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


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » in cahoots   » Canada's military-media complex

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Canada's military-media complex
5strings
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2545

posted 15 March 2006 12:48 AM      Profile for 5strings     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
While media support for war and marginalization of anti-war views is long-standing, so are the devastating effects of war and occupation that rely on public support. An online poll conducted by the Globe after the initial poll, indicates that the nationalist appeals geared at winning Canadian public opinion are having their impact. A week after the original poll, the Globe reported that out of 32,499 online respondents, 53 per cent support Canadian troops leading NATO combat missions in southern Afghanistan.

There was a story in the G&M, "PM urges Canadian troops to remain strong" which was their famous "cut and run" piece. It was also originally accompanied by the photo(op) of Harper 'flying' the Hercules which was soon pulled off the online edition.

The comments were closed at #187. The next comment would have been my breakdown of the comments. This seemed a far more accurate poll/debate than their official poll. As follows:

Harper negative effect: 90 or 48.1%
Harper positive effect: 78 or 41.7%
Interesting balanced comments: 13 or .07%
American rabid harperites: 3 or .01%
redundant corrections: 3

The results tend to poorly reflect the G&M editorial tendencies and thus were not included.

Censorship almost springs to mind. At the very least showing their propaganda for what it's worth.


From: Totoland | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged
skeptikool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11389

posted 15 March 2006 12:47 PM      Profile for skeptikool        Edit/Delete Post
The Canadian public should not have to answer to its military but the opposite. The volunteer soldier craves any action rather than twiddling his thumbs in some garrison, having gear checks and playing war games. He will have been taught to follow orders and, no doubt, will have little interest of the politics of situations in which he may have been thrust.

We would not have to "cut and run" if the obsequious Harper had not been in such a hurry to butter up the U.S. by putting our military, as a fighting force, in Afghanistan in the first place.

To object to that deployment is not treasonous.

edited to add:

As far as the media is concerned, conflict invariably trumps peace. Most may recall how gung-ho it was for the current Iraq conflict - many thousands of deaths later.

[ 15 March 2006: Message edited by: skeptikool ]


From: Delta BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 15 March 2006 01:16 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
“The Canadian public should not have to answer to its military but the opposite. The volunteer soldier craves any action rather than twiddling his thumbs in some garrison, having gear checks and playing war games. He will have been taught to follow orders and, no doubt, will have little interest of the politics of situations in which he may have been thrust.”

I disagree, I believe most soldiers pay very close attention to politics and the policies that govern them.


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

posted 15 March 2006 01:58 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It is quite instructive to look at the media response in the days following the casualties. Before, the Afghan mission was just another "peacekeeping" mission that rated barely a mention. It was assumed that the public would understand that whatever the military was doing there, it was nothing to worry their little heads about. The media never mentioned it (other than the occational puffball piece about building schools for blind girl orphans). When the shit hit the fan, the media and the government were faced with something they hadn't anticipated: public scrutiny. So, together they quite openly and cynically stated that they needed better propaganda, and better manipulation to bring the public to heel. Thus, we suddenly start seeing every corporate media outlet enthusiastically cheerleading the occupation. The embed phenomenom that proved so poisonous in Iraq thrust itself onto the Canadian public in an all-out offensive of perception management. Harper is cast as a conquering hero by all outlets (including that commiesocialisticgodhating CBC, who must have recieved an interesting memo about future funding from the new Republican government), and the same stale, idiotic talking points leftover from the American's Iraq "debate" make their sour debut.

The ad campaign seems to be working. Consumers..I mean citizens, who don't even know that Afghaniis aren't Arabs, are starting to believe all the claims made by the products' manufacturers. Democracy, terrorists, reverses the seven signs of aging, evildoers, freedom, tastes great, building schools, whitens teeth, saving women and children, 911, 911, 911, built for drivers, islamofacists, fair and balanced, Canada's role in the world, Canada's commitment.

It's always good to remind oneself (and others) that the modern advertising industry got its start manipulating public opinion to allow the US to enter WWI. Back then it was the evil Hun that was threating democracy and freedom and bringing barbarism to a helpless people instead of those "Talibs".


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Aristotleded24
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9327

posted 15 March 2006 02:28 PM      Profile for Aristotleded24   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:
It's always good to remind oneself (and others) that the modern advertising industry got its start manipulating public opinion to allow the US to enter WWI. Back then it was the evil Hun that was threating democracy and freedom and bringing barbarism to a helpless people instead of those "Talibs".

Do you have any sources or books on that subject? It sounds like it would be an interesting thing to read.


From: Winnipeg | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 15 March 2006 02:37 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Edward Bernays

Although this article doesn't touch much on the first world war, I read a book (it's title escapes me) that went into some detail about his role in changing the isolationism of the US public into gung-ho war mongers. "Remember the Lusitania" and all that.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 15 March 2006 07:37 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Jingles is quite correct that media-induced warfever - propaganda - has been and is more ubiquitous and insidious than we mostly suspect. But this is one of those "which side do you look at it from" questions, isn't it? If the majority of Canadians oppose Canadian military involvement in Afghanistan, then they are demonstrating the independence and wisdom we'd like to think characterize Canadians. If the majority support such involvement, it can only be the result of a powerful media conspiracy. These kind of conceptual tools are not powerful enough to understand what is happening in Afghanistan or chart a course for Canada's foreign policy. What really needs to be hauled into the light and examined and discredited, in my view, is the lack of realism, thoughtfulness, discrimination, respect, gratitude and historical knowledge of too many on the left about military issues.

Thankfully, Babble gives us a forum for self-education in this realm, and folks like Reason give us some useful inside information.

What annoys and dismays me the most about some people's arguments here is that they assume a monopoly on anti-US imperialism thinking. By a wonderful kind of holier-than-thou strategy, they demonstrate their anti-US credentials by reflexively condemning every collaborative action between the US and Canada, even when such actions are saving countless innocent lives and legally sanctioned by international law. Strangely, their passion for this topic has not yet led them to examine the many security and defence agreements which exist between Canada and the US, or ask how to modify these in a way that promotes Canadian independence. Just as General Hillier announced his intentions and the new posture of the Canadian Forces months ago, and the left only woke up when Harper went to Afghanistan (broadly speaking - our observant Babblers have been on Hillier's case from the beginning) so to many on the left remain asleep at the switch, and as they say, "on the wrong side of history" or at least on the wrong side of morality and humanity on this issue, all because of their lack of attention to and knowledge of military and geo-political realities. Oh that's right, I forgot. Al Qaeda isn't real, just a creation of the Yankee war mongers. I guess if you accept that , then the arguments of those opposed to our mission in Afghanistan make a little more sense. But boy, is there ever a lot of credible information available in the public domain to testify to al Qaeda's reality, if such testimony were necessary.

[ 15 March 2006: Message edited by: Brett Mann ]


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 15 March 2006 09:08 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
But this is one of those "which side do you look at it from" questions, isn't it?

No, it isn't. It's pretty clear that there is a concerted effort to convince the public of the righteousness of this occupation. When it became clear that the public was not behind this debacle, the chickenhawks became quite open about the need to manage perception and swing public opinion firmly into the pro-war camp. The public is rightly suspicious and wary of engaging in a war that is not in their interests. But like other policies that are counter to their interests, see free trade, cutbacks to health and education, and the tax cuts for the wealthy, they can be made to think the decision is out of their hands, beyond their control, and inevitable, and therefore accept the wisdom of our "democratic" leaders.

quote:
By a wonderful kind of holier-than-thou strategy, they demonstrate their anti-US credentials by reflexively condemning every collaborative action between the US and Canada, even when such actions are saving countless innocent lives and legally sanctioned by international law.

When you actually find an action that is legally sanctioned by international law, do let us know.

quote:
But boy, is there ever a lot of credible information available in the public domain to testify to al Qaeda's reality, if such testimony were necessary.

Actually, testimony would be nice. Real evidence and real testimony is rather necessary, seeing as how no Al Qaeda member has been proven to exist in any court of law (notwithstanding torture-induced confessions). What credible evidence do we have, really, that hasn't come from someone desperately trying to sell us the idea that this Bondesque terror organization wants to kill us all. But that is off-topic.

quote:
Strangely, their passion for this topic has not yet led them to examine the many security and defence agreements which exist between Canada and the US, or ask how to modify these in a way that promotes Canadian independence.

Bullshit. There have been many discussions on Babble about the numerous too-cozy relationships between the Pentagon and DND, and many questions raised about the nature of these deep integration agreements that turn our military into just another sub-unit of the US military as expendable as a State National Guard unit. You just ignore them.

quote:
...so to many on the left remain asleep at the switch, and as they say, "on the wrong side of history" or at least on the wrong side of morality and humanity on this issue, all because of their lack of attention to and knowledge of military and geo-political realities.

Wrong side of morality and humanity. Interesting. The people who want the west to stop invading helpless countries, slaughtering the inhabitants, and stealing the resources are immoral and inhuman. Those who salivate at the thought of bombing and shooting anyone who resists are paragons of moral virtue and human compassion. And those same people who see nothing wrong with collective punishment, torture, rape, and murder as long as we the civilized west is doing it are the ones who accuse the left of moral relativism.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 15 March 2006 11:13 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jingles:

Wrong side of morality and humanity. Interesting. The people who want the west to stop invading helpless countries, slaughtering the inhabitants, and stealing the resources are immoral and inhuman. Those who salivate at the thought of bombing and shooting anyone who resists are paragons of moral virtue and human compassion. And those same people who see nothing wrong with collective punishment, torture, rape, and murder as long as we the civilized west is doing it are the ones who accuse the left of moral relativism.


Ok Jingles, let's take one thing at a time - but really I don't know where to begin. "The west"? I'm sorry, are you referring to Germany and France? Or Canada, or Sweden? What the fuck are you talking about "the west"? Do you think that this whole historical era we are living through is a manipulative creation of the CIA with the governments of the European nations as bit players? Oh, I see, you think they all get their orders from Washington? What can I say? I thought this was a forum for informed debate.

The reality of the al Qaeda threat? I hope to start a new thread on this topic shortly because I have recently learned a great deal of factual information about this organization. It is tragi-comic (if you have a particularly dark sense of humour) that some leftists persist in thinking that 9/11 was entirely a neo-con take-over plot and al Qaeda is simply a powerless and convenient excuse for empire-building. A quick reading of open source information on al Qaeda will dispel such ideas and leave us with a more complex problem to solve.

Your last paragraph is just plain crazy and indefensible, Jingles. "Those who salivate at the thought of bombing and shooting anyone who resists are paragons of moral virtue and human compassion." I can only hope that you can appreciate that people who might hold different understandings of what is happening aren't really Venusian vampirs.


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 15 March 2006 11:48 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Not to keep you hanging. The source of information about al Qaeda I am referring to is Stewart Bell's book The Martyr's Oath - the apprenticeship of a home grown terrorist An obvious corollary of Bell's findings is that "the war on terror" is an entirely inapropriate response to the kind of threat al Qaeda poses. A police-investigatory/international intelligence approach is called for, backed, where necessary, by military firepower - pretty much what Canada is doing in Afghanistan at present.
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
clandestiny
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6865

posted 18 March 2006 09:17 AM      Profile for clandestiny     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
why all the lies? why say the arabs did it when the crime scene was cleaned up asap by those we suspect were the really guilty party? why lie about wmd's in iraq? why lie about the bush selection by supreme court in the 2k election? why downplay the NORC results which were to be published in late sept/01, which proved the 2000 election was won by al gore, not that pervert bush? why does media downplay the role of the us/west in funding the muslim terror orgs in the first place, or the fact the usa spend more money on its military then the rest of the world combined? Who has ever heard that prewar Iraq had the world's '4th largest army' even though its military budget was 1/4 that of canada's? Do facts even matter in emotional based arguments? has anyone read 'up from conservativism' by michael lind, or 'blinded by the right' by david brock, or 'strange justice' by mayer and abramson (which records clarence thomas saying he would never retire from the suck court because it would take him '43 years to get even' with the usa!)?
william blake said 'a fool doesn't see the same tree a wise man sees' but geebushamerica is ridiculous

From: the canada's | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 18 March 2006 06:31 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skeptikool:
The Canadian public should not have to answer to its military but the opposite. The volunteer soldier craves any action rather than twiddling his thumbs in some garrison, having gear checks and playing war games. He will have been taught to follow orders and, no doubt, will have little interest of the politics of situations in which he may have been thrust.


I firmly agree that the military needs to answer to the governement - which is of course not exactly what you said...

As to going on tour - it comes with the calling. Is it more interesting than garrison? Absolutely. Would my family rather have me home? You betcha.

I am curious as to why you think that soldiers would "have little interest of the politics of situations in which he may have been thrust". The politics are in fact of great interest - it is after all our lives, and our blood...


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
skeptikool
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11389

posted 20 March 2006 12:09 PM      Profile for skeptikool        Edit/Delete Post
Grizzled Wolf,

quote:
I am curious as to why you think that soldiers would "have little interest of the politics of situations in which he may have been thrust". The politics are in fact of great interest - it is after all our lives, and our blood...

Perhaps Canadian soldiers differ greatly from their U.S. counterparts in a keener interest in politics. I hope so.

Since it is now fairly common knowledge across N. America that the Iraq so-called war was contrived and based on lies, why is the U.S. still able to muster an army to continue conducting this war crime?

[ 20 March 2006: Message edited by: skeptikool ]


From: Delta BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 20 March 2006 12:41 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by skeptikool:
Grizzled Wolf,

Perhaps Canadian soldiers differ greatly from their U.S. counterparts in a keener interest in politics. I hope so.

Since it is now fairly common knowledge across N. America that the Iraq so-called war was contrived and based on lies, why is the U.S. still able to muster an army to continue conducting this war crime?

[ 20 March 2006: Message edited by: skeptikool ]


Hmmm. I can only speculate as to the motivation of US soldiers in the Iraq conflict. I do know that duty is a core tenet of all militaries. We hold a position of particular trust in society, governed by the clause of unlimited liability as we are. In turn, we expect society to make the right decisions about how best to employ us. The trouble comes when you have competing ideas - a just cause, versus the deeply ingrained idea that we are bound to serve where we are told to.

I can say that with 4 tours under my belt, I am fortunate enough to have never been placed in that position. The Canadian governement (and the Canadian people) inevitably "get it right", much as do her soldiers.


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 20 March 2006 01:15 PM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:

...duty is a core tenet ... deeply ingrained idea...



Is this not just a euphemism for "indoctrination"?

From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 20 March 2006 01:25 PM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Grizzled Wolf:
Hmmm. I can only speculate as to the motivation of US soldiers in the Iraq conflict.

What other choice do they have? Re-enlistment rates are falling, but if you're still in, you're in.

Their motivation needn't be something so noble as 'duty.' I imgaine they would just as soon stay out of a military prison.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 20 March 2006 01:58 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Hephaestion:

Is this not just a euphemism for "indoctrination"?


What a dark and dreary place your world must be. Do you not feel any "duties" or obligations? Or are you more focused on what your rights are?


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
gunnar gunnarson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8547

posted 20 March 2006 02:04 PM      Profile for gunnar gunnarson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
In turn, we expect society to make the right decisions about how best to employ us. The trouble comes when you have competing ideas ...

That's the trouble with democracy. It can be so messy, especially when you have those pesky competing ideas. Next thing you know, those uppity citizens start wanting to have a parliamentary debate -- you know, that thing our representatives are supposed to do before making decisions about how to employ the military, or allocate resources, or formulate policy ...


From: audra's corner | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged
Grizzled Wolf
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12285

posted 20 March 2006 02:14 PM      Profile for Grizzled Wolf     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by gunnar gunnarson:

That's the trouble with democracy. It can be so messy, especially when you have those pesky competing ideas. Next thing you know, those uppity citizens start wanting to have a parliamentary debate -- you know, that thing our representatives are supposed to do before making decisions about how to employ the military, or allocate resources, or formulate policy ...


Can't help but agree with you there - I would have liked to see a debate on the issue. It appears that the Government intends to hold a debate when we open our second line of operation, according to Mr O'Connor (reported in the G&M this morning).


From: Wherever they send me - currently lovely Edmonton | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 20 March 2006 08:55 PM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What I would really like to understand and I don't is who are the good guys and the bad guys? When does the duty of a young Afghan to defend their country kick in? If only it was easy to tell the difference between a Taliban or a war lord or an Al Quida just by looking at them. And every time we make a mistake and kill a regular civilian type we create new insurgents.

If we are there for another ten years as some speculate who will be able to tell whether the 20 year old fighting us then is a terrorist or someone who hates foreigners because we mistakenly killed his father, mother, sister or brother in one of our little excursions. I can get mugged and stabbed at the local Skytrain station and that is far more likely than any Afghan or Bin Ladenist coming here to cause me harm.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 20 March 2006 11:29 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Kropotkin, my fervent hope would be that young Afghanis who currently feel they are defending the sovereignty of their nation by attacking NATO forces will over time see conditions improve for their fellow citizens and families and realize the error of their ways. It's a long shot, maybe, but possible. Who are the good guys? This is the central question, and the plan is to make the average Afghani agree that we, the NATO stabilization force, are the good guys. Most already do so agree, from the information I can gather. Besides the misguided youth supporting the Taliban, however, there are some real bad guys-operatives and leaders within al Qaeda seeking to foment a true war of civilizations which will benefit no one.
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 20 March 2006 11:38 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Besides the misguided youth supporting the Taliban, however, there are some real bad guys-operatives and leaders within al Qaeda seeking to foment a true war of civilizations which will benefit no one.

Brett, you keep presenting this picture of a "majority" of Afghans who see NATO as the good guys; a "minority" supporting the Taliban; and this Al Qaeda business. Don't you think, at some stage, that a little evidence would be in order?

When was the last time any foreign insurgents were found operating in Afghanistan (let alone someone credibly linkable to something called Al Qaeda)?

Why do Afghans who hate Karzai and hate the U.S. and other invaders have to be labelled as Taliban? Besides all the rival warlords, who do you think was fighting the Soviets and the British and other invaders before the Taliban had ever been invented by the U.S. and its agents? Ordinary Afghanis.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Red T-shirt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5872

posted 21 March 2006 11:14 AM      Profile for Red T-shirt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'm really confused about Afghanistan. Wasn't Karzai and his group (northern coalition) the same bunch of warlords that controlled the opium trade? If one went back 10 or 15 years wouldn't these be the guys that the US thought were the enemy at that time? Obviously I need to do a lot of research. Just started Fisk's "The great war for civilization", but its 1300 pages and I'm not a fast reader. Maybe in a month I'll have a clearer picture. Anybody else read this one? If so, did it help at all?
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 21 March 2006 11:19 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Red T-shirt:
I'm really confused about Afghanistan. Wasn't Karzai and his group (northern coalition) the same bunch of warlords that controlled the opium trade?

See if this helps:

1. Karzai is good (today).
2. Taliban is evil (today).
3. Saddam Hussein is evil (today).
4. Pakistan is good (today).
5. Osama Bin Laden is evil (today) - but we can't find him.
6. Stay tuned for tomorrow.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 21 March 2006 10:50 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Your call for evidence is quite justified, Unionist, and I apologize for not getting back with some sooner. There's a lot of information out there though, so help me - which assertion do I have to provide evidence for?

a: Afghanistan housed al Qaeda training bases churning out Jihadis for global operations prior to the American invasion.

b: al Qaeda remains a dangerous threat to the world, including Canada

c: al Qaeda is trying to regroup in Afghanistan because it has essentially fled to Pakistan, across the border and would rush in to fill any gap left by retreating NATO forces?

d: al Qaeda was responsible for the planning and execution of the 9/11 attacks and many others?

e: al Qaeda has close ties to the Taliban in southern Afghanistan. The majority of Afghanis do not wish to see the Taliban return to power, even in Kandahar province.

f: al Qaeda remains poised and ready, when circumstances call for it, for an attack on Canda, an attack which will change the tenor of this debate.

g: al Qaeda tells its followers that the west is out to destroy Islam. Canadians can do a lot to challenge that view on the ground in Afghanstan.


Not to be cute, but help me. What about the reality of al Qaeda don't you believe?


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 21 March 2006 11:03 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Red T-shirt:
I'm really confused about Afghanistan. Wasn't Karzai and his group (northern coalition) the same bunch of warlords that controlled the opium trade?

Karzai himself was a "booster" for the Taliban before 2002 or so. Karzai is a Pashtun and said to be from royal bloodlines. His family supported the return of King Zahir Shah to power in Afghanistan. Royalty and monarchies almost always end up being brutal and repressive dictatorships and very bad for the people in general. The American's want Karzai in power because he is weak and ineffective as a leader and highly suggestible to the big multinational oil agenda.

ETA: Here is a fair description of the "Northern Alliance." But really, it should have been referred to as the, United Islamic Front for the Salvation of Afghanistan

[ 21 March 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 22 March 2006 12:09 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Not to be cute, but help me. What about the reality of al Qaeda don't you believe?

The "reality" bit.

Have you really not clued in yet that "al-Qaeda" does not exist as an actual organization? You think it's like some kind of multinational corporation, with a board of directors, CEO, whatever? You think bin Laden is lurking in his hi-tech underground bunker somewhere, controlling all his thousands of minions around the globe by satellite transmission, like some kind of James Bond supervillain?

Now, there was a time when something called "al-Qaeda" could be said to actually exist, from its origins in the (US-backed) mujeheddin in the 80's to shortly after 9/11, but even then it was always more a loose affiliation of like-thinking people than an organization. Now it isn't even that. It's a concept, a brand, a philosophy, a worldview. Anyone anywhere in the world can become a "member" of "al-Qaeda" simply by willing it. There's no need for any actual direct connection to bin Laden or anyone else. Didn't you hear the news out of Spain recently?

The idea that the perpetrators of the Madrid bombing, or any others, needed some grubby camps way off in the middle of nowhere in Afghanistan to carry out their operations is beyond ludicrous.

There is no military solution to an abstract ideology.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 22 March 2006 12:28 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Your call for evidence is quite justified, Unionist, and I apologize for not getting back with some sooner. There's a lot of information out there though, so help me - which assertion do I have to provide evidence for?

That Canada's "primary mission" in Afghanistan involves Al Qaeda.

quote:
Not to be cute, but help me. What about the reality of al Qaeda don't you believe?

I don't believe in the Bogeyman. There was no Bogeyman in Khartoum when Clinton (under fire that day in the Lewinsky affair) bombed a pharmaceutical factory on August 20, 1998, claiming it was an "Al Qaeda chemical weapon installation":

Al Shifa pharmaceutical factory

Then there was September 11, and the U.S. needed to invade someone. Bush wanted to go straight for Iraq, but couldn't get a consensus - so Afghanistan it was. They weren't really after the Bogeyman:

Article about Taliban offering to try Bin Laden if U.S. provides evidence - Oct. 5, 2001

quote:
The US has said it will not hand over evidence to the Taliban, but insists it has enough put him on trial.

Then, on October 17 - ten days after the bombing started - this:

Taliban minister offers trial in third country

quote:
For the first time, the Taliban offered to hand over Bin Laden for trial in a country other than the US without asking to see evidence first in return for a halt to the bombing, a source close to Pakistan's military leadership said.

Nope, you're missing the point. We don't care about the Bogeyman. That's only to scare kids.

The invasion of Iraq required a new Bogeyman - WMD. I'm frankly surprised, Brett, that you don't cite the need to abort Afghanistan's nascent nuclear program as the "primary mission".

There are real live terrorists out there. But Mr. Bush's War isn't against them. That's one of the reasons it isn't working.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
beluga2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3838

posted 22 March 2006 12:49 AM      Profile for beluga2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Exactly. And of course, Bush's violent moronic rampages are constantly providing more and more motivation for people to become "real live terrorists" in the first place.

You can be damned sure that every time something like this happens, somebody somewhere is inspired to create their very own brand-new terror cell and set about seeking revenge. No authorization or approval from Al-Qaeda Head Office necessary.


From: vancouvergrad, BCSSR | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 22 March 2006 01:34 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I used to think the CIA was pulling everyone's legs with not being able to find a six foot-five inch Saudi needing regular medical treatment.

Now I think they were never really looking in the right place because no one has been able to infiltrate the Peshawar-Khyber region where Taliban are allowed to thrive in spite of an 82 thousand man Pakistani army after them, supposedly. There are no James Bond types willing to live in the mountains without female companionship in extreme weather and make some enquiries as to the whereabouts of OBL.

They're not even trying to find their former partner in crime. Keynesian-militarism is on again with OBL and al Qaeda phantom.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 22 March 2006 01:43 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Brett Mann

Please put this war on terror into perspective and give the crticis a chance. Read Chomsky's AI 2006 lecture, for instance:
http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20060118.pdf
Or listen to it while you're cooking:
http://www.newstalk106.ie/noam-chomskys.html

Then tell me please what we should do the next time the USA terrorises some country. Invade? Or do we do that just to the weak?


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 22 March 2006 01:52 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by VanLuke:
Brett Mann

Please put this war on terror into perspective and give the crticis a chance. Read Chomsky's AI 2006 lecture, for instance:
http://www.chomsky.info/talks/20060118.pdf
Or listen to it while you're cooking:
http://www.newstalk106.ie/noam-chomskys.html

Then tell me please what we should do the next time the USA terrorises some country. Invade? Or do we do that just to the weak?


Thanks for the post, VanLuke. I hadn't run across this speech. I will read/listen with great interest.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 22 March 2006 02:11 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I suggest you listen to the audio including the interview after the lecture in Dublin
From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 22 March 2006 06:19 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Thanks for the link to the Chomsky article, VanLuke, I read it and found little new to me, but have great respect for the man. I am fully aware of the terrorist history of the US, having travelled to Nicaragua during the Sandinista period and seen the effects of the Contra war and embargo at close hand. I utterly agree that America's history has been one of repression, aggression, duplicity and exploitation, but none of these facts detracts from the reality of al Qaeda.

I use the term al Qaeda to include allied terrorist organizations which work in concert with al Qaeda or have merged with it, such as Islamic Jihad, Jemma Islamiyah, the Moro Islamic Liberation Front, and so on. I do so for purposes of brevity and because these organizations have shown an ability to co-operate closely. Of course they are not organized like some monolithic international corporation, but nonetheless manage to provide funding, strategic planning and operational capabilities to the larger body of Jihadists worldwide. For a believable in-depth look at al Qaeda's methods and organization, read Stewart Bell's
The Martyr's Oath- the apprenticeship of a homegrown terrorist. The author is inexcusably blind to the role American aggression has played in creating terrorism, but none the less he produces a good piece of reportage. He has access to secret CSIS files and FBI interrogation records and ties these together with his own interviews and facts on public record to paint a very convincing picture. Mohammed Jabara, a young Kuwaiti-born young Canadian from St. Catherine's goes to Pakistan and Afghanistan, joins al Qaeda and is apprehended in Thailand fleeing a botched attempt to stage a bombing in Singapore of 9/11 scale. He is debriefed by "Mike" his CSIS handler and tells him everything about his involvement with al Qaeda. One interesting tidbit - "Mohammed told Mike that al Qaeda had been responsible for the assassination of Ahmad Shah Massoud, the charismatic and politically moderate commander of the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance."

Webgear has given us some information about al Qaeda involvement in the Kandahar region in this thread. Frankly it seems a little strange to have to defend the reality of al Qaeda at this stage of the game. Even if we created none of this mess and our efforts are indirectly helping American imperial ambitions (both true) we still are stuck with the fact that al Qaeda exists and is quite willing to strike at Canadian targets at home and abroad with the same indiscriminate savagery it has elsewhere. We have an organized group out there that has sworn to do us harm. We may reasonably discuss how to respond. My stated perference is for a combined police/diplomatic-development/military approach, in that order of priority. What we cannot reasonably do is assume that the threat al Qaeda poses to Canadians is trivial or insignificant.

Edited to add - the value of what Mohammed Jabara had to relate regarding al Qaeda and its operations is suggested by the facts that he had undergone advanced training, seen combat, was tasked with arranging a major terrorist attack in Singapore, and met personally with Osama bin Laden on four occasions.

[ 22 March 2006: Message edited by: Brett Mann ]


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 22 March 2006 06:25 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann:
[QB]Thanks for the link to the Chomsky article, VanLuke, I read it and found little new to me

I'm glad you read it just the same.

It wasn't me who put the existence of Al Quaeda into doubt. It was another babbler.

What I do doubt though, is that they would have been a threat to Canada if we hadn't gotten involved.

But I'm not saying that this is *necessarily* a reason for staying out of this fight. I'm not that naive about realities of global politics.

However, I'm not saying that we should be involved in this fight. I expressed doubts about who we are supporting there and just for whom we are putting Canada's soldiers in harm's way.

And as our dubious role in Haiti shows IMO more Candians should be critical of our foreign policies.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 22 March 2006 06:54 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Sorry for the false accusation, Vanluke. I find myself juggling about six different threads and discussions on this issue. I see a great possiblity for this whole conflict to spiral out of control and lead to the kind of universal radicalization of Islamic nations everywhere that Bin Laden so desires. Truly, Bush has been his indespensable ally.

Canada has been thrust into an impossible position, trying to enforce modern rules on an ancient untamed land and loosen tenets of a rigid culture. But perhaps we can actually do some good. This thought came to me today when I heard on CBC a Canadian Islamic leader saying that what the Aghani justice system was doing in threatening to execute a citizen for converting to Christianity was antithetical to true Islam. And Canadian Muslim organizations are contacting their fellow Muslims in Afghanistan and vigorously promoting their viewpoint I gather. Al Qaeda must be confronted on the battlefield but it cannot be defeated there. Only approaches which bring retrograde and radical interpretations of Islam into the light of modernity and moderation and tolerance will solve this problem and remove the current terrorist threat. And when you think of it, isn't Canada, with its well-trained military experienced in peace-keeping, and its large Islamic population, with their contacts in their home countries, especially well placed to take on this impossible job in Afghanistan?


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 22 March 2006 07:18 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Sorry for the false accusation, Vanluke.

No problem.

And I fully agree that Dubya is Osama's best ally. But doesn't that put a further question mark behind our operations there?

And please lets not forget about the role Western powers, and the British, in particular played in Afghanistan. (Were they had a huge defeat.) I assure you, in a culture where oral traditions are the main vehicle for passing knowledge from one generation to another, they have not forgotten this history.

Recently I went to the corner store a couple of blocks from where I live. It belongs to an Afghani and I asked him how he felt about Canadian troops being in his homeland.

Lest anybody jumps to conclusions, keep in mind I'm talking only about two Afghanis in this post.

The store owner seemed almost angry that I dared ask the question and he pointed at three or four big photographs of Canadian soldiers In Afghanistan.

However, he almost screamed when he turned to the subject of the Americans' role (and keep in mind we're their allies) in his country. He must hate them intensely.

Candians there are good, Ameircans no good, he screamed at me.

A customer in the store, apparently another Afghani, had a bemused expression and a weird smile on his face. I interpreted (maybe falsely) his demeanour as not being quite as happy about the Canadian presence as his store owning friend.

I would have loved to talk to him but felt so uncomfortable, had a sense of hostility towards me from the store owner (again maybe I'm wrong) that I left fairly quickly.

On the whole it was not a very fruitful exercise though it is indicative of something that he put the photos of the Can soldiers on his wall.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 22 March 2006 08:46 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
Fascinating vignette, VanLuke. As you say, there may be some ambiguity, but it seems the Afghani shopkeeper's loyalties and viewpoint were clear, if the pictures on the wall were sincerely put there. His message is mine. When it comes to Afghanistan, Americans bad, Canadians good. It seems that the folks we are ostensibly trying to help can make this distinction, even if so many on the Canadian left do not.
From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 22 March 2006 08:52 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann:
Fascinating vignette, VanLuke. As you say, there may be some ambiguity, but it seems the Afghani shopkeeper's loyalties and viewpoint were clear, if the pictures on the wall were sincerely put there. His message is mine. When it comes to Afghanistan, Americans bad, Canadians good. It seems that the folks we are ostensibly trying to help can make this distinction, even if so many on the Canadian left do not.

Well, thanks to VanLuke's anecdote, we now have 50% of Afghanis who responded to the poll clearly happy with Canadian presence in Afghanistan. That's good enough for me. Fight fight fight!!!


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

posted 22 March 2006 10:15 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by VanLuke:
However, he almost screamed when he turned to the subject of the Americans' role (and keep in mind we're their allies) in his country. He must hate them intensely.

Canadians there are good, Amerians no good, he screamed at me..


That's interesting, Van Luke. And there is an Afghani person down the street working a local shop. I'll ask him what he thinks. He's a mature person who, the last time I checked, wasn't very enthusiastic about his homeland at all. He's an engineer who was educated in Eastern Europe in the 1970's. ot sure what part of Afghanistan he's from though.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 22 March 2006 10:26 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The most important line in my post was a "warning" that it is only 2 Afghanis and no conclusions are warranted.

What I have not thought of including (because I thought of it only afterwards) is that on the day after the invasion of Afghanistan when I felt very emotional about Canada participating in an invasion of a country in response to AL Quaeda NOT the Taliban (that "justification" was added by the PR machine afterwards) and as a Canadian felt ashamed of it, I went to the same shop and told the same shopkeeper how sorry I felt and how upset I was that Canada invaded his country. At that time he thanked me profusely for my comments.

So what can one make of all this?

I don't know but I thought it useful to relate the little anectode and - most certainly - did not want to imply that half of all Afghanis are in support of the Canadian intervention there.

I think all the other posts I've written on the subject speak for themselves: At best I feel ambigous and maybe, just maybe (if something better comes out for Afghanis (especially women) are somewhat in support as much as I hate war and as much as I doubt that much good will come out of all this for Afghanis. (My father was killed in WWII and I grew up wishing I had a father and aleays hated war and aggression in all its forms.)

I can't put it any better and sometimes I'm just sick and tired of this fucking world.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 22 March 2006 10:28 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Well, thanks to VanLuke's anecdote, we now have 50% of Afghanis who responded to the poll clearly happy with Canadian presence in Afghanistan. That's good enough for me. Fight fight fight!!!


And that comment sounds very unfair to me


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 22 March 2006 10:34 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by VanLuke:

And that comment sounds very unfair to me


It's unfair if it was addressed to you. It wasn't, and I apologize for leaving that impression. It was addressed to Brett and others who have been grasping at straws to prove that Afghans support Canadian troops in their country. And, true to form, Brett did that with your anecdote.

As for how you felt on Oct. 7 2001, I felt the same way that day and every day since. And when they added "Taliban" as a pretext, it just made me sicker. When Hans Blix, just before the invasion of Iraq, said his team needed "months" to complete their work, and Bush finally got tired of this pathetic foreigner who just wouldn't get with the program, Bush changed the program to "liberation of the people of Iraq". Remember that? Did I feel better when he came up with phoney pretext number 2 for aggression and slaughter? I don't think so.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 22 March 2006 10:36 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by VanLuke:
I think all the other posts I've written on the subject speak for themselves: At best I feel ambigous and maybe, just maybe (if something better comes out for Afghanis (especially women) are somewhat in support as much as I hate war and as much as I doubt that much good will come out of all this for Afghanis. (My father was killed in WWII and I grew up wishing I had a father and aleays hated war and aggression in all its forms.)

I can't put it any better and sometimes I'm just sick and tired of this fucking world.


I'm sorry about your father. I was lucky. Both my parents survived, though no one else did, including my older brother. You and I understand war and aggression, and no matter how bad this world looks, I'll be there alongside you helping people to understand the horrors being inflicted on the world today and how we should stand together against them.

[ 22 March 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 22 March 2006 10:38 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
It's unfair if it was addressed to you. It wasn't, and I apologize for leaving that impression.

Maybe I'm just too sensitive. Sorry if that was the case


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443

posted 22 March 2006 11:05 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Unionist

I have had plenty Afghans "thank me" for the work Canada has done in Afghanistan.

In fact, the last time was about weeks ago, when I was receiving some language training from an Afghan teacher living in Ottawa.


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

posted 22 March 2006 11:22 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
Unionist

I have had plenty Afghans "thank me" for the work Canada has done in Afghanistan.

In fact, the last time was about weeks ago, when I was receiving some language training from an Afghan teacher living in Ottawa.


Who was paying the Afghan teacher?


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

posted 22 March 2006 11:24 PM      Profile for Webgear     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
No one, he was teaching for free.

Okay, someone got him a coffee and a sandwich at the coffee shop during lunchtime for his services.

[ 22 March 2006: Message edited by: Webgear ]


From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 23 March 2006 01:02 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
Unionist

I have had plenty Afghans "thank me" for the work Canada has done in Afghanistan.

In fact, the last time was about weeks ago, when I was receiving some language training from an Afghan teacher living in Ottawa.


Oh really?

Ignoring your teacher, do they come up to you on the street and somehow know you're involved in the "liberation" of their country?


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 23 March 2006 01:14 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Shouldn't this be in here somewhere?

quote:
Canada's Military-Media Complex
What’s the difference between government, defense contractors and media?

by Anthony Fenton

The lines separating Canada’s government, military, media, and private defense contractors are, if not imaginary, then ill-defined.
The case of the new Minister of Defense Gordon O’Connor is illustrative. A veteran of the Canadian Forces, he was a tank squadron commander and is now a retired Brigadier-General who spent eight years as a lobbyist for some of Canada’s largest military contractors. In his words, he was “helping defense companies navigate complicated government procurement rules.” He ended his career as a lobbyist only to run for public office. He won a seat and became a Member of Parliament in June 2004. He then became the Conservative Party’s Critic for National Defense and was a member of the Standing Committee on National Defense and Veterans Affairs.

When he was new to the House of Commons in November 2004, O’Connor’s lobbyist past was scrutinized by journalists. At the time he flatly denied that his work as a military lobbyist could pose a potential conflict of interest in his role as defense critic. “I don’t decide who wins and loses contracts,” said O’Connor at the time. Now that’s he’s Minister of Defense, he will decide who wins and loses contracts.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

The headline of Granatstein’s Globe op/ed, written in response to the negative poll, in which 62% of Canadians opposed sending tropps to Afghanistan, conveys the singular message of recent Afghanistan coverage: “Wake up! This is our war too; We must accept reality: Our Afghan mission is very much in our national interests and in the interests of democracy.” Noting that “Canadian anti-Americanism is at a record peak in 2006,” Granatstein appeals to Canadians “to recognize what is at stake and to support their government and their soldiers in advancing their country’s--and the world’s--interests.” Granatstein’s column appeared in the February 28th edition of the Globe right below Margaret Wente’s. Wente sits with Granatstein on the Advisory Council of another prominent lobby group, the Canadian defense and Foreign Affairs Institute (CDFAI). CDFAI’s donors include General Dynamics, the sixth largest defense contractor in the world, and the Canadian Council of Chief Executives.

Among other connections, the chairman of the Globe’s parent company BCE’s board, Richard J. Currie, is also a director on the board of CAE, one of Canada’s largest defense contractors. In the BCE boardroom, Currie sits with other directors representing the defense and energy lobbies, like billionaire James Pattison, a close friend of George Bush Sr. and a board member of the Ronald Reagan Foundation.

Dominion Paper



From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 23 March 2006 01:25 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
the world’s--interests


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 23 March 2006 02:13 AM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, remember all that sloganeering of, "the world needs more canada" under Martin's reign?

Not sad to see the backside of that nonsense. Yet, (perhaps) heeeere we go again.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 23 March 2006 03:07 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
I'll be there alongside you helping people to understand the horrors being inflicted on the world today and how we should stand together against them.

[ 22 March 2006: Message edited by: unionist ]


And we hope that peace mission will include speaking out against the all encompassing effects of CIA blowbacks perpetrated on Central Asian's as well as Iraqi's through to Latin America. Let's do a group hug now.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Jim Schmitt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10060

posted 23 March 2006 08:57 PM      Profile for Jim Schmitt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Fidel is absolutely right. We should be in Afghanistan. The problem is not the mission in itself. It's Harper trying to sound like Bush. And by that, he's driving away support from the sensible left.

BTW, Layton made a good move in the last election, criticizing Martin for starving our military. In 2004, he wanted a smaller military budget than Martin did. Now he supports a strong and proud Canadian military. In order to have more of an impact in the world, we need a stronger military.


From: Port Moody, BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Brett Mann
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6441

posted 23 March 2006 10:21 PM      Profile for Brett Mann        Edit/Delete Post
All and sundry, but especially Unionist, I invite you to entertain this thought for a fleeting second - a fantasy - in the near term future, the NATO stabilization and reconstruction force achieves an unexpected degree of success, and public support becomes so wide spread that Taliban/al Qaeda elements have difficulty finding the support they need in the local populace.

What would be the real world, realpolitik consequences? I suggest such a triumph in nation-building under near-impossible circumstances would win Canada a degree of freedom and authority we would all wish it to have on the international stage, no? In the course of doing so we would have to make life far better for the averge Afghani than it is now. I'll take it further - would not our success (NATO's success) set an example in internation conflict resolution and set the tone for more rational international discourse? Are we so sure that backing away from Afghanistan and "the war on terror" is the best response?


From: Prince Edward County ON | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged
Frustrated Mess
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8312

posted 23 March 2006 10:50 PM      Profile for Frustrated Mess   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What would be the real world, realpolitik consequences?

Justification for further wars and invasions.

During the Vietnam war, the US argued the domino theory arguing that, magically, a victory by a nationalist army seeking unification would result in one SE Asian nation after another falling into the communist sphere.

Interestingly enough, the only two dominos to fall where those forced into the war, one through illegal bombing, by the US: Laos and Cambodia.

There was also Burma, but that was unrelated to the Vietnam conflict. The domino theory did not hold up.

So here we are today fighting "Islamic terror" by terrorizing Islamic peoples. Just saying it demonstrates the inherent folly.


From: doom without the gloom | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
siren
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7470

posted 23 March 2006 11:59 PM      Profile for siren     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann:

What would be the real world, realpolitik consequences? I suggest such a triumph in nation-building under near-impossible circumstances would win Canada a degree of freedom and authority we would all wish it to have on the international stage, no?


Freedom from whom?

Authority to impose our will on whom?

Authority entails a great deal of responsibility. Nations generally don't do well with unregulated authority as the US has revealed for some time.

No -- I don't think any nation needs to be in a position of authority over others. We need to figure out how to interact as equals, not how to organize as packs to kill the ideas of others in other nations.


From: Of course we could have world peace! But where would be the profit in that? | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 24 March 2006 12:24 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Schmitt:
[QB]Fidel is absolutely right. We should be in Afghanistan.

I think you failed to catch the irony he used and have not read many of his posts.

I'm not trying to speak for him but since I'm surprised he hasn't set you right yet I post this.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 24 March 2006 12:28 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann:

I invite you to entertain this thought for a fleeting second - a fantasy - in the near term future, the NATO stabilization and reconstruction force achieves an unexpected degree of success, and public support becomes so wide spread that Taliban/al Qaeda elements have difficulty finding the support they need in the local populace.


Isn't that a pure fantasy given that we couldn't even help to organise fair and free elections in Haiti?


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 March 2006 12:37 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Brett Mann:
All and sundry, but especially Unionist, I invite you to entertain this thought for a fleeting second - a fantasy - in the near term future, the NATO stabilization and reconstruction force achieves an unexpected degree of success, and public support becomes so wide spread that Taliban/al Qaeda elements have difficulty finding the support they need in the local populace.

Your question, besides being more counterfactual than the flat-earth theories, presumes that the source of "instability" in Afghanistan is Taliban/al Qaeda. From an absurd ahistorical hypothesis, any conclusion follows. If the invading U.S. forces had found Iraqi nuclear weapons ready to be fired, many might have a different view of that event.

quote:
I suggest such a triumph in nation-building under near-impossible circumstances would win Canada a degree of freedom and authority we would all wish it to have on the international stage, no?

No. Canada has no divine mission. Nor are we auditioning for a bit part on the international stage. Are you serious about "freedom and authority"? Freedom to go where we like, and the authority to make our dictate stick? No, no, no thank you. Not in my name, not in my country.

quote:
Are we so sure that backing away from Afghanistan and "the war on terror" is the best response?

Is that two questions bundled into one? Well, in that case, my answer is still "yes". Not only is it (IMHO) the best response, but I believe that unfolding events will swiftly render it the only response.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 March 2006 12:39 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by VanLuke:

Isn't that a pure fantasy given that we couldn't even help to organise fair and free elections in Haiti?


Exactly. And I believe we have a way to go before we can organize truly fair and free elections in Canada.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Jim Schmitt
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10060

posted 24 March 2006 01:19 AM      Profile for Jim Schmitt     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by VanLuke:

I think you failed to catch the irony he used and have not read many of his posts.

I'm not trying to speak for him but since I'm surprised he hasn't set you right yet I post this.


Well if Fidel is now against intervention this is a very recent change. He was arguing FOR for the intervention while most people on this board opposed it. If he's now against it, either he's been duped by Harper (who has been scaring the sensible left away from intervention) or he dislikes the way Harper is going about it. I'm not happy about Harper's leadership (i.e. "God bless Canada" and trying to sound like Bush) but I still realize the need for us to be there.


From: Port Moody, BC | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Staznie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11952

posted 24 March 2006 01:33 AM      Profile for Staznie        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Webgear:
“The Canadian public should not have to answer to its military but the opposite. The volunteer soldier craves any action rather than twiddling his thumbs in some garrison, having gear checks and playing war games. He will have been taught to follow orders and, no doubt, will have little interest of the politics of situations in which he may have been thrust.”

I disagree, I believe most soldiers pay very close attention to politics and the policies that govern them.


I also disagree, CDN Soldiers are probably more informed of International issues than the typical Canadian, they are not mindless zombies like other country's troops.


From: No longer in Hamilton | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 March 2006 01:36 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by VanLuke:

I think you failed to catch the irony he used and have not read many of his posts.


VanLuke, I missed his irony too, and I read many of his posts, because I was engaged in countering them.


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

posted 24 March 2006 02:00 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

There was also Burma, but that was unrelated to the Vietnam conflict. The domino theory did not hold up.

I think that domino theory has been the driving force behind U.S. foreign policy and covert interventions the world over. They've spent trillions of dollars in preventing domino effect since WWII, from extending MFN status to Japan, to the bombing of 21 nations since Nagasaki and Hiroshima to covert CIA operations condor and cyclone.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 24 March 2006 09:48 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Jim Schmitt:
[QB]

Well if Fidel is now against intervention this is a very recent change. He was arguing FOR for the intervention while most people on this board opposed it.


Well maybe I should quote Humphrey Bogart (Casablanca): "I was misinformed"

My apologies if that was the case.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 24 March 2006 11:18 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

VanLuke, I missed his irony too, and I read many of his posts, because I was engaged in countering them.


Maybe I apologised too fast.

I admit my statement was more based on my general impression of Fidel, having read many of his past posts, and not on reading a lot on what he had to say about invading Afghanistan. However see this post by him:

I HATE this damn url button!

And now the godamn tinyurl doesn't work either. I must have spent 15 fucking minutes trying to fix these two links.

Try this"

here

[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 24 March 2006 11:27 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Or this where he indirectly disagrees, I think; though you don't seem to:

here

[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Hephaestion
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4795

posted 24 March 2006 11:32 AM      Profile for Hephaestion   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
Posting to restore formatting on TAT page...
From: goodbye... :-( | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 24 March 2006 11:50 AM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
sorry. I'll try to get used to the fact that these urls occupy much less space on my screen.

[ 24 March 2006: Message edited by: VanLuke ]


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 24 March 2006 12:59 PM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by VanLuke:

Maybe I apologised too fast.

I admit my statement was more based on my general impression of Fidel, having read many of his past posts, and not on reading a lot on what he had to say about invading Afghanistan. However see this post by him:


Maybe you're right. He talks about many many issues in each post. I formed my conclusions from two observations: 1) He never once overtly supported or repeated the call for withdrawal of Canadian troops. 2) He continuously declares that the main problem is the Taliban.

For example:

How Canadian troop withdrawal wouldn't help save Afghanis from Taliban atrocities

I'd welcome a clear statement from him on the main issue.


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
VanLuke
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7039

posted 24 March 2006 08:52 PM      Profile for VanLuke     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Unionist wrote:

quote:
He talks about many many issues in each post.

I formed my conclusions from two observations:

1) He never once overtly supported or repeated the call for withdrawal of Canadian troops.

2) He continuously declares that the main problem is the Taliban.


No 2 I had not known and I agree with everything else you said.

I shouldn't have made my comment.

I'm sorry.

But I haven't made any clear statement where I stand either. I said I felt discomfort from the beginning but then I was also subjected to a lot of propaganda. And things werre not totally clear in my mind.

I'm not going to guilt trip here for what I should have seen a long time ago very clearly.

It is wrong for us to be in Afghanistan. It's an aggression and many positive ideas have been advanced what to do now.

I liked unionist's list and I think it would make far better policy than our war of aggression.

I have no idea why I have not seen this in a clear way earlier. It was not only unionist (though he deserves a lot of credit for his endless energy to reason) but several other babblers too that helped me arrive at a clearer view. In line with my beliefs. Just why did I not see that earlier?

I followed several threads re Afghanistan and I read all the messages. I learned a lot.

Thanks.

Isn't babble a wonderful place?

P.S. Long ago I used to debate on a board called The Intellectual Outcast Cafe. That came close to babble, but not very close. There were many right wingers and few lefties.


From: Vancouver BC | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 24 March 2006 10:35 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Maybe you're right. He talks about many many issues in each post. I formed my conclusions from two observations: 1) He never once overtly supported or repeated the call for withdrawal of Canadian troops. 2) He continuously declares that the main problem is the Taliban.


Well if I did say the problem was just the Taliban and their remnants, then I was probably meant to include ALL of the CIA blowback effects in Afghanistan, and that we shouldn't be there propping up Hamid Karzai, a CIA stooge and probable dictator who was catapulted to power by fraudulent elections. The CIA are masters of election fraud and installation of despotic governement around the world in the last century and this one with the removal of Aristide in Haiti.

I believe there still exists Saudi-funding of Taliban seminaries still in existence in Pakistan. The CIA and shadow gov are supposed to be looking for and routing-out terrorism around the world. But they refuse to deal address the largest source of terror, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Pakistan. You seem to be missing, or perhaps glossing-over or neglecting to point to the problem with militant Islam across Asia - that it still exists, and that several prominent countries in the region formed the Shanghai Alliance OR SCO in an effort to prevent the spread of militant Islam across their borders. Masood realized he was betrayed, and that is why he was in attendance at SCO in China and accepting logistical and military aid from Russia, India, republics and Iran in order to combat, not just Taliban, but all of militant Islamists threatening to impose its ways on Afghani's, a traditionally non-Arab nation which adopted Islam because of contact with marauding Arab's several centuries ago. Afghanistan is a complete mess after CIA operation 'Cyclone', but the one thing they've never subjected themselves to is "colonialism", unlike Pakistan, India and Iran.

Yes, there are Taliban remnants in Afghanistan, but there also exists the possibility that millions of mercenaries and proxies from Arab nations, southern and central Asia could pour into Afghanistan if Iran or Pakistan believed that Sunni or Shiite muslims were vulnerable or being harmed in any way. We don't want our 2000 or so Canadian soldiers coming home to their families wrapped in plastic. I think we can all agree with that, and therefore, bring them home now and forget aiding and abetting the CIA with propping up another despot on that side of the world. Canada out of Afghanistan.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca