out a clear message that NATO is a unified entity with the capacity to project itself globally. A force of 80,000 troops – over double the present total – should be achievable within a relatively short time-frame.

---

Doubling - why didn't I think of that? It's simple math.

For every NATO soldier that's killed, we send two more. When they get killed, we send in four...

quote:

---

Aren't these the same do-gooders who are promoting the poppy trade in Afghanistan - as a way of winning "hearts and minds"?

---

[ 21 November 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

What the Afghans need is to be left alone to determine their own destiny. It might very well be a bloody road they travel, but it can't be any bloodier than the what the world's empires have delivered to them already.

[ 21 November 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

It is my understanding that a lot of people on left side of the political spectrum believe a lot in the Senlis Council reports and theories.

---

I do agree with part of the Senlis councils theories - in particule the legitimize the poppy trade, atleast to some degree. Under a complete outlaw and irradicate policy, the only profits from opium trade are being directly funnelled to said 'outlaws' (usually warlords to some degree, some of them actively participating in the gov't we're propping up). Legitimization would provide some taxable revenue/trade and give the Afghan gov't some ability to actually pay civil servants.

Beyond that, the critisms here seem accurate.

[ 22 November 2007: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
What the Afghans need is to be left alone to determine their own destiny.

---

It's just a shame the Canada's hands are also bloody with the deaths of many innocents.

-----------
From Malalai Joya's speech in Toronto November 6:

quote:

---

Today only 2 per cent of Afghan people have accesses to electricity, and according to official figures 60 per cent live below the poverty line.

A March 2007 survey revealed that about 60 per cent of Afghans think the current administration is more corrupt than any other in the past two decades....

It was the U.S. that during the Cold War supported Islamist fundamentalists in our country. [Now] they have brought to power the fundamentalist Northern Alliance, enemies of our people. As long as the Northern Alliance are in power, there is no hope.

---

[ 22 November 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Many Pashtuns are involved in the government, and always have been. Including President Karzai.

---

quote:

---

The United States had so closely identified the Taleban with al Qaeda (although bin Laden probably never told the Taleban leadership what he was planning) that it would not talk to Pashtun leaders who had been linked to the Taleban.

Six years after the invasion that wasn't, the Pashtuns are still largely frozen out. That is why the Taleban are coming back... The Taleban are still the main political vehicle of the Pashtuns, because there has been no time to build another... - Gwynne Dyer

---

[ 22 November 2007: Message edited by: muggles ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
When does anyone think they'll be ready for democratic elections in Afghanistan?

---

quote:

---

Yes, but if we leave now, those Canadians killed there would have been doubly wasted. The more that are killed, the longer we must stay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:

Hamid Karzai was elected to a five year presidential term around this time back in 2004. So Afghanistan's next democratic elections should be in the fall of 2009.

---

I guess what they say about asking dumb questions is true.

New question: What does anyone think the odds were that a U.S. stooge would "win" an unfair and unfree election in a country like Afghanistan where 11 million people over the age of 15(and about 80-85% of Afghan women) can not read or write and therefore not qualify as informed voters as free and fair elections go ? The 2004 elections were totally fraudulent according to RAWA.org, hrw.org, international socialists and pro-democracy groups around the world.

I believe the candidates name, picture and personal symbol on the ballot form.

Afghans knew who they were voting for. I would guess that many voted along tribal/clan/family lines.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
...Of course there was fraud, however overall it was as democratic as possible for Afghanistan at this time. I am sure the next elections in 2009 will be better overall.

---

And what makes you so sure the next elections in 2009 will be better over all?

What has changed there to make you believe this, besides nothing, and Afghanistan is in an even worse situation?

You sound like those who were trumpeting the "success" of the first vote actually.

I believe that the UN will make the necessary corrections to the election process problems which were discovered during the last elections. Many of the problems observed by non governmental organizations can be easily corrected before the next elections.

The first national elections were successful for the most part considering the problems of having elections in a place in a war torn country like Afghanistan. Considering there were manpower shortages, infrastructure problems and other resources lacking in the country, the outcome of the elections were not that bad.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:

Of course there was fraud, however overall it was as democratic as possible for Afghanistan at this time. I am sure the next elections in 2009 will be better overall.

---

I would guess that there will be a number of current and ex-Taliban candidates on the next election. The only way for there to be peace in Afghanistan is to have members of the Taliban in power.

Fidel

I thinking you have watched and read to many conspiracy movies and novels. I do not believe here is one large evil organization out there trying to take over the world, well except for the Stonecutters Guild and the girl guides.

Perhaps we are equally condition by the organizations we follow and believe in.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Fidel

Perhaps we are equally condition by the organizations we follow and believe in.

I prefer the profession I have now however I have been thinking about upgrading my education.

---

I knew that would grab you. If I had a nickel for every time someone slammed me about making the wrong career choice, I'd be independently wealthy. And I must say, on some days it certainly did look as if I'd made a mistake. It's an old motivational tactic used by supervisors. Thick skin eh.

The local power structures are the same as the national structures. Do you understand how the Loya Jirga is conducted at all levels of government? In most cases people vote along family/clan/tribal lines, and in again in most cases tribal elders dictate who people will vote for.

Fidel

quote:

---

The local power structures are the same as the national structures.

---

quote:

---

Do you understand how the Loya Jirga is conducted at all levels of government? In most cases people vote along family/clan/tribal lines, and in again in most cases tribal elders dictate who people will vote for.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:

Fidel

I am independently wealth. It is hard to get the subsidized education, not everyone receives, however it is not impossible to receive an education from the military. It is not a privilege nor a right.

---

That's not the way I see it. DND's front page of their web site is very explicit in advertising Canadian- taxpayer "subsidized education" as an enticement for enlisting, immediately beneath the heading, "Hot Jobs", top left. It's one of the taxpayer-funded rewards for the handful of Canadians needed occasionally to prop up the capitalist system whenever Uncle Sam snaps his fingers. Socialist policy for free education is why Jessica Lynch almost had her legs shot off in Iraq, not for want of being a military hero.

Uncle Sam says jump, and Ottawa always says eagerly, "How high,Uncle?"

In fact, Webgear, the U.S. economy since WWII is built on Keynesian-militarism, or upside-down socialism for the rich. Half the U.S. budget is ear-marked for military contractors(a significant component of the Republican Party support base), federal and academic research inititiatives, food and laundry services, subsidized military housing, etc. This is what's been driving a significant part of the US high tech portion of their economy for years. Canada's high tech military exports to the Pentagon and contractors don't actually show up in this country's GDP balance sheet. It's all bastardized socialism, Webgear, a self-contained economy that has absolutely nothing to do with free market voodoo they will be advocating for Afghanis. Imagine if it were all put to good use instead of propping up a failed ideology there in the U.S. and neocolonialism abroad with Canada's and your help? Afghanistan needs socialism but not U.S. puppets, Webgear. And that's what Karzai will be for Afghanis, just another U.S.-backed puppet and his cronies who will become independently wealthy while the economy goes down the drain and drugs exported to the west with the aid of the CIA. The U.S. openly admitted to exploiting indirect relationship with Afghan druglords and the most ruthless and of questionable character warlords during their 1980's-90s proxy war in that country. I believe some of them are in power and-or curry favour with Karzai's U.S.-backed puppet gov't today. They've done similar things in several other nations. Look it up on your own time, soldier. This is not conspiracy, it's cold hard fact.

[ 24 November 2007: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Here is my understanding of local structures.

The titles pir and hazrat are used for respected spiritual leaders. These religious figures are often heading Sufi brotherhoods such as Naqshandi or Qadira. Because of their non-orthodox background they are a significant counterweight to Islamistic groups such as the mujahidin or to orthodox groups such as the taliban. However, they have a huge influence on ordinary people and often wide spread networks.

The title sayyed is used for religious figures who are considered to be direct descendents of the Prophet Mohammad. Thus sayyeds are by birth outside of the tribal order. Sayyeds as well as pirs and hazrats are often used as conflict mediators between the tribes and can take upon leadership functions in times of high insecurity.

The traditional decision-making body in Pashtun Afghanistan, the jirga, is known in Kandahar as marakh. Jirga or marakh are temporary bodies that are created for a special task usually solving disputes among tribes, sub tribes, clans, families or individuals, but also between the government and the tribes. After the jirga or marakh reaches a decision it tends to dissolve. It is only revived if the decision is not accepted or if a new conflict or dispute arises. The most influential members of a marakh are the spin giri and the khans. While the spin giri are the one who have the traditional knowledge of the Pashtunwali, the khans are often playing a role because of their power. In contrast to the Pastun tribes of Eastern Afghanistan, religious dignities play a role in the jirga: Thus sayyeds, maulawis and mullahs are important to give their blessing to the decision made by the jirga. Jirgas are very reactive in terms of solving specific issues and a not used for forward planning. Traditionally jirgas or marakhs are all-male events.

A loya jirga (Greater Jirga) is a very rare and extra-ordinary countrywide jirga which is initiated by the central authority. It usually includes representatives of all ethnic and tribal groups, regions and sectarians are participating. While in the past loya jirgas were initiated by the Afghan kings, this gathering was also used under the Bonn Agreement of 2001 to legitimate the political process: the Emergency Loya Jirga in June 2002 decided upon the Transitional Administration; the Constitutional Loya Jirga in December 2003/2004 approved the new Afghan Constitution. While traditional loya jirgas were all male, women have progressively made their way into this decision-making body, often with special seats reserved for them.

This information was taken from a document that I do not have a link for.

Sorry, I am having access to the website, so I can not talk about what is on those pages. Maybe later we can discuss this.

However I believe there is are real differences between the educational programs between the Cdn and USA militaries, as far as I can tell the Americans have more chances of education after leaving the military.

For instance, the constitution was "drafted in a secretive and unaccountable manner"; Karzai gave himself more power than originally envisioned for a president; local elections have still not been held despite such a requirement in the constitution; political parties have been effectively barred - though ICG sees parties as necessary to introduce a culture of democracy; and some 80% of National Assembly members from rural areas have links to armed groups.

Virtually all of ICG's (informal) proposals were considered realistic, yet few if any came to be. And this is what you describe as being "as democratic as possible".

It seems that a more critical attitude than yours is called for.

[ 25 November 2007: Message edited by: muggles ]

quote:

---

He never, though, expressed surprise. Governmental corruption in Afghanistan has become endemic and bribes to secure police and administrative positions along provincial drug routes is an established procedure.

“The British public would be up in arms if they knew that the district appointments in the south for which British soldiers are dying are there just to protect drug routes,” said one analyst. Western and Afghan officials are also alarmed at how narco-kleptocracy has extended its grip around President Karzai, a figure regarded by some as increasingly isolated by a cadre of corrupt officials.

---

snip

quote:

---

Corruption among police and local authorities is worst in southern Afghanistan, where drug profits are highest. Despite his repeated public denials, President Karzai’s half-brother Wali, head of Kandahar’s provincial council, continues to be accused by senior government sources, as well as foreign analysts and officials, as having a key role in orchestrating the movement of heroin from Kandahar eastward through Helmand and out across the Iranian border.

---

quote:

---

The Afghan Government fears that if corrupt officials in the south were replaced by staunch law enforcers, the huge profits from heroin trafficking would end up with the Taleban.

---

I was referring to the elections being as democratic as possible because of the Afghan culture, the resources or both Afghan Interim Government and the UN election staffs, the fact that 1/4 of the country was at war and other similar factors.

As I stated earlier, the hopefully the next set of elections will become more democratic as time past.

quote:

---

Musa Qala: The Shape of Things to Come?

The Taleban who control this northern district are confident that they will extend their reach to the rest of Helmand over the coming winter.

By Aziz Ahmad Tassal in Musa Qala (ARR No. 275, 27-Nov-07)

Link to article

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Associated Press is reporting that NATO warplanes hunting Taliban fighters in eastern Afghanistan mistakenly bombed an Afghan road construction crew sleeping in tents yesterday, killing 14 workers who were - get this - under contract to the U.S. military to build the road.

I guess their contract has been cancelled.

---

quote:

---

"It is entirely possible that the construction workers are also Taliban fighters. It is very possible that they are posing as construction workers or that they are construction workers in the day and Taliban fighters at night."

---

quote:

---

Almost half of Afghanistan is now too dangerous for aid workers to operate in, a leaked UN map seen by The Times shows.

In the past two years most foreign and Afghan staff have withdrawn from the southern half of the country, abandoning or scaling back development projects in rural areas and confining themselves to the cities or the less risky north. The pullback compounds the problems of the Government in Kabul, which has struggled to extend its authority to the regions and provinces, which are increasingly lawless or Taleban controlled.

---

Link.

[ 05 December 2007: Message edited by: sgm ]

But instead, in order to dominate the entire region, and fuel the mutually polarizing Christo-Fascist vs. Islamo-Fascist agenda, and fuel their fossil fuel addiction, the US wackos Bush, Cheney, Rove & Rumsfeld have helped (along with Martin & Harper) to goad Canada into taking a more preemptive and aggressive military stance, effectively assuming the primary, aggressive, preemptive military role which is the obligation of the US, NOT of Canada.

IOW, Canadian soldiers are dying for the foreign policy decision of Bush, Cheney, Rove & Rumsfeld to smash Iraq, and Martin & Harper LIKE IT LIKE THAT.

The predominant military role duty in Afghanistan is that of the US, and if they don't/didn't have enough troops because they diverted themselves into peripheral conflicts/distractions, that's their OWN fault, and they must institute their national draft.

On a side note, Canada was NOT attacked on 9/11.

quote:

---

A top military commander says in a sworn affidavit Canadian troops would have to quit fighting the Taliban if they could not hand prisoners over to Afghan authorities.

---

quote:

---

Listing a long series of possible embarrassments and defeats, Brigadier-General Andre Deschamps outlined what he says would be the dire consequences, including losing the war, should a Federal Court judge rule in favour of a request by human-rights groups to issue an injunction banning the transfer of detainees to Afghan prisons because of the risk of torture or abuse. …

Gen. Deschamps sketches a variety scenarios. Taliban fighters might surrender in droves, he warns, if they knew Canada would release them because it could not either hold them or transfer them. "The insurgents could attack us with impunity knowing that if they fail to win an engagement they would simply have to surrender and wait for release to resume operations," he said in a sworn affidavit.

He is expected to be cross-examined on his affidavit this week.

Amnesty International Canada and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association say the Harper government is fully aware of the danger of torture and abuse faced by prisoners transferred to Afghan prisons, and that Canada is forbidden under international law, including the Geneva Conventions and its own Constitution, from handing over detainees when it knows they face abuse. …

Although building a NATO detention facility - perhaps on the Kandahar base, which houses more than 10,000 troops - has been repeatedly suggested by international human-rights groups, Canada and most North Atlantic Treaty Organization nations are opposed.

"The long-term, indefinite detention of detainees in such circumstances would be inconsistent with the sovereignty of Afghanistan," Gen. Deschamps says.
- Globe and Mail

---

[ 19 December 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Apparently his concerns for the sovereignty of Afghanistan do not extend to the killing of its citizens – only their “indefinite detention.”

---

There may also be more international law angles in regard to prisons constructed by an occupying power that the General is reluctant to elaborate upon.

[ 19 December 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Whew.

We needed the morale boost from the ruthless, Neo-Fascist imperialists. A few more faith & force slogans would have been nice though.

"I think that no Canadian wants to abandon Afghanistan, but they want an approach that's actually going to work," said Mr. Layton

Considering that the Taliban are not abandoning the field as usual this winter and that they and their AlQaida allies are consolidating power in the NWF of Pakistan,insurgent activity may well overwhelm the thinly stretched NATO forces and their undertrained and equipped Afghan allies.

Since NATO's inability to reinforce the troops involved in combat operations is in the public eye,this is an ideal time for insurgent forces to exacerbate the NATO dilema and focus increasing media attention on NATO's inability to secure significant areas of Afghanistan for development and construction.

The inability of Canadian troops to hold ground they repeatedly have to remove insurgents from can be laid squarely at the feet of the Prime Minister. Harper chose to forego the US Army's Cargo Helicopter Alternate Procurement Strategy that would allow immediate access to used CH47 Chinook helicopters that would be traded in on Canada's new ordered Chinooks.

I think it reflects the reality of the situation. Political parties have policy or plans, but they are always contingent on the mess left to them when and if they get elected.

Personally, I think Canada was obligated to action in Afghanistan, relating to our NATO alliance. And I think Afghans and everyone else would have been better off if NATO withdrew after the Taliban was removed from office-- with a promise to return if Afghani's allowed a similar government back to power.

Then it should have been on to North West Pakistan where Osama Bin Laden was, and is, most likely hiding.

Oh yeah. Osama Bin Laden. He's the guy who is, if not the master mind, then the symbolic head of the group that brought down the World Trade Center. In other words, the actual enemy of the NATO alliance.

I know, it's easy to forget.

But now, we are embroiled in this war in Afghanistan, and many issues surround it that preclude a unilateral pull out.

While NATO's ISAF mission objectives are laudable,the Euros are quite rightly sitting out any involvement in US stupidity.

The allies fighting in southern Afghanistan will not succeed unless the US abandons its vengeful crusade against Afghans and the full might of NATO is directed toward the stated objective of providing security for rapid redevelopment and construction of both infrastructure and civil authority.

quote:

---

BERLIN (AFP) — Afghan President Hamid Karzai said in an interview that his war-torn country will need foreign troops for at least another decade.

"I believe it will take another 10 years, at least 10 years," he told Bild newspaper when asked for how much longer the country will need German troops.

---

And that the fight must extend into Pakistan:

quote:

---

Karzai said the most important step in restoring security to Afghanistan was closing down insurgents' rear bases, and accused the international community of failing to realise this.

"Our biggest security problem is that the international community has not been concerned enough about the rear bases of the Taliban and terrorists outside Afghanistan," he said.

[snip]

Karzai said on Wednesday that the US-led "war on terror" should be directed at Islamist sanctuaries outside Afghanistan, which he said was not a "hideout for terrorism" but a victim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sgm:
And that the fight must extend into Pakistan:

---

He never said Pakistan. He said the "rear bases of the Taliban and terrorists outside Afghanistan".

I believe he means Riyadh and Washington.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

He never said Pakistan.

---

No, he didn't mention Pakistan by name, but that may be because he's headed there next week on a diplomatic mission, and didn't want to create an upset in advance of the trip:

quote:

---

ISLAMABAD: Afghan President Hamid Karzai is scheduled to arrive here next week on a two-day visit that the Pakistan government said was an expression of Afghanistan’s solidarity with and goodwill for its “brotherly” neighbour.

But ahead of the December 26-27 visit, Mr. Karzai on Wednesday urged the international coalition in the “war on terror” to track down the “strongholds” of Al-Qaeda and Taliban, which he said were outside Afghanistan. He did not name any country, but according to media reports from Kabul, it was an apparent reference to Pakistan.

“We want the struggle against terrorism to go after their bases, their hideouts and training centers,” Mr. Karzai was reported as saying during an Id speech.

---

The logical conclusion derived from analysis of the current Pakistan political situation is that any incursion onto Pakistani soil will furthur unite civilian support for extemists and may invite furthur ISI or even conventional Pakistan military support.

quote:

---

Personally, I think Canada was obligated to action in Afghanistan, relating to our NATO alliance.

---

There is no way in hell Canada was obligated to do anything. The NATO alliance excuse was a post facto justification for the US's rampage. The NATO charter requires members to come to each other's aid if one is attacked. Afghanistan never attacked anybody.They were and are incapable of ever attacking anybody. It must be pointed out again and again that the use of the NATO charter to justify the attack and occupation of Afghanistan was and is unfounded and destroys any credibility that NATO may have had.

quote:

---

In other words, the actual enemy of the NATO alliance.

---

Are there really some of you who believe that 100% of Canadians must exist Afghanistan immediately, regardless of the role/assignment ?

You can consider me to be in neutral investigative mode (agnostic) on this matter (for now).

[ 21 December 2007: Message edited by: Peppered Pothead ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jingles:

He wasn't NATO's enemy. He was the US's enemy. He had no quarrel with Canada.

---

I agree. The fact is (which many right-wingers try to obfuscate) is that Canada was NOT attacked on 9/11, and therefore, we have absolutely no obligation to engage in an aggressive military role there. That is the sole obligation of the US, and if they lack sufficient troops (due to their peripheral diversion into Iraq), then they must institute their draft.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppered Pothead:
Are there really some of you who believe that 100% of Canadians must exist Afghanistan immediately, regardless of the role/assignment ?

---

quote:

---

There is no way in hell Canada was obligated to do anything. The NATO alliance excuse was a post facto justification for the US's rampage. The NATO charter requires members to come to each other's aid if one is attacked. Afghanistan never attacked anybody.

---

Well, yeah, that's how it went down, and the net effect is that our Nato alliance dragged us into this, pretext or not. I agree it's faulty reasoning.

But look where we are.

Every position NATO takes is a juxtaposition between the relevant national policies of the member states of NATO and the strategic objectives of the United States.

The Euros have indicated that they are not on board with American sentiments and Canada should adhere to its values by extricating itself from an antiquated defense policy.

quote:

---

In my opinion,Canada should have a srong military aligned with an independent foreign policy that reinforces Canadian values.

---

I would agree. However, truly independent foreign policy can only come from a militarily secure position, in all likely hood reliant on nuclear strike capability, in conjunction with military spending and perhaps even something like conscription such as they have in Finland and other nations.

Which conflicts itself with not only many values in the NDP, but in the substantial majority of Canadians, I should think.

And what that means to our economy, to our social programs is anyone's guess-- other than a positive effect would be difficult to demonstrate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peppered Pothead:
I agree. The fact is (which many right-wingers try to obfuscate) is that Canada was NOT attacked on 9/11, and therefore, we have absolutely no obligation to engage in an aggressive military role there. That is the sole obligation of the US, and if they lack sufficient troops (due to their peripheral diversion into Iraq), then they must institute their draft.

---

quote:

---

Article V - The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
In my opinion,Canada should have a srong military aligned with an independent foreign policy that reinforces Canadian values.

---

Thanks for the NATO stipulation, but without probing the justifiability and humanitarianism of the scenario, said demands of unconditionally adhering to such authoritarian stipulations are generally just recitations of "obey the rule becuase it exists, and do not question it", which most progressives would disagree with.

World peace and reducing human suffering should be the ultimate standard.

[ 23 December 2007: Message edited by: Peppered Pothead ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:
Karzai is a U.S. stooge, a former advisor to coporate American energy company, UNOCAL.

---

Hamid Karzai and Unocal:

quote:

---

[In conclusion] The original story [In Le Monde] claims that Karzai was "for a moment" a consultant for Unocal. There's no reference or source to explain how they know this.

The timeline as presented in the story doesn't make sense (we've found no reference to him spending time in the US after India, and Unocal wouldn't be interested in the pipeline for another 10+ years anyway).

Both Unocal and Karzai deny the claim. No evidence has ever been forthcoming to prove them wrong. (And why not? If there is evidence, why not bring it forward? Catching Unocal and Karzai in a lie would be a far bigger scoop than the original story).

The best you can say about this claim is that it's unproven. More details on sources, at least, are required before we'd take it seriously.

---

Here is what Washington D.C. based investigative news journalist Wayne Madsen had to say about Hamid Karzai:

quote:

---

According to Afghan, Iranian, and Turkish government sources, Hamid Karzai, the interim Prime Minister of Afghanistan, was a top adviser to the El Segundo, California-based UNOCAL Corporation which was negotiating with the Taliban to construct a Central Asia Gas (CentGas) pipeline from Turkmenistan through western Afghanistan to Pakistan.

Karzai, the leader of the southern Afghan Pashtun Durrani tribe, was a member of the mujaheddin that fought the Soviets during the 1980s. He was a top contact for the CIA and maintained close relations with CIA Director William Casey, Vice President George Bush, and their Pakistani Inter Service Intelligence (ISI) Service interlocutors. Later, Karzai and a number of his brothers moved to the United States under the auspices of the CIA. Karzai continued to serve the agency's interests, as well as those of the Bush Family and their oil friends in negotiating the CentGas deal, according to Middle East and South Asian sources.

When one peers beyond all of the rhetoric of the White House and Pentagon concerning the Taliban, a clear pattern emerges showing that construction of the trans-Afghan pipeline was a top priority of the Bush administration from the outset. Although UNOCAL claims it abandoned the pipeline project in December 1998, the series of meetings held between U.S., Pakistani, and Taliban officials after 1998, indicates the project was never off the table.

---

It doesn't matter anyway. The hawks are guilty of far worse than conspiring to allow 9-11 to happen, even though international intel agencies relayed repeated warnings to them that al Qaeda were inside the U.S. and looking to hijack passenger planes. We know the technology to fly large planes thousands of miles by remote control was produced by Nprthrop-Grumann several months prior to 9-11. The evidence was incinerated and carted away soon after. It just doesn't matter anymore, because even fewer Americans trust their government today than when these Republican conservatives lost the popular vote count in 2000.

In 1999, at its 50th birthday party, NATO gave itself the right to intervene outside its geographical area to defend its interests.

NATO is like a street gang, to protect the interests of its major members, the world/street's most powerful countries.

And Afghanistan is looking like Canada's Vietnam.
Vietnam lasted 25 years.

Some Canadians look back on our foreign interventions and peacekeeping missions in places like South Korea, Cyprus, et cetera, and draw certain conclusions. Among those is the notion that foreign intervention is not intrinsically wrong. Other people might look at Rwanda in 1993 and conclude that non-interventionism is not intrinsically good.

quote:

---

How can we get Canadian troops out by 2009? Just the military costs are already $3 billion and Canada's 'defense' budget is at WW2 levels.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Free_Radical:

Might be questionable whether 9/11 really constituted an "armed attack", but there you have it, Canada can have obligations even if it itself is not attacked.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Among those is the notion that foreign intervention is not intrinsically wrong. Other people might look at Rwanda in 1993 and conclude that non-interventionism is not intrinsically good.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Complete fabrication.
It's not at wwII levels, it's above the post world war II average. That's very different.

---

The Polaris Institute has an interesting report here on Canada's level of military spending:

quote:

---

It is widely believed that Canada is a small-time military spender. In fact, Canada is the 7th largest spender among the 26 members of NATO (see Table 1).1 The spending increases announced in Budget 2005 will raise Canada’s military spending to its highest level since the Second World War.

---

As far as defense capital spending is concerned, lack of a prudent capital program to replace assets such as SAR helicopters,SAR Buffalo fixed wing aircraft, Sea King Maritime helicopters (or even competent Sea King platform life-extension upgrades) or C130 Hercules replacements to mention a few, is the main reason for a capital spending bulge.

If you dont upgrade maintain your house or vehicles for 30 years,it is not accurate to complain about an increased capital budget to replace them.

quote:

---

Originally posted by jester:
Is Canadas WWII war spending comparison to today in inflation adjusted dollars or is the comparison 1944 dollars to 2004 dollars

[snip]

Another important reason for increased capital budgets is the requirement to meet the requirements of new technology, especially information technology, in defense platforms. UAVs and communications- recognition systems are expensive but required to maintain systems superiority.

---

As I read the report to which I linked above, constant 2005 dollars are used:

quote:

---

The total amount of money that the Department of National Defence plans to spend in Fiscal Year 2005-06 is $14.68 billion dollars.(2) As Chart 1 demonstrates, this amount is only slightly (7%) below the level of Canadian military spending at the end of the Cold War ($15.78 billion in FY 1989-90; all figures converted to 2005 dollars).(3)

Nevertheless, in Budget 2005 the government announced that it intends to provide $7 billion in new budgetary funding for the Canadian military over the next five years, and an additional $5.8 billion in funding for specific capital expenditures, for a total increase of $12.8 billion during the five-year period.(4) This promised set of increases will boost Canadian spending to approximately $19.7 billion in FY 2009-10, 34 per cent higher than its current level, and will have the effect of raising Canadian military spending to its highest level since the Second World War[.]

---

On this point, recall as well that the Conservatives have claimed to boost military spending to levels even higher than those addressed in this report's critical evaluation of the 2005 budget.

A second point on capital expenditures: while it's fair enough to point out possible distortions in spending analysis arising from long-delayed expenditures, it's also worth pointing out that "the requirements of new technology, especially information technology" to "maintain systems superiority" should not be treated uncritically. Indeed, they may introduce 'distortions' of their own.

In short, is Canada really 'required'--by the interests of its citizens, that is--to make the kinds of capital expenditures called for by the Liberals and Conservatives over the last several years?

Or might some of those capital expenditures be 'required' by the desire of some to further 'transform' Canada's military forces into an interoperable arm of US foreign and military policy?

Canada needs a new White Paper on Defense to outline the direction the country intends to go but no government appears very interested in the process.

My point is that Canada is a huge country with a small population mostly clustered within 100 km of the US border and that the logistics required to support national interests will be expensive regardless of (or,in spite of) any integration with American forces.

The military budget capital budget issue should be separate from deeper integration with the US,military or otherwise.

Military intergration will only benefit the arms industry,not national interests. I note a new article, that states NAFTA has mightly benefitted 20 or so large corporations with billions in profits while the rest of the country has shed jobs and simultaniously borne the costs of NAFTA.

For one thing, the more independent our defense strategy, the more epensive- and it's a pretty steep curve.

Another question: it's not just 'integration versus non-integration'. There's also integration with who? Main problem being this is not an abstract question. Being a small country needs degrees of integration with somebody- transportation and logistics being the most obvious dimension we can't meet all our needs. Obviously greatest independence is integration with someone or some alliance other than the US. But not surprisingly, the US is the only current option. Where does another option come form? [nice sounding concepts don't offer anything] NATO being the most realistic. But is it possible for the left to come to terms with even a NATO 'stretched' away from US domination? [And how could/would that happen- especially when most of the small countries in NATO are eager to please the US?] Transform NATO when US licking wounds? Defacto alliance with France and Germany for new 'centre' to NATO?

I doubt that Canada has much to fear from Denmark over Hans Island as both countries are signatories to the Law of the Seas Convention.

The fear for me,is the creeping integration outside of national cognizance from examples such as General Hilliers posting as Deputy Commanding General of a US Armoured Division at Ft. Hood ,Texas.

quote:

---

A Canadian soldier died Sunday and four others were injured when their armoured vehicle hit a roadside bomb in southern Afghanistan.

---